unconfirmed council minutes · 2018-01-17 · unconfirmed council minutes tuesday 19 december 2017...

$: Unconfirmed Council Minutes · 2018-01-17 · UNCONFIRMED COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2017 H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx ii . Community$
Unconfirmed Council Minutes

19 December 2017

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx i

MEETING OF COUNCIL 19 DECEMBER 2017 INDEX OF MINUTES

1. Opening ........................................................................................................................... 1 2. Attendance ...................................................................................................................... 1 3. Public Question Time...................................................................................................... 2 4. Petitions ......................................................................................................................... 12 5. Deputations ................................................................................................................... 12 6. Applications for Leave of Absence .............................................................................. 12 7. Confirmation of Minutes ............................................................................................... 12 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion .................................................... 13 9. Committee Reports ....................................................................................................... 13

Development Committee 14 DV17.133 Lots 170 and 18 (No. 66) Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Two

Storey Additions and Alterations to Existing Dwelling 16 DV17.134 Lot 14 (No. 7) Barrington Street, West Leederville - Two Storey

Additions and Alterations to Existing Dwelling 25 DV17.135 Lot 700 (No. 60B) Marlow Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling 30 DV17.136 Lot 1521 (No. 10) Dundalk Road, City Beach - Patio 37 DV17.137 Submission on draft State Planning Policy 5.4: Road and Rail Noise

and Associated Implementation Guidelines 43 DV17.138 Update report on Strategic Priorities for 2017/18 for Strategic

Planning, Economic Development and Sustainability 49 DV17.139 Local Planning Strategy - Next Steps 54 DV17.140 Invitation to Comment on Draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme and

Policies 59 DV17.141 Proposed Dedication of Lot 500 for Road Reserve - Allison Drive,

Parkside Walk, Jolimont 65 DV17.142 JB O'Reilly's Tavern, 99 Cambridge Street, West Leederville -

Request for Additional Patron Numbers for St Patrick's Day, 17 March 2018 68

DV17.143 Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 - Results of Public Consultation Period and Final Adoption 80

DV17.144 45-66 Grantham Street, Wembley Car Park - Introduction of Parking Restrictions and Amendment to On-street Car parking Bays in Grantham and Jersey Streets 85

DV17.145 Review of On-Street Parking Restrictions and Residential and Visitor Parking Permits in West Leederville and Wembley 91

DV17.146 Delegated Decisions and Notifications Report for November 2017 97 DV17.147 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority Report -

November 2017 99

UNCONFIRMED COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 19 DECEMBER 2017

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx ii

Community and Resources Committee 101

CR17.176 Gregory Street-Ruislip Street Intersection Treatment 103 CR17.177 Infrastructure Parks Proposed 2018-2019 Budget Non-Discretionary

Works 111 CR17.178 Road Improvement - Capital Works Four Year Program from 2018-

2019 118 CR17.179 10 Year Program for Car Parks 2018 123 CR17.180 Five Year Program Drainage 2018 130 CR17.181 2017 City Beach Tennis Club Request for Additional Time for Night

Tennis 139 CR17.182 Bold Park Aquatic Centre - Award of Heat Pump Procurement and

Construction Tenders 144 CR17.183 South City Beach Kiosk and Toilets - Outcomes of Community

Survey 150 CR17.184 Wembley West Leederville Underground Power - Survey Materials 158 CR17.185 Documents Sealed - December 2017 161 CR17.186 Review of Local Government Act 1995 - Submission to Department

of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries 163 CR17.187 Policy - Chief Executive Officer Taking of Leave and Appointment of

Acting Chief Executive Officer 166 CR17.188 Delegated Authority 2017 - 2018- Christmas New Year Recess 170 CR17.189 Hamptons, City Beach - Permission for Outdoor Music 173 CR17.190 Installation of signage on West Coast Highway - Floreat Beach Kiosk 178 CR17.191 Proposed signage - The Boulevard and Gayton Road Reserves

(Empire Village Shopping Centre) 185 CR17.192 Payment of Accounts - November 2017 189 CR17.193 Investment Schedule - November 2017 191 CR17.194 Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting - August - December 2017 197

10. Council Reports 206

10.1 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - November 2017 206

10.2 Notice of Motion in Relation to Statutory Planning 211

11. Urgent Business 220

11.1 Urgent Appointment of Delegate to Development Assessment Panel 220

12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 221

12.1 Mayor Shannon - Model Litigant Policy 221 12.2 Mayor Shannon - Advice to Council Protocol 227 12.3 Mayor Shannon - Banning of Gifts for Elected Members 229 12.4 Mayor Shannon - Senior Executive Contracts 231 12.5 Cr Everett - Empire Village and The Boulevard Shopping Centre Parking 235 12.6 Cr Carr - Department of Local Government and Communities Governance

Review - Town of Cambridge 237 12.7 Cr Powell - Safe Crossing of Lake Monger Drive 239 12.8 Cr Timmermanis - 2017/2018 Budget 243


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx iii

13. Confidential Reports 246

13.1 Wembley Golf Course - Potential Corporate Partnership 246 13.2 Town of Cambridge Home and Community Care Service Review

and Future Service Delivery 246 13.3 Land Acquisition - City Beach 247 13.4 Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach 248

14. Closure 249

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\A Council Front.docx 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY19 DECEMBER 2017.

1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm. The Mayor advised that the

meeting is being recorded and the recording will be on the Town's website. 2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Keri Shannon

Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Ian Everett Jo McAllister Kate McKerracher James Nelson Jane Powell Andres Timmermanis

Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer

Brett Jackson, Director Projects Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Jason Lyon, Director Corporate & Strategic Cam Robbins, DireCtor Community Development Marlaine Avery, Director Planning & Development John Giorgi, Manager Compliance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Karen Exley-Mead, PA to Chief Executive Officer Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil



3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME The record of Public Question Time is a summary of the questions and answers provided at the Council meeting as per Section 11 (e) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996. Written Questions Sabrina Klinger, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville Question 1 Making the recordings of ordinary Council Meetings publicly available has been carried out for some time now and is well received by the community. Will Council consider extending this process to committees meetings excluding confidential meetings/issues? If not, why not? Question 2 Additionally, will committee meetings also be included in the live streaming process consideration as recommended by the Administration as per CR17.132? Response 1 and 2 Council considered live streaming of its Council meetings in August 2017. At this meeting, Council decided that:- "(i) recordings of Council Meetings be made available to the public on its web site within 7

days of the Council meeting and to be removed from the Council's website one calendar month following the meeting, commencing from the September 2017 Council Meeting;

(ii) consideration be given to live streaming Council Meetings in early 2018 so that a budget

allocation can be included in the 2018/19 draft budget." A report on audio and video streaming will be submitted to Council in the first half of 2018 and Council will consider its position at that time. Question 3 Could you please detail the value of Fringe Benefit Tax (FBT) paid by the ToC with respect to hospitality provided to Council and for Staff as separate values for the financial years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017?. Response Hospitality (entertainment) FBT expense for the last two years is as follows:

2015/2016 $4,092

2016/2017 $4,808



Question 4 Could you please provide the total value of funds committed and spent as ‘out of budget’ items during the financial years 2015/2016 and 2016/2017? Response In responding, 'Out of Budget' has been interpreted to mean expenditure approved by Council, where there has been no provision was made in the original budget. In 2015/2016, the following items were approved by Council under Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act, where no provision was made in the original budget:

ITEM Committed Spent

Underground Power Design, funded from Area Improvement Reserve

$594,000 593,078

Legal Expenses - Scheme Amendment 31 Judicial Review.

$150,000 $136,365

Essex Street (Ruislip to Grantham) works - funded by Roads to Recovery grant and reallocations from other road works jobs.

$81,000 $64,843

Install Plateaux and remove chicane - Holland and Ruislip Streets, funded from reallocations from other road works jobs.

$58,000 $67,348

Truck Stop Community Event. $20,000 $20,000

Pether Lane and Northwood Street Advice $15,000 $9,600

In 2016/2017, the following items were approved by Council under Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act, where no provision was made in the original budget.

ITEM Committed Spent

Purchase of 77McCourt Street, funded from Area Improvement Reserve

$990,000 $990,000

Bold Park Aquatic Centre Heat Pump, funded from ELA

$120,000 $112,868

Underground Power Project Technical Support, funded from Area Improvement Reserve

$50,000 $47,569

Bold Park Aquatic Centre Heat Pump Study $50,000 $24,560

Perry Lakes Toilet Block Refurbishment $48,000 $21,791

Surf Riders Storage Shed $21,000 $18,076

Pedestrian Design - Challenger Parade $20,000 $21,110

Cambridge Croquet Court Lighting Upgrade, funded from Reserves

$16,500 $16,200



Graham Hornel, 91 Empire Avenue, City Beach Question 1(a) For the 12 months ending 30 November, 2017 what was the total cost to the Town for rehabilitation, repairs, replacements and similar, to crossovers, footpaths, kerbs, verges and other assets, of damage caused by building contractors, tradesmen and similar, at both commercial and residential work sites? Question 1 (b) For that 12 month period what was the total received by the Town for forfeited Works Bonds? Question 1 (c) For each of the three previous years, what were the final totals for each of the above? Response The table below responds to questions 1(a), (b) and (c). Note that the table illustrates calendar years to the end of December. If a bond is insufficient to cover the cost of works, the Town issues an invoice to the Builder.

Year Ending 30 December

Cost of Works Bonds Retained /Invoices issued

2014 $20,222 $20,222

2015 $15,907 $15,907

2016 $11,897 $11,897

2017 $10,571 $10,571

Question 1(d) Why are Work Bonds not included in the Fees listing in the Building Approvals and Permits component of the Town web site - and are listed instead only in the current Budget? Response A bond is considered a secured sum as opposed to a fee, and is shown separately on the building approval section of the website (refer below).



Question 2(a) Given the inevitable increasing cost to the Town of Q1 above and that, for many contractors, it is now cheaper for them to forfeit their Works Bond, than to pay to repair the damage their work crews caused, will Council now seriously consider a more effective and better enforced Bonds system – whereby each of the property owner and the main contractor are required to pay a realistic Bond, before approved work commences? Response Fees and charges for planning and development are reviewed annually prior to the adoption of the annual budget. This includes secured sums (work bonds). The last review was undertaken in May 2017 (refer DV17.62). Question 2(b) Does Administration have sufficient staff resources to efficiently manage and supervise both the existing Bonds system and the expanded system that I propose? Response The current process for managing crossover and footpath repairs is considered sufficient. Question 3(a) In an expansion of the existing Community Engagement item and as a constructive means of both enhancing ratepayer interest and of further supporting transparency, will Council please seriously consider approving a simple addition to Council Meeting Minutes in relation to all items on which Elected Members vote? Question 3(b) Since the potential impact on all ratepayers of such Council decisions – particularly on financial matters – is significant, will Council now please support the addition of an item headed Potential Significance and Value for Ratepayers and an appropriate short and relevant explanation summary, to future Council Meeting Minutes?



Response to 3(a), 3(b) Council last considered the format of the reports to Council in August this year (CR17.131 refers). It is noted that the current format was developed in accordance with the Department of Local Government's Minutes and Agenda guideline and the publication "Guide to Meetings". The current headings are used to provide Council with sufficient information to make informed decisions and the information is generally objective (Statutory, Policy, Financial, Strategic and engagement). Content under the suggested heading is more subjective and is a matter for each Elected Member to take into consideration when deciding on each matter before them. On this basis, it would not be seen as beneficial to submit subjective commentary. The question of 'significance and value for ratepayers' is typically asked during the strategic and corporate business planning activities of the Town, to assist Elected Members decide on their priorities. Question 4 Can our Mayor please fully explain both the background to the Termination matter contained in her submission as follows: The CEO is not authorised to allow termination clauses in Senior Executive contracts that provide notice periods of more than is provided under the National Employment Standards - and her reasons for her submission at this particular juncture. Response The Mayor advised that this matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item 12.4. In addition, she advised that she thought that excessive termination clauses and terms and conditions in contracts are inappropriate. They are also effectively hidden liabilities for the Town and she did not think it was appropriate that the CEO should be allowed to have carte blanche in terms of that. There should be some sort of control imposed by Council in terms of the length of time for termination clauses within Senior Executive contracts. Question 5(a) What was the true, final cost of providing additional parking spaces in coastal dunes at the restaurants and Surf Club precinct at City Beach? Response The Fred Burton Car Park expansion of 120 car bays final cost, excluding GST, was: Construction and Landscape contracts: $339,979 Design & works engineering: $ 51,100 Project management: $ 9,000 Total cost: $400,079 ($3,330/Bay) The budget was $434,000.



Question 5(b) Is it realistically anticipated that the final cost of installing additional parking, new parking limits signage and similar, around the Empire Village precinct will exceed the $120,000 that Council has approved for this? Response Council has approved a budget of up to $120,000 to construct 29 bays in the notice of motion submitted last month (item 12.6). Works will be completed within this budget. If any additional amounts are required, a further report will be submitted to Council. Question 5(c)

Given the reality that even the most inexperienced would have recognised that the patronage and regular visitation to both precincts would require more parking than the record clearly shows that Administration recommended to both Committees and Council, will the CEO, with whom the buck does stop, accept ultimate responsibility for the additional costs to Ratepayers that have resulted?

Response

Fred Burton Carpark Additional parking in the City Beach precinct was included in the project planning from the outset.

In 2013, and as part of the WAPC approval, a parking demand forecast was undertaken. In December 2014, Council decided to undertake further planning around the expansion of the Fred Burton car park to the north (CR14.188). In February 2016, Council endorsed the 120 bay expansion of Fred Burton for community consultation, on the basis that this would provide medium term capacity. In April 2016, the plan was endorsed to continue to design (CR16.60). Council considered the scope and budget of the car park works in August 2016 (Item10.3) and noted a budget of $434,200 would be needed and gave the CEO authority to award construction tender. Empire Village Shopping Centre The requirement for a developer to provide parking at a local shopping centre is a policy adopted by Council. The current parking policy was informed by the Traffic and Parking strategy. The development at Empire Village was approved by Council in accordance with the parking policy. The applicants planning report included a traffic and access section advising that they commissioned a Traffic and Parking assessment which concluded "traffic generated by the development is unlikely to have any significant impact on the existing road network.. It also notes that the car parking is sufficient, and the intersections will all operate satisfactorily". The Traffic and Parking Assessment was attached to the planning report and in the summary stated "The number of car bays, motorcycle bays and bicycle parking is expected to be sufficient to service the shopping centre and some other potential Beecroft Reserve parking that may wish to utilise the areas of Shopping Centre carparking abutting the Reserve". Therefore, at the time the development application was made the owner did not expect the demand for parking to exceed the parking bays proposed in the development.



However, as a result of a decision by Council last month, this policy will be reviewed with respect to alfresco dining at local centres, and considered by Council in the first half of 2018.

Question 5(d) Is the CEO now willing to openly accept that, both for these parking-related additional works and for too many other projects, including the Cambridge Street, West Leederville narrowing and deficiencies in the Aquatic Centre upgrade, staff recommendations to Elected Members have been flawed and that these have been exacerbated by an ongoing and systematic failure of efficient project management? Response

No Andrew Thompson, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville

Question 1 Within the agenda on page 55 under "Community Engagement" it says that ToC have consulted the West Leederville Residents Association. Given the West Leederville Residents Association (WLRA) office holders (Chairperson, Vice Chairperson, Secretary and Treasurer) have no recollection of such consultation are you able to please provide details of who from ToC and WLRA and when the said consultation occurred? If it was in writing can you please provide a copy of the engagement and any response provided? Response The survey was sent inadvertently to the Wembley/West Leederville Residents Association, and was not sent to the West Leederville Residents Association, as intended. The Town has subsequently offered to table any comments from the West Leederville Residents Association, should it wish to submit comments. The Association has also been advised that they can make a recommendation or objection to Liquor Licensing, who are the responsible authority for issuing the Extended Trading Permit.

Verbal Questions Jennifer Simms, 18 Kerr Street, West Leederville Question 1 With regard to Item DV17.142 JB O'Reilly's Tavern, I feel like the residents have not been given enough time to comment and therefore as a result the recommendation cannot be representative of the local residents. Can a decision therefore be deferred or reviewed? Response The Director Planning and Development advised that a thorough consultation was undertaken with adjoining residents. Properties that would be impacted by the extended trading hours were identified and residents were notified. A survey was also conducted following which a recommendation was proposed. The Town has not received any complaints during the last 10 years on this event. With regard to the West Leederville Residents Association, the survey was sent to the Wembley/West Leederville Residents Association inadvertently, however,



comments can still be accepted. If the decision was deferred, it would be submitted to the February Council meeting or dealt with under delegated powers during the Christmas/New Year recess. Question 2 Can there be a review of how residents are notified in your communications? Response With regard to the consultation review, an advertising policy will be considered in January/February next year. Question 3 How can you make a decision when the survey only closed yesterday? Response The Manager Compliance advised that a survey of residents was sent to owners and occupiers within a 100 metre radius of JB O' Reilley's premises on 4 December and closed on 18 December 2017. A total of 350 letters were sent and the results revealed the following: Twenty-nine submissions were received. This is an 8.28% response. Responses are as follows: Q1. Have you had any adverse issues associated with previous events held at JB O' Reilly's Tavern? Responses: Yes: 10 submissions (30%) No: 20 submissions (70%) Q2. Do you object to the proposed event to be held in the carpark at JB O' Reilly's Tavern on 17 March 2018? Responses: Yes: 8 submissions (28%) No: 21 submissions (72%) Q3. Do you have any comments or suggestions? Responses: In support 1 response - Support 1 response - happy with one event per year 1 response - one-off ok



Opposed: 1 response - strongly object- anti-social behaviour 1 response - clash with Tango Club dance at hall 1 response- urination and bottle thrown over fence 1 response - urinating in front gardens 1 response- noisy, rowdy patrons, damage, parking, litter climbing over fence, traffic, houses sold Neutral 1 response - request parking patrols 1 response- didn't live here last year 1 response- noise to be compliant 1 response - Council should support the majority Question 4 How is that noise monitored and controlled? Response The Manager Compliance advised that the noise can be monitored in two ways. The officers can prescribed limits and take sound level measurements through equipment. Also, officers and Council Rangers can do an assessment of patron noise and people coming to and from the premises. Question 5 Does this occur regularly for JB O'Reilly's and other places? Response The Manager Compliance advised that to date there has been no reason to do any monitoring at JB O'Reilly's. Question 6 I have made several complaints to police and have rung the Town's officers. Response The Manager Compliance advised that he would follow this up and see what is on record. Sarah Kranz, c/o Railway Parade and Kerr Street, West Leederville I have submitted many complaints to the Council regarding noise, littering, urination. I cannot understand why there is no record of my complaints. I sent a two page email on Sunday regarding my complaint. I rang the Town on 6 December. How can there be no record? Response The Mayor advised that if she left a copy of her email, she will read bits out when that agenda item is discussed.



Celia Duffall, 13 Alexander Street, Wembley Question 1 I refer to my question taken on notice at the November 2017 Council meeting regarding meetings held between Councillors, staff and developers in relation to the Anchor Site 1. Can I assume there was no register of such meetings? Do you consider this level of transparency reasonable? Can you confirm there is a code of conduct or governance manual governing Councillors and staff's interaction with developers? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that at the time of that development, there was no register. A policy was introduced in the last year to record such contacts with developers. Question 2 Could you please provide the information for the meetings that you have on record? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that it is not public information until the report is presented to Council or DAP. Question 3 I thought your reason for not providing it was that it would divert a substantial and unreasonable portion of local government's resources away? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that it was because many of the staff employed during this time are no longer present. Question 4 Can you provide the information for the details that you have recorded since that policy was introduced? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that, as he had said, it is not public information until the report on those development is presented to Council. The Mayor advised that the Administration should provide the information requested. Question 5 The WAPC considered Amendment 33 on 5 December. The community made a deputation at the time and the Chair confirmed they were considering a number of options including limiting any future development to four storeys and also limiting any future development to four storeys with an increase in height if certain conditions were met. Do you have an update on this?



Response The Director Planning and Development advised that she had not had an update since it has been deferred. Question 6 Can the Town confirm if it discussed its deputation with the developer or representation of the developer prior to or after the WAPC meeting? Response The Director Planning and Development confirmed that she did not and she was sure that the Manager Planning Strategies and Economic Development, who attended the meeting, did not. Sabrina Klinger, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville Question 1 If there is an operating budget surplus at the end of the financial year, how will this be applied? Will it be added to reserves or will it be a carry over item to offset rates in the next year? According to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 5 December 2017, for the financial year 2016/2017 the Town achieved a surplus revenue of $676k from interests and savings of $311k mainly from Waste Management. The Town of Cambridge managed to maintain a 0 rate increase for 2017/18 financial year by finding savings of $375k from the original budget. If the operating budget surplus from 2016/17 had been applied as a carry over to offset the operating budget for 2017/18, each ratepayer could have seen a $50 to $55 rate reduction and I am basing that on 11,700 rateable properties in the Town. The original 2017/18 budget could have been implemented without any tax and the Town could have still achieved a balanced budget. Would you agree with that? Can I ask that you implement a carry over policy that will ensure that ratepayers are not charged more than they need to. Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that the Council would make that decision when it adopts the budget. You would note that in the presentation of the audited accounts that went to the Special Council meeting on 5 December 2017, there was a cash surplus in that report of $752,000. That is the net result of all the overs and unders. When the Town sets its budget and rates to the dollar, we budget to a balanced cash position. The surplus we are talking about is a surplus in the cash. The decision of Council on that day was to transfer the $752,000 to the asset reserves. That position was not known until the financial statements had been finalised. The Town can estimate around the July period if there was a surplus but we could not be certain of the exact amount. At the time the Council adopts the budget would be the time it decides how to apply any surplus it may have forecast at that point in time.



Andrew Thomson, 137 Tower Street, West Leederville Question 1 In relation to DV17.139 Local Planning Strategy - Next Steps report, there was a summary of matters discussed at the Forum. In dot point 1 it talks about consultants to talk about the dwelling yields and plan in response to Elected Member feedback from the forum. Is it possible that the Council or the Administration provide the context which has been provided to the Consultants or alternatively can the Consultants provide their understanding of their brief in line with Policy 1.2.15? Response The Mayor advised that it was basically to go away and re-jig the dwelling numbers and look at the validity of the discounting that had occurred. Question 2 Is there an opportunity to have some community representative participation in the next workshop? Response The Mayor advised that is a matter for the Council to decide and she was quite happy to put it to the next Elected Member forum.

4. PETITIONS Nil 5. DEPUTATIONS Nil 6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Timmermanis , seconded by Cr Bradley That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 28 November 2017 be confirmed. Carried 9/0 Cr Carr left the meeting at 6.42 pm



Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Minutes of the Special Meeting of Council held on 5 December 2017 be confirmed. Carried 8/0 Cr Carr returned to the meeting at 6.43 pm.

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION

Nil

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Members of the public present at the meeting were reminded by the Mayor that they should not act immediately on anything they hear at this meeting, without first seeking clarification of Council’s position. They were advised to wait for written advice from the Council before taking any action on any matter that they may have before the Council.

Recommendations contained in the Committee reports were adopted en bloc, with the exception of the following items which were nominated for individual debate. Development: Items DV17.133, 135, 136, 139, 142, 144 and 145 Community and Resources: Items CR17.176, 179, 182, 184, 186, 187, 189, 190, 191 and 194 Declaration of Interest: Item DV17.136 - Cr Timmermanis - Impartiality Interest

Item DV17.139 - Crs Everett and McKerracher - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.142 - Cr McAllister - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.145 - Cr Powell - Impartiality Interest Item DV17.145 - Cr McAllister - Impartiality Interest Item CR17.176 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest Item CR17.183 - Cr Everett - Impartiality Interest (Committee Only) Item CR17.184 - Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister- Financial Interest Item CR17.187 - CEO and Directors- Financial Interest ItemCR17.194 - Cr Everett - Financial

Interest Item 12.4 - All Directors - Financial Interest Item 13.1 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest Item 13.4 - Cr Carr - Financial Interest

The remainder of the items of the Development Committee and Community and Resources Committee were then carried en bloc.


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\B DV.DOCX 15

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 12 December was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.02 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Mayor Keri Shannon 6.02 pm 6.55 pm Cr Ian Everett 6.02 pm 6.55 pm Cr Kate McKerracher 6.02 pm 6.55 pm Cr James Nelson 6.02 pm 6.55 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.02 pm 6.55 pm

Observers: Nil Officers: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Assessment Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic Development John Giorgi, Manager Health and Compliance Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 6.55 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV17.135 David D'Orazio, on behalf of owner Item DV17.136 Philip Mathews, neighbour Chad Edwards-Smith, owner




That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 21 November 2017 as contained in the November 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item DV17.139 - Cr Everett - Impartiality Interest Cr McKerracher - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



DV17.133 LOTS 170 AND 18 (NO. 66) KIMBERLEY STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for two storey additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at 66 Kimberley Street, West Leederville. Under the Town's Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority Clause 1.3.2, Council will determine development applications where they have been advertised and objections have been received. In this instance, an objection has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to the lot boundary setback and height and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. The Administration recommends that the application should be conditionally approved. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency.

Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council. e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies.

Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions made by Officers for appeal purposes.

Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Information For the Council/Committee to note.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0298DA-2017 Owner: Mr BJ Stringer and Mrs AK Stringer Applicant: Mr BJ Stringer and Mrs AK Stringer Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 410 m2

DETAILS:

Development description An application for the subject site was initially submitted on October 2017 for the proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling.



The subject site is located within the West Leederville planning precinct. The site currently comprises a single storey brick and iron dwelling and is orientated with the primary street to the east and the rear of the property to the west. The properties to the north are part of a redevelopment of the original church site at No. 79 Woolwich Street and are two storey with architectural features reflecting the church building. The property to the south is a single storey brick and iron dwelling with single storey additions to the rear. The immediate locality consists of a number of original dwellings that have additions to the rear or upper floor additions. The development application proposes the following: • Additions to the rear of the existing dwelling consisting of a lounge and open deck area at

ground level and a bedroom, ensuite and WIR at upper storey level. • The proposed two storey addition has a skillion roof shape which increases in height as

the land slopes down towards the rear boundary, resulting in a building height variation. • The proposed design of the addition also results in building setback and privacy

variations. An assessment of the application has been conducted against the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (the Scheme), Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions of Schedule 2, Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and the following Planning Policies: • 3.1 (Streetscape) • 3.3 (Building Height); and • 6.5 (West Leederville Precinct). The proposal complies with all the requirements of the Scheme, relevant deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and provisions of the aforementioned policies with the exception of the following key issues outlined below. Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 18 days, from 2 November 2017 to 20 November 2017, in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response to each comment and issue. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Impact on outdoor living space The proposed development will be visible and

cast a shadow over the respective outdoor and indoor living spaces, however this is deemed-to-comply with the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes. The proposed building satisfies with Design Elements 5.1.3 (P3.1) for Lot Boundary Setbacks and 5.1.6 (P6) for Building Height.

Impact on indoor living space

Impact on solar panels The applicant has demonstrated that at 12:00pm, on 21 June, the proposed development will not overshadow the solar panels.



Impact on building foundations A condition requiring a dilapidation report be undertaken could be required if an approval is granted.

Loss of privacy The visual privacy variation to the ground floor will be screened by the existing high wall along the boundary. The upper storey master bedroom meets deemed to comply visual privacy requirements.

Loss of amenity The proposed building satisfies with Design Elements 5.1.3 (P3.1) for Lot Boundary Setbacks, 5.1.6 (P6) for Building Height and 5.4.2 C2.1 (Solar Access for Adjoining Sites).

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks, building height and visual privacy. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of R Codes)

Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Difference

Buildings set back from lot boundaries in accordance with

Table 1, Tables 2a and 2b (1.7 metres)

1.557 metres to ground floor living room wall

0.143 metres

Design principles (clause 5.1.3 P3.1 of the R-Codes): Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site

and adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining

properties. It should be noted that the proposed addition extends for a length of 5.7 metres on the ground floor and an additional 3.0 metres on the upper floor (8.7 metres in total). The upper floor component is set back in accordance with the deemed-to-comply requirements. The setback variation identified above is considered to be one of a very technical nature due to: • the presence of windows classified as 'major openings' located between 0.7 metre and

1.0 metre above natural ground level and 2.0 metres below the existing dividing fence; and

• If these were obscured, reduced in size or located with a minimum sill height of 1.6 metres, the ground floor element of the extension would satisfy the deemed-to-comply requirements.

With the above in mind, it is considered that the proposed lot boundary setback from the southern boundary satisfies Design Principle P3.1 for the following reasons: • The proposed two storey addition satisfies Design Element 5.1.6 (P6) for building height

and will reduce the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property to the south;



• The proposed addition allows for a 2.57 metres separation between walls (1.0 metre to the shared boundary for No. 64 Kimberley Street and 1.57 metres to the shared boundary for the subject site), which is adequate for ventilation. The proposed additions satisfy the deemed-to-comply requirements for Solar Access for adjoining sites.

• The proposed addition satisfies Design Element 5.4.1 (P1.1) for visual privacy. Further, the length of wall includes major openings situated between 0.7 metre and 1.0 metre from natural ground level.

Building height (Clause 5.1.6 of R Codes) Deemed-to-comply

Proposed Difference

Maximum Building Height (West Leederville) - 7.0 metres

Maximum height 8.18 metres

1.18 metres

Design principle (P6): Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance. It should be noted that proposed two storey addition is situated rear of the existing dwelling and the site slopes 1.76 metres from east (primary street) to west (right-of-way). Further, the proposed finished floor for the addition is lower than the existing dwelling and that the building height meets deemed-to-comply height requirements at the centre of the lot. The variation identified above, can be attributed to the skillion roof form at the rear of the site, which results in the height of the building increasing whilst the natural ground level also slopes down. This results in a maximum building height of 8.18 metres at the rear of the dwelling. The proposed development is considered to satisfy Design Principle P6 for the following reasons: • The portion of increased height satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements for lot

boundary setbacks and the wall itself satisfies Design Element 5.1.3 (P3.1); • The area of increased height is located towards the rear-third of the site (set back a

minimum of 23 metres) and will not adversely impact the streetscape; • It is noted that there are major openings orientated toward the subject development,

however the proposal satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes for Solar access for adjoining sites; and

• The typography of the adjoining site to the south is reflective of the area and the increase in maximum height of 1.18 metres for this portion of non-compliant wall, will not compromise access to views of significance.

Visual privacy

Deemed-to-comply Proposed

Difference

Major openings to unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces set back in direct line of sight within the cone of vision, from the lot boundary, a minimum distance of 6.0 metres

Ground Floor: • Living room

windows* 5.0 metres from the southern boundary

1.0 metre



Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces set back in direct line of sight within the cone of vision, from the lot boundary, a minimum distance of 7.5 metres

• Min 6.0 metres from the southern lot boundary

• min 7.5 metres from the southern lot boundary

Ground Floor: • Unenclosed

outdoor active habitable spaces* 7.2 metres from the southern boundary

0.3 metre

Design principles (P1.1 and P1.2): Minimal direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of adjacent dwellings achieved through: • building layout and location; • design of major openings; • landscape screening of outdoor active habitable spaces; and/or • location of screening devices. Maximum visual privacy to side and rear boundaries through measures such as: • offsetting the location of ground and first floor windows so that viewing is oblique rather

than direct; • building to the boundary where appropriate; • setting back the first floor from the side boundary; • providing higher or opaque and fixed windows; and/or screen devices (including landscaping, fencing, obscure glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters).

* The living room window and rear terrace are both raised more than half a metre above natural ground level and are therefore the subject of visual privacy provisions.

It is considered that the proposed visual privacy setbacks to the dwelling meet the design principles for the following reasons: • It is noted that there is an existing high screen wall along the southern side boundary

which sits approximately 2.6 metres above the proposed finished floor level of the addition. This will effectively screen the ground floor deck and major openings from overlooking the adjoining property to the south; and

• The major openings to the upper floor meet deemed to comply visual privacy setback distances.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs Strategy 4.2: Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Contributors Simon Shub, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

Jenny Bender, Senior Statutory Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for two storey additions and alterations to the existing dwelling submitted by B and A Stringer at Lots 170 and 18 (No. 66) Kimberley Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall be

directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;

(ii) prior to the commencement of any demolition works, building works and/or issue of a Building Permit/Demolition Permit, a Dilapidation Report (both hard copy and electronic version approved by the Town) prepared by a suitably qualified and accredited Person shall be submitted to the Town of Cambridge and also the owners of potentially affected adjoining properties listed below, detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, (both internal and external, together with paved areas and Right of Ways), including all ancillary structures, fences and swimming pools located upon this property: (a) 64 Kimberley Street, West Leederville;



In the event that access for undertaking the Dilapidation Report cannot be achieved or is refused by an adjoining potentially affected property Owner, the Applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise/contact the potentially affected property Owner of the reason for the survey and specify why access could not be achieved.

Committee Meeting 12 December 2017 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the proposed height of the dwelling and its impact on the adjoining property. The Administration Recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/4 For: Cr Nelson Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Everett, McKerracher and Powell Council Meeting 19 December 2017 During discussion, Cr Everett foreshadowed that should the motion presently before Council be lost, he intended to move an approval as the applicant has submitted amended plans which have lowered the height of the dwelling to 6.8 metres. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council REFUSES the application for two storey additions and alterations to the existing dwelling submitted by B and A Stringer at Lots 170 and 18 (No. 66) Kimberley Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2017, for the following reason:- (i) the proposed development does not satisfy Design Element 5.1.6 P6 (Building

Height) of the Residential Design Codes, as the additional building height adversely impacts the amenity of the adjoining property to the south in relation to building bulk and scale.

Lost 0/9 COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Nelson That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for two storey additions and alterations to the existing dwelling submitted by B and A Stringer at Lots 170 and 18 (No. 66) Kimberley Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 19 October 2017 and 15 December 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site;



(ii) prior to the commencement of any demolition works, building works and/or issue of a Building Permit/Demolition Permit, a Dilapidation Report (both hard copy and electronic version approved by the Town) prepared by a suitably qualified and accredited Person shall be submitted to the Town of Cambridge and also the owners of potentially affected adjoining properties listed below, detailing the current condition and status of all buildings, (both internal and external, together with paved areas and Right of Ways), including all ancillary structures, fences and swimming pools located upon this property: (a) 64 Kimberley Street, West Leederville;

In the event that access for undertaking the Dilapidation Report cannot be achieved or is refused by an adjoining potentially affected property Owner, the Applicant must demonstrate in writing to the satisfaction of the Principal Certifying Authority that all reasonable steps have been taken to obtain access and advise/contact the potentially affected property Owner of the reason for the survey and specify why access could not be achieved.

Carried 9/0



DV17.134 LOT 14 (NO. 7) BARRINGTON STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for two storey additions and alterations at No. 7 Barrington Street, West Leederville. Under the Town's Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority Clause 1.3.2, Council will determine development applications where they have been advertised and objections have been received. In this instance, an objection has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to the side boundary setback variation and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. The Administration recommends that the application should be approved subject to appropriate conditions. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Application: 0258DA-2017 Owner: Mr SPC Griffiths Applicant: Rohan White Designs Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 379 m2

DETAILS:

Development description An application for the subject site was submitted on 8 September 2017 for the proposed additions and alterations.



The subject site is located within the West Leederville precinct. The site currently comprises a single storey timber and iron dwelling with a single storey skillion roofed addition to the rear. There is a mix of older style timber and iron single storey dwellings and newer single and two storey dwellings surrounding the subject site. There is a narrow, 3.0 metre wide laneway (Gilbert Lane) to the rear of the property. The development application proposes the following: • a second storey addition for a master bedroom and lounge above the rear extension with

the same skillion roof form proposed; • a ground floor addition for a study and laundry to the eastern side of the proposed

dwelling with a proposed nil setback to the boundary; and • a new store to the rear of the property and with a nil setback proposed to the western

side boundary. This setback is considered to meet the relevant design principles (as discussed below), and no neighbour objections were received.

Community Consultation The application was advertised for a period of 16 days, from 18 October 2017 to 3 November 2017, in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response to each comment and issue. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Proximity of the building to boundary and the additional threat in the event of a fire.

The building will meet the requirements of the Building Codes in terms of fire regulations.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setbacks and roof pitch. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback (Clause 5.1.3 of R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback (east)

Min 1.1 metres to ground floor study/laundry wall Min 1.2 metre to upper floor master bedroom wall

Nil 1.0 metre



Design principles (clause 5.1.3 P3.1 & P3.2 of the R-Codes): Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and

adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties.

Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living

areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for

adjoining properties is not restricted; and • positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

It is considered that the proposed lot boundary setbacks to the study and master bedroom meet the design principles for the following reasons. The wall on the boundary is for a short length (6.4 metres) compared to the overall length of the boundary (31.1 metres). The wall has a skillion roof above it and, with the slope of the land, ranges in height from 4.24 metres at the front and where the ground level is lowest to 2.6 metres at the rear. The wall predominantly abuts a portion of the adjoining dwelling which has been built out to the eaves line and contains no major openings. There is therefore minimal impact on access to direct sun to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas and minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. The wall has no openings and minimises the possibility of overlooking to the adjoining property. The upper floor is set back to allow that light and ventilation to the adjoining property to the east is not restricted. There are highlight windows so that privacy is maintained. The adjoining landowner's concerns with regard to fire risk are not a planning consideration and can be addressed through compliance with the requirements of the Building Codes in this regard. Roof Pitch (Policy 3.1.10) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Primary roofs of a dwelling that are visible from the street

Hipped and/or gabled with a pitch of 30 degrees and 40 degrees

Skillion roofs with a 10 degree pitch

Design principles: • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing the street and

immediate locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality; and • Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours which are characteristic of housing

in the immediate locality.



It is considered that the proposed roof pitch meets the design principles for the following reasons. The proposed additions reflect the roof pitch of the extension to the existing dwelling. Although as a two storey addition, there is the potential for it to be more visible, it is noted that the roof is set back approximately 15 metres from the front boundary restricting its visibility from the street immediately in front of the dwelling and will be only slightly visible further along the street. In this instance, it is considered that the height and massing of the proposed roof respects the height and massing of the existing dwelling and housing in the locality as well as respecting the palette of materials and colours. It is noted that the additions and alterations proposed allow for the retention of an existing character West Leederville cottage and the additions complement its architectural character, a design response generally encouraged by the Town. Outbuildings (Clause 5.4.3 of R Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Outbuilding Height

Maximum permissible wall height of 2.4 metres above natural ground level

2.95 metres above natural ground level

Design principles (clause 5.4.3 P3 of the R-Codes): Outbuildings that do not detract from the streetscape or the visual amenity of residents or neighbouring properties.

It is considered that the proposed outbuilding meets the design principles for the following reasons: The proposed store will be located in the same position where there are currently two existing structures. The proposed store will have little increased impact on the amenity of any adjoining properties, as any shadow produced as a result of the outbuilding will be directed to the laneway to the south. The proposed outbuilding will be abutting a 1.0 metre wide access leg so will not directly affect any of the adjoining dwellings. The proposed outbuilding will not be visible from the street and therefore will not detract from the existing streetscape. The variation to the outbuilding height was advertised to the adjoining property. No objections were received.








Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the


retains a sense of place


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Contributors Jenny Bender, Senior Statutory Planning Officer

Simon Shub, Senior Strategic Planning Officer ATTACHMENTS:

1. Planning Application Plans 2. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for second storey additions and alterations to an existing dwelling as submitted by Rohan White at Lot 14 (No. 7) Barrington Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 8 September 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining properties to the east

and west and the laneway to the south to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the development and to the satisfaction of the Town; and

(ii) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall

be directed to garden areas, sumps or rainwater tanks within the site for the effective retention of stormwater on site.

Carried 9/0



DV17.135 LOT 700 (NO. 60B) MARLOW STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for a two storey dwelling at 60B Marlow Street, Wembley. The application is presented to Council for determination in accordance with clause 3.2 of the Town's Delegated Authority Policy 2.6 as an assessment is required for the roof pitch, garage width, landscaping, street surveillance and solar access of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and the Town's Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape. The Administration recommends the development should be refused as the variations relating to roof pitch, garage width, landscaping, street surveillance and solar access are not considered to satisfy the Town's Local Planning Policy 3.1 Streetscape and the relevant design principles of the R-Codes. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its

community to another level of government/body/agency. Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council.

e.g. adopting plans and reports, accepting tenders, directing operations, setting and amending budgets.

Legislative Includes adopting local laws, town planning schemes & policies. Review When the Council operates as a review authority on decisions

made by Officers for appeal purposes. Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly

affects a person’s right and interests. The judicial character arises from the obligation to abide by the principles of natural justice. Examples of Quasi-Judicial authority include town planning applications, building licences, applications for other permits/licences (e.g. under Health Act, Dog Act or Local Laws) and other decisions that may be appealable to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Information For the Council/Committee to note. BACKGROUND:

Application: 0170-DA2017 Owner: Greg & Sonia Cutri Applicant: Greg & Sonia Cutri Zoning: R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 528m2 The subject site was created as part of a two lot subdivision of Lot 113 Marlow Street, Wembley which was approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 13 October 2016. The subdivision resulted in two side by side lots with lot width frontages of 10.056m and 10.057 metres.



This application was submitted on 26 June 2017. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration, amended plans and a justification was submitted on 5 September 2017.

DETAILS:

Development description The subject site is currently vacant and is located within the Wembley Precinct. The site is zoned 'Residential' and designated a density coding of R20 under the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1. The site is approximately 582m2 in area, and is of regular shape and flat topography. Adjoining the site to the north is a commercial zoned site featuring a number of service businesses. Adjoining the property to the south is a vacant site. At the rear is a battle-axe lot which features an existing dwelling that takes access from Simper Street. The proposal is for a two storey dwelling comprising of a double garage, living areas, alfresco and swimming pool. Community Consultation The application was initially advertised to one (1) property adjoining the site for a minimum of 14 days from 12 September - 26 September 2017. A letter was received from the southern side neighbour stating no objection to the proposal. Additional consultation with neighbouring properties was undertaken as a result of streetscape variations requiring advertising to three (3) properties surrounding the site for a period of 14 days from 7 November – 21 November 2017 in accordance with the requirements of the R-Codes. During the additional advertising period no submissions were received. Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to roof pitch, garage width, landscaping and solar access. A summary of the applicant's justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Roof pitch of dwelling (clause 3.1.10 of the Town's Streetscape Policy) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof Pitch

Wembley Precinct - Primary roofs of a dwelling that are visible from the street are to be hipped and/or gabled, and have a pitch between 22 degrees and 35 degrees.

Concealed roof projecting in front of a gable roof.



Design principles: • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the

street and immediate locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural styles which characterise the immediate locality ;

and • Buildings which relate to the palette of materials and colours which are characteristic of

housing in the immediate locality. Whilst the proposal introduces a pitched roof behind the concealed roof to reference a traditional pitched roof, its form and appearance and setback does not generally reflect the existing character of housing in the area.

Existing dwellings within the established streetscape consist of hipped and/or gabled roof forms, where the dwellings face the primary street. It is therefore considered that the roof pitch on an angle and setback from the dominate front box façade does not reflect the roof pitch form of housing in the street and immediate locality. It is considered that the proposed roof pitch does not meet the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: • The front concealed roof gives the impression of a flat roof as viewed from the street. This

is not consistent with the established streetscape. • The roof pitch form of the dwelling does not respect the architectural style and roof pitch

of existing dwellings in the immediate locality. Garage width of dwelling (clause 3.1.3 of the Town's Streetscape Policy) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Garage Width

Max 50% of frontage of the dwelling. Max 60% where an upper floor or balcony extends for full width of garage and protrudes over it.

The proposed dwelling is designed with a garage width of 6.4m, which is 63.62% of the lot frontage. Resulting in a 3.62% garage width variation.

Design principles: • The setting back of carports and garages to maintain clear sight lines along the street and

not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings; or obstruct views of the dwellings from the street and vice versa.

• Visual connectivity between the dwelling and the streetscape should be maintained and the effect of the garage door on the streetscape should be minimised whereby the streetscape is not dominated by garage doors.

The proposed garage is recessed slightly from the alignment of the first floor rooms but has a garage width of 63.62% of the frontage of the dwelling. The Town's Streetscape Policy requires that garages, carports and driveways and hard surface areas do not detract from the presentation of homes. It is considered that the proposed garage width does not meet the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: • The garage width will have a significant presence on the streetscape, resulting in an

undue and likely impact on the immediate locality.



• The garage door detracts from the existing streetscape and approval would set an

undesirable precedent. Furthermore, the garage would dominate the dwelling and have a negative impact on the streetscape.

Landscaping in the front setback area (Clause 3.1.9 of the Towns Streetscape Policy) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Landscaping

Min 60% or Min 50% with additional planting of trees or landscaping beyond the setback area.

48.13%

Design principles: • Enhance the presentation of homes and gardens as viewed from the street; and • Be predominately garden, substantial plantings and/or the retention of existing

vegetation; • Minimise the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area The proposal proposes a 11.87% variation to the landscaping requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy. It is considered that the proposed landscaping does not meet the Towns Streetscape Policy and the design principles of the R-codes for the following reasons: • The Town's strong precedent with the minimum landscaping requirements within each

precinct positively enhances streetscapes. The significant variation of 11.87% to the minimum landscaping requirement of 60% will unduly impact on the streetscape, given dwellings within the immediate locality consistently feature significant gardens and vegetation within the front setback areas.

• The proposal involves an increase in hard surfaces within the front setback area with the

driveway including an entry path. This could be minimised by separating the two entry paths and include vegetation between. Overall, the proposal does not satisfy the Town's landscaping requirements as an inadequate area of landscaping is provided within the setback area which will detract from the streetscape.

Street Surveillance of the Front Door (Clause 3.1.6 of the Town's Streetscape Policy) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front Door

The front door of a dwelling is to be clearly visible from the street (either the primary or secondary street).

Front door located on the eastern side boundary.

Design principles:

• Buildings designed to provide for surveillance (actual or perceived) between the individual dwellings and the street and between common areas and the street, which minimise opportunities for concealment and entrapment.



It is considered that the street surveillance does not meet the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons: • The proposed development provides inadequate passive surveillance as the front door is

located between the garage and the theatre room wall on the ground floor of the dwelling. This results in decrease in sense of safety as the area between the entry point 1 and entry point 2 and does not provide for adequate space to react to possible threats.

• The access gate and intercom system adjoining the garage (entry point 2) provides a

perception of safety, however, creates an entrapment for visitors and the occupants of the dwelling which does not satisfy the design principles of the R-Codes.

Solar Access (Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Solar Access

25% 37% overshadowing

Design principles:

• Effective solar access for the proposed development and protection of the solar access; • Development designed to protect solar access for neighbouring properties taking account

the potential to overshadow existing; • Outdoor living areas; • North facing major openings to habitable rooms, within 15 degrees of north in each

direction; or • Roof mounted solar collectors.

As the front of the subject site is orientated east-west, the proposal has designed to achieve solar access by locating its major openings to the north. The proposed dwelling achieves adequate solar access to the ground and upper floor to the habitable rooms by way of this. It is considered that the proposed solar access does not meet the design principles of the R-codes for the following reasons: • Given the narrow width of the lot, the proposal presents a 12% variation to

overshadowing which is likely to overshadow north facing habitable areas of when the adjoining site is constructed. As the site is vacant, it is difficult to ascertain the overall impact, however, the proposal is likely to result in an impact to the neighbouring property and therefore does not comply with the design principles relating to solar access.








Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 for the priority area 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods'.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Contributors Simon Shub, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

Marcel Bridge, Statutory Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Development application plans; and 2. Summary of applicant's justification COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for two storey dwelling submitted by Greg and Sonia Cutri at Lot 188(No. 60B) Marlow Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 5 September 2017, subject to the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.1.10 (roof pitch) or the relevant design principles as the flat concealed roof form, projecting forward of the primary pitched roof, does not respect the architectural style and roof pitching of the existing houses in the immediate locality which are predominantly hipped and/or gabled in style;

(ii) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Policy 3.1.9 (landscaping) or the relevant design principles as the landscaping does not enhance the presentation of the home and garden as viewed from the street resulting in an undesirable amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area;

(iii) the proposal does not satisfy the garage deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of part 5.2.2 Garage width of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia as the garage width will have a significant presence on the streetscape, resulting in an undue and likely impact on the immediate locality;

(iv) the proposal does not satisfy the street surveillance deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Streetscape Policy and the design principles of part 5.2.3 street surveillance of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia as the proposed development provides inadequate passive surveillance as the front door is located between the garage and the theatre room wall on the ground floor of the dwelling



and the access gate and intercom system adjoining the garage (entry point 2) provides a perception of safety however creates an entrapment for visitors and the occupants;

(v) the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of 5.4.2. solar access for adjoining sites of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; as given the narrow width of the lot the proposal presents a 12% variation to overshadowing which is likely to overshadow north facing habitable areas of when the adjoining site is constructed; and

(vi) the combination of non-compliances with the Town's Streetscape Policy would result in an adverse impact on the streetscape and, as such, would not meet the intent to create and preserve neighbourhoods that are attractive, safe and offer high amenity for residents and pedestrians.

Council Meeting 19 December 2017 During discussion, Cr McKerracher advised that the applicant has requested that the applicant has requested that the item be deferred to the February 2018 Council meeting. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the item relating to Lot 188(No. 60B) Marlow Street, Wembley be deferred to the February 2018 Council meeting. Carried 9/0



DV17.136 LOT 1521 (NO. 10) DUNDALK ROAD, FLOREAT - PATIO

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is for Council to consider a development application for patio at No. 10 Dundalk Road, Floreat. Under the Town's Policy 2.6: Delegation of Authority Clause 1.3.2, Council will determine development applications where they have been advertised and objections have been received. In this instance, an objection has been received from a neighbouring resident in relation to the rear boundary setback and therefore the application is required to be determined by Council. The Administration recommends that the application should be approved. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: Application: 0302DA-2017 Owner: Mr CK Edwards-Smith and Mrs GA Edwards-Smith Applicant: Eden Outdoor Living Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 813sqm DETAILS: Development description The site currently comprises of a two storey dwelling with a pool area to the rear (east) of the site. The site slopes downwards approximately 2.5 metres from the north western (front left) corner to the south eastern (rear right) corner. The adjoining properties to the east (rear) and south (left) are significantly lower than the subject site.



After neighbour consultation, amended plans were received removing a full height parapet wall along the eastern (rear) boundary. The setback of the structure was increased from 0 metres to 1.5 metres to the rear boundary. The development application proposes the following: • a 7.52 metre by 8.5 metre patio to the north-eastern corner of the subject site with a

skillion roof with an overall height of between 2.4 metres and 3.0 metres; • a 2.4 metre high parapet wall along the northern (left) boundary; • a setback of 1.5 metres to the eastern (rear) boundary and a nil setback to the northern

(left) boundary. No objections have been received in relation to the reduced setback to the northern boundary;

• a 1.8 metre high wall is proposed to the rear (eastern) side of the structure, which is no higher than the existing dividing fence;

• a variation to the rear (eastern) setback of 1.5 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres is proposed; and

• a Colorbond roof is proposed in "Surfmist" (off white).

Community Consultation The application was advertised to two (2) adjoining properties for a period of 16 days, from 30 October 2017 to 15 November 2017, in accordance with the requirements of Part 4.2.1 of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). One submission was received objecting to the development. The table below provides a summary of the comments and issues raised during the community consultation process and an Officer technical response to each comment and issues. Summary of Comments Received: Officer Technical Comment: Shadowing - over our already shaded pool area.

The proposed structure will not increase overshadowing to the rear (eastern) property. Any increased shadow will be directed to the south of the subject site.

Noise – the proposed patio is large and planned as an entertainment area.

This location already exists as an outdoor area with a pool in this location. Noise is not a planning factor, but will be dealt with by the Town's Environmental Health Department.

Retaining - Our property is already approx. 1.5 metres below the natural ground level and we have retained the soil with our water feature engineered retaining wall. I am concerned about damage caused during construction of the patio structure. The setback of 1.5 metres for such a large structure may cause damage to our water feature and retaining.

There are no changes to the proposed levels. A building permit will ensure that there the proposal is structurally compliant.

Given we were not allowed to build closer than 6 metres to the back boundary seems unjust.

All developments are assessed on individual merit and against the design principles.



Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the side and rear setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot Boundary Setback (Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes) Deemed-to-comply

provision

Proposed

Setback of patio from northern (left) side setback

1.0 metre

Nil

Setback of patio from eastern (rear) boundary

6.0 metres

1.5 metres

Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces • on the site and adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living

areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1; • does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for

adjoining properties is not restricted; and positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

It is considered that the proposed lot boundary setbacks from the patio to the northern and eastern boundaries meet the design principles for the following reasons: The reduced setbacks are to the northern and eastern boundaries, therefore there will be no impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties in relation to overshadowing from the winter sun, as any shadow cast will be within the subject property boundaries. The partially open sides to the southern, eastern and western elevations will reduce the impact of building bulk as seen from the adjoining properties. It is noted that the adjoining property to the east is significantly lower than the subject site, however there is little change to the existing floor levels, and due to the difference in levels and viewing angles, the proposal will be less intrusive than if the properties were at the same ground level. The proposed floor levels do not exceed 0.5 metres above natural ground level so there will be no loss of privacy between the adjoining properties. The wall on the northern boundary is within the height requirements for a boundary wall exempt from planning approval (Policy 2.1). Although this refers to a dividing fence, the impact as seen



from the adjoining property is the same. The adjoining owner to the north has no objections to the proposed location of the wall on the boundary. The parapet wall will increase privacy between the subject property and the adjoining property to the north, and will minimise the likelihood of overlooking between properties. Local Law 43 - Building on Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate (Schedule 3) The subject site is located within the prescribed Local Law 43 Area. This law reflects development controls in the area, relating to materials, roof reflectivity and outbuildings. Clause 8 of Local Law 43 states that:

All buildings shall be roofed with materials constructed or terracotta concrete, slate, metal or other incombustible material approved by the Council provided that metal roofs, with a pitch of more than 5 degrees shall not be constructed with metal sheeting having a solar reflectivity index exceeding 40 percent unless approved by the Council.

The applicant proposes a Colorbond roof with a "Surfmist" (off-white) colour which has a solar reflectivity index exceeding 40 percent. This is compliant provided the roof pitch does not exceed 5 percent. A condition has been proposed stating that "Surfmist" will not be permissible if the roof pitch is greater than 5 percent. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia, Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the


retains a sense of place COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Contributors Ciara Slim, Statutory Planning Officer



ATTACHMENTS: 1. Development Application Plans; and 2. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Timmermanis disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "With regard to Lot 1521 (No.10) Dundalk Road, Floreat, I declare that I know the applicant and, as a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Patio submitted by Eden Outdoor Living Pty Ltd at Lot 1521 (No. 10) Dundalk Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 24 October 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the north to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) zincalume, white or off-white Colorbond roofing material is not permitted for any

roof with a pitch greater than 5 degrees; (iii) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall


Advice Notes: That the applicant be advised that:- 1. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct.

2. The owner and builder are advised that it is an offence to commence or carry out any development without first having applied for and obtained the relevant approval of the Council.

3. The property is located within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner and additional bushfire building construction requirements may apply at the building permit application stage.

During discussion, Cr Powell suggested that clause (ii) of the motion be amended to include "Surfmist" Colorbond. In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover and seconder of the motion agreed to alter the wording.



COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Clause 68(2) of the Deemed Provisions of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a Patio submitted by Eden Outdoor Living Pty Ltd at Lot 1521 (No. 10) Dundalk Road, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 24 October 2017, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the north to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) zincalume, white, off-white or "Surfmist" Colorbond roofing material is not

permitted for any roof with a pitch greater than 5 degrees; (iii) water draining from roofs, driveways, paths and other impermeable surfaces shall


Advice Notes: That the applicant be advised that:- 1. The applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct.

2. The owner and builder are advised that it is an offence to commence or carry out any development without first having applied for and obtained the relevant approval of the Council.

3. The property is located within a bushfire prone area as designated by an Order made by the Fire and Emergency Services Commissioner and additional bushfire building construction requirements may apply at the building permit application stage.

Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr and Powell



DV17.137 SUBMISSION ON DRAFT STATE PLANNING POLICY 5.4: ROAD AND RAIL NOISE AND ASSOCIATED IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES

SUMMARY:

The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) is seeking public comment on proposed changes to State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise (SPP5.4) and associated Implementation Guidelines. There are a number of major roads located within the Town of Cambridge (Town), as well as the Perth - Fremantle railway, where the proposed provisions of SPP5.4 will impact on the strategic and statutory planning functions of the Town. It is recommended that Council endorse a submission to be made to the WAPC on SPP5.4 and associated guidelines as detailed in this report. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The current SPP5.4 was gazetted on September 22, 2009 and is titled 'Rail and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning'. The key objective of SPP5.4 is to minimise the impact of road and rail noise on noise-sensitive uses, as well as to protect the State's key transport corridors. SPP5.4 has been reviewed by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Department) with the review overseen by a sub-committee of the WAPC and Technical Working Group comprising of relevant government and industry stakeholders, and informed by technical acoustic analysis. The Town has not been involved as a stakeholder in this process to date. Submissions on the proposed changes to SPP5.4 and Implementation Guidelines need to be provided by 21 December 2017. Draft SPP5.4 and Implementation Guidelines can be accessed online at https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/10244.aspx

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/10244.aspx



DETAILS Summary of draft SPP5.4 and Implementation Guidelines The current SPP5.4 is generally ambiguous about when and where the policy provisions and noise assessments should apply, due mainly to the subjective wording of the document. The proposed changes to SPP5.4 address this ambiguity by introducing a very clear framework for when the policy provisions need to be considered, and what those provisions are. Draft SPP5.4 is to be applied where land use and development proposals are located within default buffer distances from major roads and rail. These buffer areas form triggers for further investigation into the impact of noise on development and land use proposals that involve noise sensitive land uses (eg. dwellings, hospitals, schools and child care). The transport corridor classification and trigger distances are as follows: Transport corridor classification Trigger

distance Distance measure from

Primary Roads

300 metres Road carriageway edge

State Roads (freeways / highways / primary distributors) Primary Regional Roads (red roads under region schemes) Freight roads (Perth and Peel regions) Regional freight roads Secondary Roads

200 metres Road carriageway edge Other Regional Roads (blue roads under region schemes)

District Distributor A Passenger railways 60 metres Centreline of the

closest track Freight railways 300 metres Centreline of the

closest track The associated Implementation Guidelines provide a methodology to calculate the forecast noise level and exposure category for the land use and development on a particular site. The calculation is based on: • the transport corridor classification; • the latest or anticipated traffic counts and percentage of heavy vehicle usage; and • the distance of the site from the transport corridor. Once the noise exposure forecast noise level has been established, the Implementation Guidelines provide 'quiet house' building requirements for sensitive uses affected by the transport corridor's noise, depending on the noise exposure forecast noise level. Such measures include: • the use of wall construction materials (brick, concrete panels, fibre cement sheeting) and

insulation; • maximum areas of glazing with thickened or double insulated glass; • specified roofing and ceiling materials; • location of outdoor living areas away from the noise source and/or 2.0 - 2.4m high

fencing; and • specifications for air conditioning so that windows or air sources don't allow noise

intrusion. (Refer to Table 3 of the SPP5.4 Implementation Guidelines for further detail)



The Implementation Guidelines contain detail about multi-level development building design that can reduce the noise impacts of a transport corridor, such as the use of lower level podiums, solid balustrading, internal layout of apartments, and the use of particular building materials. The Implementation Guidelines also contain detail about physical barriers to block noise, such as earth bunds, noise walls, which are more relevant to greenfield or large development sites located near transit corridors. These matters may also be considered where a major road or rail upgrade is to be undertaken; where the onus on minimising the amenity impact of the road or rail is upon the infrastructure provider - eg. the widening of a freeway may require additional noise walls. COMMENT: Implications for development applications within the Town There are a number of major roads within the Town where development within the buffer areas will be affected by the revised SPP5.4 and guidelines. The following image is taken from the Department's PlanWA mapping and shows the impact of these buffer areas (refer to Attachment 1 for full sized map):

Significant areas of the Town are affected by the proposed transport corridor buffer areas (approx. 1,274ha or nearly 58% of the Town's area). New development within these areas will be required to adhere to the provisions of SPP5.4 and Implementation Guidelines where development approval is required (including single houses that seek design principle assessments for particular elements and therefore require development approval). It is noted that Single Houses that do not require development approval under the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 will not need to adhere to the provisions of SPP5.4, however there are a very small number of these proposals made to the Town (only 1-2 per year).



The most significant impact of SPP5.4 will be on properties adjoining or close to: • West Coast Highway (Primary road with approx. 35,000 vehicles per day); • Cambridge Street in Wembley and West Leederville (Secondary Road with approx.

20,000 vpd); • Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville (Secondary Road, approx. 20,000 vpd); and • Railway Parade, West Leederville (Secondary Road, approx. 20,000 vpd). Development cost implications The obvious implication of the proposed changes to SPP5.4 will be added development application and construction costs for development within the transport corridor buffer areas. Depending on the location of the development, these costs could be significant - both from a building design and construction perspective. Whilst the protection of the amenity of residents from the noise generated by road and rail is a worthwhile endeavour, the costs associated to comply with the requirements of SPP5.4 should be acknowledged and appreciated when finalising SPP5.4. Potential conflict with urban design principles The revised SPP5.4 encourages the location of living spaces and balconies away from noise sources. In addition, due to the increased construction costs of insulating bedrooms and living areas from noise and the limitations on glazing surface area, there may be a tendency for these living spaces of a dwelling to be located further from the street or public realm and replaced with less used areas of a dwelling such as bathrooms. Whilst these responses may be appropriate where abutting a railway or freeway, it would not be consistent with well-established urban design principles for more main street and suburban environments where overlooking and interaction between apartments/dwellings and the public realm is encouraged. Buffer distance for Secondary Roads The trigger distance of 200 metres from secondary roads impacts on a significant area of the Town as well as large areas of the urban metropolitan area. Whilst the distance acts only as a clear trigger for when the policy provisions are to be considered, which may be a basic noise assessment, the distance is considered excessive. Further consideration should be given to reducing the trigger distance to no more than 100 metres which is a distance more reflective of the likely disturbance, particularly given that many of the secondary roads do not have a designated freight function. Trial implementation of SPP5.4 to identify unintended consequences The implementation of the State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) during 2016 caused many unforeseen implications that added cost and process delays to landowners and the broader development industry. Whilst SPP5.4 isn't proposed to be incorporated into the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations in the same manner as SPP3.7, the implementation of SPP5.4 has the potential to cause similar impositions on landowners and the development industry due to its prescriptive application. Furthermore the requirements of SPP5.4 may conflict with sound urban design principles as noted above. There should be a proper understanding of these implications prior to the gazettal of SPP5.4. It is suggested that the Department undertake a trial implementation of SPP5.4 to assist in identifying and rectifying any unintended consequences with involvement from local government.



Local planning strategy implications Section 2.1 of the SPP5.4 Implementation Guidelines requires that, as a minimum, transport corridors and the surrounding areas potentially affected by transport noise be mapped. Further consideration of where site-specific statutory planning processes are to be addressed later in the planning process is required where noise sensitive land use is located within the trigger distances. Such consideration will be addressed during the preparation of the Town's local planning strategy. Refinement of the application of SPP5.4 through local planning policy A matter that can be considered further by the Town during the preparation of the local planning strategy, and depending on the final version of SPP5.4 to be gazetted, is for the Town to prepare a local planning policy to clarify the implementation of SPP5.4 within the Town, so as to potentially reduce some costs for applicants and landowners affected by the buffer distances of SPP5.4. Basic desktop modelling of the noise contours within the buffer areas throughout the Town, taking into account topography and existing noise barriers such as vegetation and built form, could provide greater clarity to landowners within the Town of the application of SPP5.4, particularly for the lower density residential areas of the Town where the effect of SPP5.4 may not be as appreciated and understood as for a more major development in the Town's more dense activity centre areas


State planning policies are prepared under section 26 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. A local planning strategy must apply a state planning policy that is relevant to the strategy under cl. 11(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. State planning policies are matters to be considered by the local government in considering an application for development approval under cl. 67(c) of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.


There are no relevant financial implications associated with this report.


The following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 are relevant to this report. Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs. Strategy 4.2 Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and

retains a sense of place. Goal 12 Advocacy for the Community Strategy 12.1 Foster key relationships with government and other stakeholders.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy Level No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft SPP5.4 Road and Rail Noise buffer areas Draft SPP5.4 and Implementation Guidelines can be accessed online at https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/10244.aspx COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Town provide a submission to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage on the draft State Planning Policy 5.4: Road and Rail Noise and associated Implementation Guidelines, in accordance with the following comments and recommendations:- (i) the incorporation of clear criteria where the provisions of SPP5.4 will apply through

the use of defined transport buffer areas is supported; (ii) there should be further review and a clear appreciation of the impact of SPP5.4 on

application and construction costs for development, particularly within established urban areas. Whilst it is desirable to improve the amenity of sensitive land uses affected by road and rail noise, there should be an understanding of the potential cost implications of SPP5.4;

(iii) there are potential conflicts in the provisions of SPP5.4 and well established and

understood urban design principles, particularly where strong interaction between residential dwellings and the main street is desired;

(iv) the trigger distance of 200 metres from secondary roads should be reviewed and

reduced to no more than 100 metres which is considered a distance more reflective of the likely disturbance, and given that many of the secondary roads do not have a designated freight function;

(v) a trial implementation of SPP5.4 both at state and local planning levels is

suggested to identify and rectify any undesirable and unintended consequences, with involvement from local government.

Carried 9/0

https://www.planning.wa.gov.au/publications/10244.aspx



DV17.138 UPDATE REPORT ON STRATEGIC PRIORITIES FOR 2017/18 FOR STRATEGIC PLANNING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND SUSTAINABILITY

SUMMARY:

On 22 August 2017, Council adopted eight priority projects for the Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Economic Development business areas of the Town, and required that a report be provided to Council quarterly on the progression of the projects. This report is the first progress report on the projects. In summary, six of the eight projects are progressing generally in accordance with the adopted timeframe, albeit with some delays emerging. One project (West Leederville Hub Project) was deferred for nine months by Council on 28 November 2017 (refer CR17.161). It is recommended that the information contained in this report pertaining to these seven projects is noted. The remaining project (Review of Town Planning Scheme No. 1) is recommended to be re-structured to focus on an interim review of TPS1 and associated local planning policies to address specific matters whilst the preparation of the Local Planning Strategy continues. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

On 22 August 2017, Council adopted eight project priorities and timeframes for the strategic planning, economic development and sustainability business area (refer DV17.99): Project July-Sept

2017 Oct-Dec

2017 Jan-Mar

2018 Apr-Jun

2018 1 Local Planning Strategy ** 2 Town Planning Scheme 1 review ** 3 Wembley Activity Centre Plan -

statutory planning controls

4 West Leederville Activity Centre Plan - update and statutory planning controls

5 West Leederville Hub Project **



6

Review of Local Government Inventory and Heritage List

7 Economic Development Strategy 8 Sustainability Strategy ** Project will continue through to FY2018/19 Council's resolution also required that quarterly reports are prepared to report on the progress of the projects, including: • the status of the project • whether the project is on target; and • identification of any new risks or barriers to the completion of the project and measures to

address these risks or barriers. This report is the first progress report prepared since the adoption of the priority projects.

DETAILS:

1. Local Planning Strategy (LPS) Project status Workshop held with Elected Members on 14 November 2017.

Detailed project update report and recommended process to progress the LPS is subject to a separate item on this agenda.

Project on target Subject to separate item on this agenda for revised project process and timeframes.

Risk or barriers Refer to the separate item on this agenda. 2. Review of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) Project status Council adopted a report on TPS1 that recommended the preparation of a new

local planning scheme on 22 August 2017, as required by the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. This report was considered by Western Australian Planning Commission on 28 November 2017 who resolved to: '1. Agree with the Council recommendation on the Report on Review for the

Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (dated 24 July 2017) to review Town Planning Scheme No.1 in order to prepare a new Local Planning Scheme;

2. Note Council's advice that the Town is preparing a Local Planning Strategy in order to inform the preparation of a new Local Planning Scheme.'

Refer to the discussion below about the next steps for this project.

Project on target Refer to discussion below. Risk or barriers No new risks or barriers have been identified. The drafting of a new local planning scheme was proposed to run concurrently with the progression of the local planning strategy as possible under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (2015 Regulations). However given the significant community interest in the local planning strategy, it is proposed that the preparation of a new scheme be deferred until further progress has been made on the local planning strategy. However, the gazettal of the 2015 Regulations in October 2015, specifically the introduction of the Deemed Provisions, has resulted in a number of sections and clauses of TPS1 being inconsistent with the Deemed Provisions, and therefore having no statutory effect. This has created some uncertainty amongst applicants, the community and Town. Furthermore, recent



SAT decisions have highlighted and put to rest any doubt over the prevalence of some TPS1 provisions. It is therefore proposed that, rather than the Town preparing a new scheme within this financial year, that an omnibus amendment be prepared that addresses the inconsistencies between TPS1 and the Deemed Provisions. Similar amendments have been gazetted by local authorities of Cockburn and Fremantle and result in a clearer and more concise scheme. Furthermore, once the existing TPS1 inconsistencies are addressed, this will make the writing of a new local planning scheme a more simple process. Concurrently with the progression of an omnibus amendment to TPS1, it is proposed that the Town prepare a staged approach to the review of the Town's local planning policy manual. As with TPS1, the 2015 Regulations and recent SAT decisions have brought into question a number of provisions contained within the Town's local planning policies and these matters need to be addressed. A further report detailing this staged policy review will be presented for Council's consideration in early 2018, taking into consideration Council's recent resolution on 28 November 2017 to review Planning Policy 5.1: Parking (refer item 12.6). 3. Wembley Activity Centre Plan (ACP) - implementation of statutory planning

controls Project status Wembley ACP was considered by the WAPC on 19 September 2017 with the

WAPC resolving to require modifications to be made to the Wembley ACP prior to approval. Council resolved on 28 November 2017 to not support a number of the modifications requested by the WAPC. The WAPC have been notified of Council's resolution and the Town is awaiting a formal response.

Project on target On target. An amendment to TPS1 to implement the core planning provisions of the Wembley ACP has been drafted by Officers, as have amendments to the Wembley Precinct local planning policy. However until the final outcome of the Wembley ACP is known, it is not considered worthwhile initiating the amendments to TPS1 and/or policy.

Risk or barriers The risk to this project is that the Wembley ACP is not approved by the WAPC in the form submitted by the Town. If the WAPC resolved again to require modifications to the Wembley ACP that are not acceptable to the Council, this will delay the approval of the Wembley ACP and implementation of the statutory planning controls.

4. West Leederville Activity Centre Plan - updating and implementation of statutory

planning controls Project status The West Leederville ACP was reformatted and submitted to the WAPC for

assessment on 30 August 2017, in accordance with Council's resolution of 26 July 2016 (refer DV16.105). The West Leederville ACP is still under assessment by Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Department) Officers.

Project on target On target however likely to be delayed due to longer than anticipated assessment time by the Department.

Risk or barriers There is a risk that the WAPC will require modifications to the West Leederville ACP prior to approval. Depending on the nature of the modifications and if the WAPC require further advertising of the ACP, this project may require review and re-prioritisation, particularly in light of the progress of the LPS.



5. West Leederville Hub Project Project status Deferred indefinitely.

An administration recommendation to proceed with a scope of services for the West Leederville Development Strategy Consultancy Services was not endorsed by Council at its meeting on 28 November 2017 (refer CR17.161).

Project on target Deferred. Risk or barriers N/A 6. Review of Local Government Inventory (LGI) and Heritage Listing under TPS1 Project status A report on the preliminary consultation undertaken during May and June 2017 is

complete and Hocking Heritage Studio has prepared a revised LGI that is currently being reviewed by the Town.

Project on target On target. The next stage of this project is to present the revised LGI to Council for adoption to consult further with the community. In order to provide statutory protection under the planning framework, properties on the LGI would also need to be adopted on the Heritage List under TPS1. It is further considered necessary to prepare a local planning policy that provides assessment criteria for dealing with development on heritage listed properties. Work on this policy has commenced and will be subject to a further Council report early in 2018.

Risk or barriers Given the experiences of other local governments in adopting heritage controls under their planning framework, there is a risk that the consultation on the revised LGI, heritage list and associated local planning policy will draw resources away from other priority projects, notably the LPS. However it is intended that Officers continue to prepare the heritage related material for Council's consideration during 2018 and should the view be that the further consultation be deferred, then at least the work has already been done and can be picked up again at a more opportune time.

7. Economic Development Strategy (incorporating strategies for commercial centres) Project status Pracsys economic and strategy consultants were appointed by the Town in

October 2017. Preliminary community consultation has occurred during late November and December in the form of workshops, meetings and an online survey. A draft economic profile analysis has also been completed by Pracsys.

Project on target On target. A draft Economic Development Strategy (EDS) will be prepared for consideration by the Town and Council in early 2018. Once adopted by Council, the draft EDS will be published for community consultation.

Risk or barriers No known risks or barriers. 8. Sustainability Strategy Project status Requests for consultants to undertake community consultation and prepared a

Sustainability Strategy were sought during October 2017. At the time of writing this report a preferred consultant was in the process of being appointed by the Town. Once appointed, preliminary consultation on the Sustainability Strategy is will likely occur during February / March 2018.

Project on target Behind schedule. This project is currently running slightly behind schedule due to a longer than anticipated period in seeking quotations and appointing a consultant.

Risk or barriers No known risks or barriers.




There is a number of policy / statutory implications associated with the individual projects addressed in this report however these will be addressed in separate reports relevant to the individual project. There are no policy / statutory implications associated with the recommendations of this report alone.


The projects discussed in this report are being financed by the Town's operating budget for FY2017/18. There are no further financial implications related to this report.


The projects identified in this report relate directly to key actions and strategies from the Strategic Community Plan and Corporate Business Plan as detailed in Item DV17.9 (22 August 2017).


No specific community engagement is required

OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the information contained in this report relating to Projects 1, 3 - 8 be noted; (ii) the scope for Project 2 be modified to consist of:

• an omnibus amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to address

inconsistencies with the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

• a staged review of the Town's local planning policies. (iii) a further report detailing the staged review of the Town's local planning policies be

presented to Council in February 2018. Carried 9/0



DV17.139 LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY - NEXT STEPS

SUMMARY:

The Town is preparing a Local Planning Strategy (LPS) to set out the long-term planning framework for the whole local government area (10 to 20 years and beyond in line with draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million). Following community engagement which occurred in March/April 2017 on three planning scenarios, the project consultants prepared a working scenario plan (referred to previously as 'Community Preferred Scenario') based on key outcomes from community engagement for further review. Council subsequently resolved to hold an Elected Member Forum in November 2017 to review the plan following the Local Government elections. A Forum with elected members was held on 14 November 2017 to obtain direction on the working scenario plan with regard to determination of dwelling yields, allocation of dwellings over the Town and to identify next steps to progress the LPS including the proposed approach to future community engagement. This report outlines the key matters discussed at the EM Forum and recommends that another forum be held during February 2018 to further review the distribution of dwelling targets for the LPS, as well as other matters to be addressed by the LPS. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The following reports refer to the initiation and progress of the preparation of the Local Planning Strategy (LPS) to date: • February 2016 (DV16.20) Council endorsement to commence LPS • April 2016 (DV16.58) Local Planning Strategy Project Plan • August 2016 (DV16.126) Award of the tender to appoint consultants Taylor Burrell

Barnett to prepare the LPS • November 2016 (DV16.172) Endorsement of the LPS community engagement strategy • March 2017 (CR17.22) Report on the first phase of Community Engagement



• April 2017 (Item 10.1) Local Planning Strategy and Strategic Community Plan - Interim Report on Community Engagement

• June 2017 (DV17.73) Local Planning Strategy - Revised Project Scope and Contract Variations

• June 2017 (DV17.74) Local Planning Strategy - Outcomes of Community Engagement and Preferred Scenario

• August 2017 (DV17.96) Local Planning Strategy - Update Report • September 2017 (DV17.106) Local Planning Strategy - Contract and Project Scope -

Reconsideration of Deferred Item In accordance with Part 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the Town is required to prepare a LPS for its Town Planning Scheme. A LPS is a high level strategic planning document that sets a long-term (10 to 20 years and beyond - recognising the need for consistency with draft Perth and Peel @ 3.5 million) planning framework for the whole local government area and is to address a range of matters including housing targets and mix, transport, commercial development, open space and the natural environment. The LPS will consist of a strategy map, series of tables setting out the future planning objectives of the Town and background analysis report. In setting out the long-term planning directions, the LPS also applies state and regional planning policies and strategies in the local context and provides the rationale for the zones and other provisions for a new Local Planning Scheme. The LPS is the combined vision of the Council and community, for the future land use planning and development of the Town and the Scheme provides the statutory and administrative mechanism to implement the vision. Further detailed studies and projects are also likely to be required in order to implement the LPS.

DETAILS:

An EM Forum was held on 14 November 2017 and facilitated by Consult WG and attended by all elected members, Town of Cambridge officers and project consultants Taylor Burrell Barnett. The following matters were discussed during the Forum: 1. Underlying assumptions behind the dwelling yield estimates, particularly as they relate to

the Town's three Activity Centres; 2. Project involvement by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Department); 3. Other matters that need to be addressed by the LPS (eg. provision of public open space,

community facilities including schools, traffic and access); and 4. How to proceed with the LPS with the following steps noted:

• The Town and project consultants to review the dwelling yields and plan in

response to elected member feedback from the Forum held 14 November 2017, with a modified plan to be presented to a Forum for review;

• The Town to approach the DPLH/WAPC to commence a process of informal engagement on the Local Planning Strategy to obtain confirmation of support for the Town's proposals;

• A draft LPS document be prepared and presented to Council for endorsement to obtain public comment;

• The draft LPS document be advertised for community comment including writing to all those who made a submission on the LPS previously;

• The draft LPS document be revised in light of community submissions and presented to Council for formal endorsement to submit to the WAPC; and

• Formal advertising including an extensive community engagement program to occur once the WAPC has granted approval to advertise the draft LPS formally.



An indicative project schedule has been prepared based on the above discussion and is as follows:-

Stage of Development of LPS Timeframe Review of Community Preferred Scenario/Ideas Plan December 2017 /January

2018 EM Forum February 2018* WAPC preliminary engagement Commences February 2018 Council Report with draft LPS and Community Engagement Plan

April 2018

Community engagement preparation May 2018 Community comment period June 2018 Review of community submissions and finalisation of LPS July/August 2018 Draft LPS to Council Meeting for endorsement to submit to WAPC for approval to consult

September 2018

* Council meetings and workshops are ordinarily not scheduled during January.


The preparation of the LPS is being undertaken in accordance with the requirements for preparing and approving a LPS outlined in Part 3 - Local Planning Strategies under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Clause 12 of Part 3 - Local Planning Strategies of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 outlines that the Western Australian Planning Commission is to certify a LPS for the purpose of proceeding to formal advertising.


The preparation of the LPS is funded by the Strategic Projects budget item from the FY2017/18 Budget. Further consideration will need to be given to issue of contracts for project consultancy services in order to complete the LPS following the Management Workshop.


Preparation of a LPS is a specific key action of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027, under Goal 4: 'Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs.'


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy and Community Engagement Framework. The requirements for consultation will be satisfied as per the statutory provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. Formal advertising of the Local Planning Strategy occurs subject to certification by the WAPC.



A Community Engagement Strategy will be prepared for Council consideration in early 2018. Further, in accordance with Council Policy No. 1.2.15 Public Consultation Material, public consultation material relating to the Local Planning Strategy will be subject to elected member approval prior to distribution. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director: Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager: Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors: Matthew Burnett, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil Committee Meeting 12 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "Up until June this year, my business acted as a planning consultant for the owners of the Floreat Forum. Whilst that business relationship has ceased, there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. I also declare that until June this year I was a member of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association and a beneficiary of a gift from that Association being a contribution towards my election expenses. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Item DV17.139, I disclose that until 22 October 2017 I had an association with the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association Inc. in that I was a committee member and member of that Association (which made a prior submission on the LPS) and that I received a notifiable gift from the Association in respect of the election at which I was elected which I disclosed details of which are available on the Town's Electoral Gift Register on the Town's website. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "Up until June this year, my business acted as a planning consultant for the owners of the Floreat Forum. Whilst that business relationship has ceased, there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. I also declare that until June this year I was a member of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association and a beneficiary of a gift from that Association being a contribution towards my election expenses. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Cr McKerracher disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Item DV17.139, I disclose that until 22 October 2017 I had an association with the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association Inc. in that I was a committee member and member of that Association (which made a prior submission on the LPS) and that I received a notifiable gift from the Association in respect of the election at which I was elected which I disclosed details



of which are available on the Town's Electoral Gift Register on the Town's website. As a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) an Elected Member Forum be held in February 2018 to further review the

distribution of dwelling targets for the Local Planning Strategy and other matters to be addressed by the Local Planning Strategy;

(ii) the indicative project schedule outlined in the above report be endorsed to guide

further progress the preparation of the Local Planning Strategy, with the project schedule to be finalised following the Elected Member Forum.

Carried 9/0



DV17.140 INVITATION TO COMMENT ON DRAFT SUBIACO REDEVELOPMENT SCHEME AND POLICIES

SUMMARY:

On 1 November 2017, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority (MRA) released the Draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme No. 2 (the Scheme) and 10 draft development policies for public comment. The Scheme and associated policies have been prepared to facilitate development within the Subiaco Redevelopment Area (SRA), following the State Government's decision to expand the SRA to include the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) site, Subiaco Oval, Kitchener Park and surrounding land, now known as the 'Subiaco East Project Area'. This report recommends that Council provide a submission on the Scheme and policies, particularly as they relate to the adjacent West Leederville Train Station and the West Leederville Activity Centre Area. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

On 28 October 2014, Council provided comment on the City of Subiaco's (CoS) North Subiaco Planning and Urban Design Study (the study) (refer to item DV14.143). The study area comprised land bound by Railway Parade, Haydn Bunton Drive, Townshend Road, Churchill Avenue and Thomas Street. This particular project was important because of its proximity to the West Leederville Train Station and the West Leederville Activity Centre. Since this time, the CoS have adopted the North Subiaco Structure Plan and submitted to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for endorsement. On 4 August 2017, notice of the expanded SRA (previously only included Subi Centro and incorporates Subiaco East, refer to figure 1 for the SRA) was published in the Government Gazette. The MRA have reviewed the existing SRA Scheme and policies, which are available for public consultation. These documents will replace the existing planning scheme and policies and once gazetted, they will transfer planning authority for the Subiaco East Project area from the CoS and WAPC to the MRA. The Scheme and policies have been prepared in accordance with the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority Act 2011.



Figure 1: Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme Map

DETAILS:

An overview of the content and structure of the Draft Scheme and policies is provided under the respective headings below. Draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme The Draft Scheme incorporates an existing project area within Subi Centro and the recent addition of Subiaco East which includes PMH and Subiaco Oval. These project areas are then separated into individual precincts, which are accompanied by a statement of intent for each precinct. The Draft Scheme is divided into 10 chapters, which address matters including but not limited to; administration, vision and objectives, development policies, design guidelines and land use. With the exception of the vision and scheme objectives, project areas and land use sections, the scheme is largely administrative setting out procedures for matters such as:

• Administration • Development Application Process; • Development Contribution Areas; • Heritage Protection; • Public Consultation; and • Structure Plans, Activity Centre Plans and Local Development Plans.

Draft Development Policies The MRA have reviewed the development policies for the SRA (previously amended in 2010) and have prepared a suite of revised and in some cases, new policy's to ensure consistency across all MRA areas. The policy suite comprises:

• Green buildings; • Heritage; • Sound and Vibration Attenuation policies; • Public Art; • Additional Structures;



• Signage; • Home based Business; • Hosting Public Events; • Affordable and Diverse Housing; and • Adaptable Housing.

Each policy includes sections on the purpose and application of the policy, background, Legislative Framework, specific policy content (I.e. Heritage Policy requires further guidance on submission requirements), performance standards and a glossary. Each policy is linked to other relevant pieces of legislation, the draft Scheme and other applicable policies, and contains a mixture of adaptive and prescriptive performance standards. For policies that set out development requirements (and exemptions) for development applications (E.g. Heritage, additional structures, signage and adaptable housing) there are provisions that outline the requirements for each development application. Comment The draft Scheme and policies will set up a framework for further development of the SRA, however a number of matters are not considered to be adequately addressed and further information is required. Development Requirements The Draft Scheme sets out guidance for land use permissibility by using 7 land use categories and classifying them as either preferred land uses or contemplated land uses. This approach seeks to consider a greater variety of land uses, which encourages diverse yet complimentary and harmonious land uses. Within the Subiaco East Project Area, all categories except light industry are either preferred or contemplated. A mixture of these land uses (culture and creative industry, commercial, retail, community and residential) are considered to be complementary to those land uses promoted by the West Leederville Activity Plan and within the Mixed Use zone adjacent to the West Leederville Train Station. For the purpose of calculating parking requirements the MRA has identified that it will take a restrictive approach. The land uses discussed above are classified as Permanent Residential, Residential Visitor, Transient Residential or Non-residential, with each have a minimum and maximum number of car parking bays required. Further, the policy provides requirements for cash in lieu of car parking and the ability of the MRA to relax the car parking standards and/or waive the requirement for cash-in-lieu. The reduction of car usage is encouraged, particularly given the proximity of the project area to high frequency public transport available at the West Leederville Train Station, on Cambridge Street and the shared bicycle paths located adjacent to the Fremantle-Perth Railway Line. In addition, the draft Scheme sets out visions and statements of intent for all the project areas. The vision and statement of intent for the Railway Precinct refers to the introduction of a critical mass of people to maximise the strategic location of the area and focusing on medium to high density residential development. Reference is also made to high quality buildings, which is supported. Notwithstanding the positive intent of the development requirements discussed above, the draft scheme and policies do not provide any tangible built form guidelines for development in this area and it is unclear what kind of development scale is being entertained for the area. In particular, the Subiaco East vision refers to the built form as follows:



"New built form in the Project Area is to transition between the central city/West Perth area to the east, the Subiaco Town Centre to the West, the West Leederville area to the north and the traditional suburban areas of Subiaco to the south." Therefore it is recommended that the MRA undertake further investigation into the preparation of design guidelines for the project area that addresses matters including, but not limited to: • Design and Character • Built Form; • Public Realm Interface; • Parking and Servicing; • Site Planning; and • Precinct Specific Guidelines. Furthermore, it is unclear how the development of key sites within the Subiaco East Project area will affect land and infrastructure on the West Leederville side of the West Leederville Train Station as no traffic modelling or management measures (with the exception of possible traffic management conditions) are present. The draft Scheme sets out the procedural requirements for Development Contributions and Development Contribution Areas; however there is no indication whether one would be prepared for the area. It is recommended that a proactive collaborative approach is established for future development within the area.


The Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme No. 2 and proposed policies will replace the existing scheme and planning policies. Once gazetted, these documents will transfer planning authority for the Subiaco East Project area from the City of Subiaco and Western Australian Planning Commission to the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority.


There are no financial implications associated with the recommendations of this report.


Consideration of this matter is consistent with the following Strategy 4.2 of the Interim Strategic Community Plan, which seeks to guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place.


Public consultation is currently being undertaken by the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Simon Shub, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.




That, in response to the invitation to comment on the Draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme No. 2 and associated development policies, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority be advised that:- (i) the draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme No. 2 and development policies are noted; (ii) further information and development guidelines are required for the Subiaco East Project

Area, to address:

(a) Design and Character (b) Built Form; (c) Public Realm Interface; (d) Parking and Servicing; (e) Site Planning; and (f) Precinct Specific Guidelines.

(iii) the Town supports a collaborative approach between adjoining local governments, the

Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and State Government to address traffic, public transport and access matters associated with the expanded redevelopment area; and

(iv) the Town requests further involvement in future stages of planning for the Subiaco East

Project Area. Committee Meeting 12 December 2017 During discussion, Cr Everett suggested that the development guidelines should also address traffic impact. Amendment Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Powell That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) further information and development guidelines are required for the Subiaco East Project

Area, to address:

(a) Traffic Impact Assessment (b) Design and Character (c) Built Form; (d) Public Realm Interface; (e) Parking and Servicing; (f) Site Planning; and (g) Precinct Specific Guidelines.

Amendment carried 5/0



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in response to the invitation to comment on the Draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme No. 2 and associated development policies, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority be advised that:- (i) the draft Subiaco Redevelopment Scheme No. 2 and development policies are

noted; (ii) further information and development guidelines are required for the Subiaco East

Project Area, to address:

(a) Traffic Impact Assessment (b) Design and Character (c) Built Form; (d) Public Realm Interface; (e) Parking and Servicing; (f) Site Planning; and (g) Precinct Specific Guidelines.

(iii) the Town supports a collaborative approach between adjoining local governments, the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and State Government to address traffic, public transport and access matters associated with the expanded redevelopment area; and

(iv) the Town requests further involvement in future stages of planning for the Subiaco

East Project Area. Carried 9/0



DV17.141 PROPOSED DEDICATION OF LOT 500 FOR ROAD RESERVE - ALLISON DRIVE, PARKSIDE WALK, JOLIMONT

SUMMARY:

The Parkside Walk estate, Jolimont, is currently being developed and Allison Drive which abuts the Wembley Sports Park is one of two main access points into the development. To date, Allison Drive has had the status of a private road to access Wembley Sports Park, however, given the need to access and service lots in Parkside Walk, Allison Drive is required to be dedicated as a public road in accordance with section 56 of the Land Administration Act. To enable the creation of a public road, Allison Drive was recently excised from the historic Crown Grant. Council approval is now sought to request the Minister for Lands to dedicate the land as a road reserve. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Parkside Walk estate at Salvado Road, Jolimont is currently being developed after having been rezoned and an Outline Development Plan and Design Guidelines prepared and adopted throughout 2013 to 2016. Allison Drive, at the western side of Parkside Walk is one of two roads to access the estate, the other being Hortus Way at the eastern side of the estate adjoining Henderson Park. The naming of Allison Drive was approved by the Geographic Names Committee in 2016. To date, Allison Drive has the status of a private road accessing Wembley Sports Park. However, given the need to access and service lots in Parkside Walk, Allison Drive is required to be dedicated as a public road in accordance with section 56 of the Land Administration Act. A Council resolution to this effect is required, which will facilitate a decision of the Minister for Lands to excise the land from the historic Crown Grant and re-vest it for road reserve purposes.



DETAILS:

The subject land is owned freehold by the Town of Cambridge and is subject of Certificate of Title 2890/8 on Deposited Plan 40459. The land is subject of a 1905 Crown Grant in favour of the now Town of Cambridge for municipal endowment purposes. Historically the land was used as part of the City of Perth nursery and more recently Matthews Netball Centre and Wembley Sports Park. A subdivision application has recently been approved to excise Lot 500 for Allison Drive from the balance Lot 9003 comprising Wembley Sports Park. This subdivision also created a separate Lot 9002 comprising Henderson Park. These three parcels combined previously formed Lot 9000. The subdivision plan with Lot 500 indicated as road is attached - Attachment 1 (Deposited Plan 54897). The Town has taken advice of the project surveyors and the Department of Lands on the appropriate process to excise the land from the Crown Grant and achieve dedication as a public road. The first step is a subdivision application to excise the portion of the land required for Allison Drive as a separate lot. This has been achieved through the creation of Lot 500 as noted above. The second step is then for the lot to be transferred to the State of WA and to be re-vested and dedicated as a public road as per the Land Administration Act. Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 requires that the Council resolve to seek dedication of Lot 500 as a road reserve for Allison Drive and to indemnify the State against claims for compensation and costs in granting the road dedication.


The Town must follow the requirements and procedures of Land Administration Act 1997 - Part 5, Division 1, s.56 Cl. 56 which sets out statutory requirements for dedication of land as a road reserve and Land Administration Regulations 1998 - Part 2 - Regulation 8.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


Consideration of the above proposal is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027. Due consideration has been given to meeting the following goals and achieving their associated strategies:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs Strategy 4.3: Keep our neighbourhoods green and pleasant Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1: Develop an integrated transport strategy in response to population changes.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. The matter is administrative in nature and therefore advertising is not required and is consistent with proposals advertised previously to support the development of Parkside Walk including Town Planning Scheme Amendment 26 and the Parkside Walk Outline Development Plan. There are no statutory advertising requirements under the Land Administration Act 1997 applicable to the situation. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Brett Cammell, Manager Planning Strategies and Economic

Development Contributors Matthew Burnett, Senior Strategic Planning Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Deposited Plan showing proposed road reservation for Allison Drive COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the proposal for dedication of Lot 500 as a road reserve for Allison Drive, Jolimont

be supported, as shown on Attachment 1; (ii) the Minister for Lands and the Department of Planning, Heritage and Lands be

indemnified against any claims for compensation and costs that may reasonably be incurred by the Minister in considering and granting the request to dedicate the land as road, pursuant to section 56(4) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Carried 9/0



DV17.142 JB O'REILLY'S TAVERN, 99 CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PATRON NUMBERS FOR ST PATRICK'S DAY, 17 MARCH 2018

SUMMARY:

The licensee of JB O'Reilly's Tavern has submitted an application to the Town under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 seeking approval to increase the number of patrons attending the venue for St Patrick's Day celebrations on 17 March 2018 only. The applicant seeks to increase the currently approved Extended Trading Permit (ETP) number for the carpark area (as issued by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries). This ETP area will require approval under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 (issued by the Town) for a variation of maximum accommodation numbers for the venue from 278 (the Tavern's usual accommodation number) to 600 for 17 March 2018 only. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

At the ordinary Council meeting of June 2006, Council resolved to recommend to the then Office of Racing Gaming and Liquor, that the increase in patron numbers under the Extended Trading Permit (ETP) be limited to 200. In June 2006 a report was presented to the Development and Environmental Services Committee that provided a detailed overview, including results of a community survey, in relation to numbers of patrons that could be permitted to attend specific events (that required an ETP) at JB O'Reilly's Tavern. These events were proposed to coincide with significant sporting events at Subiaco Oval and could occur up to 10-14 times per year. The report mentioned that the ETP area, ie. carpark area at the tavern, could safely accommodate up to 400 additional patrons with respect to the legislative requirements under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. The report provided a series of recommendations, including operational conditions, one of which was, "Council agrees to 400 patrons being permitted in the carpark area for ETP events".



The Committee put forward and carried an amendment to the recommendation, with respect to the number of patrons permitted in the carpark, and deleted "400" and inserted "200". In June 2006, the Council decision was as follows: “That:- (i) in relation to Extended Trading Permits to use the carpark at JB O’Reilly’s Tavern as

extended drinking area, Council will support the following applications:-

(a) any finals series games for AFL, National Soccer League or Super 14’s played at Subiaco Oval;

(b) any international games played at Subiaco Oval (this relates to games between competing countries, not provincial games such as the Super 14’s competition);

(c) any six other events at Subiaco Oval throughout the year, at the discretion of Tavern Licensee;

(d) St Patrick’s Day; The above events relate to a calendar year. No unused events will be allowed to be carried over to subsequent years, nor can nominated events as in (a) and (b) above be transferred to other events. Any applications for ETP’s outside of the above arrangements must be referred to Council no less than six weeks prior to the event;

(ii) Council agrees to 200 patrons being permitted in the carpark area for ETP events. This

is in addition to the 201 patron limit on the existing Tavern building; (iii) all ETP events are to be subject to the following operational conditions:-

Sufficient, qualified security personnel/crowd controllers – these personnel to be properly informed of their responsibilities in relation to protection of neighbourhood amenity and their area of patrol;

Provide an area of at least 100 m2 for crowd queuing within the carpark area, (rather than queuing occurring on the footpath);

Provide a refuse bin at front entry point for litter and packaged alcohol taken to the premises;

No music or television broadcast to be provided in the extended trading area; At least two security personnel to remain for at least one hour after closing time to

ensure patrons leave the tavern and general area in an orderly fashion; Move marquee, bar area, toilets and other equipment and restore the parking area

on the day after the ETP event; Clean up all rubbish in the area immediately around the tavern and immediate

surrounding streets; Protocol for communication and cooperation between tavern staff and Town of

Cambridge officers; Suitable signage to be provided on site informing patrons of the need to consider

surrounding residents when leaving the tavern; Liaise with Council Rangers with regard to availability of car parking in the area,

particularly with regard to the Town Hall carpark; No sale of packaged liquor during ETP’s; In addition to advising Council, all properties in the streets immediately around the

tavern be notified at the time an application is being made to Liquor Licensing for an ETP;

All health and building requirements being met in relation to toilets, safety of structures (including electrics) etc;



Toilets, which usually number a total of 8, be located in two separate blocks of four and be located away from the bar and main drinking area;

Adequate lighting being provided in the carpark area; Unruly patrons removed from the premises to be properly transported away from

the premises, not left in the neighbourhood to create a danger or disturbance; Where reference in the above requirements is made to ‘the area immediately

around the tavern’, this is deemed to include the following streets:- - Kerr Street (both sides); - Cambridge Street between Abbottsford and Kimberley (both sides) - Holyrood Street (both sides) - Kimberley Street between Railway Parade and Woolwich Street (both sides); (This area equates to the area identified in the survey analysis as ‘close proximity’)

Any breach of conditions could result in suspension or cancellation of the Town’s support for future ETP’s under the management agreement;

These matters shall form the basis for all ETP approvals;

(iv) a Management Plan for ETP events be prepared by the Town, covering all issues

outlined in the (i), (ii) and (iii) above. This plan shall be agreed by the Tavern Licensee; (v) in accordance with Section 5.43 of the Local Government Act 1995, authority be

delegated to the Chief Executive Officer by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to approve ETP applications, made under Clause 61 of the Liquor Licensing Act 1998, which are in compliance with the management plan referred to in (iv) above;

(vi) any review of the management plan, whether of individual matters or in its entirety, will be

subject to further Council consideration. (vii) the management plan to be reviewed at the end of the 2007 AFL season.” Events since 2006: Since 2006, the Town has provided written consent to the Office of Racing and Gaming in relation to ETP applications from JB O'Reilly's Tavern. This consent has included the operational conditions, as approved by Council, and limited the additional number of patrons permitted in the carpark to 200. In January 2017, Paul North, Director of Menapia Pty Ltd (the Tavern's Licensee) spoke to the Town's Administration, in relation to increasing the number of patrons permitted for the upcoming 2017 St Patrick's Day event. During this conversation it was made clear that the limit of 200 was based on a past Council decision, and that Council would be required to consider this matter further if an increase to this number was to be permitted.

DETAILS:

From a legislative perspective the Town is required to consider and apply the provisions of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 to areas that are used for the purpose of public events, or functions, such as that proposed at JB O'Reilly's Tavern for St Patrick's Day. The existing tavern building is approved under these regulations and the current Certificate of Approval allows a maximum accommodation of 278. From a A 'Form 3 - Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval' (as required under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992) has been submitted by the owner Mr Paul North so that



the maximum number of patrons, as permitted under this legislation, can be determined for the carpark area. A scaled site plan showing all proposed structures has been submitted with this application to enable Health Services to undertake this assessment process. The Form 3 application specifically mentions that this 'Variation to Certificate of Approval' applies to the St Patrick's Day event only. It is only applicable to this one day in 2018. From a review of this application and site plan, it has been determined that the currently approved accommodation number within the tavern will remain unchanged at 278 and 322 patrons may be safely accommodated in the carpark area, bringing the total proposed number for the venue to 600. This is an increase of 199 patrons from the previously approved number, 401, which was based on a maximum accommodation within the tavern of 201, plus 200 in the carpark area. Current operational conditions, as previously agreed by Council (27 June 2006) are proposed to be applied to the event, as a minimum requirement. However some conditions, such as toilet numbers and security personnel may need to be increased in accordance with legislative requirements, eg. Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992. The applicant has also specifically requested that one operational condition be reconsidered to allow for piped music to be played 'at a very low volume' in the extended trading area, ie. car park, till 10:00pm. This may be considered under a requirement to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. In addition to these operational conditions the Town's usual process of assessing and approving a public building will be applied. For example, electrical and structural certifications will be required for all electrical installations and temporary structures, fire safety equipment will be required and adequate emergency egress points provided.

COMMENT

The applicant has advised that due to the closure of Subiaco oval JB O'Reilly's Tavern will not be holding numerous functions similar to what was occurring ten years ago. As Rugby and AFL events are no longer being held at Subiaco oval, functions generally are not viable. As such, the overall impact on the surrounding neighbourhood would be significantly reduced. Given that the event has been run well for ten years without complaint, approval for increased numbers the one off St Patrick's Day event may be supported, subject to stringent conditions.


As required under the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992 an amended Certificate of Approval detailing maximum accommodation numbers will be required to be issued for the St Patrick's Day event only. The following day maximum accommodation numbers will revert to their previously approved numbers of 278. These numbers will be mirrored in the Extended Trading Permit issued by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries.






The item meets Goal 3 of the Strategic Community Plan - An active, safe and inclusive community.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. On Monday, 4 December 2017, Community engagement is being carried out to gauge the views of residents in the locality (i.e. that is approximately within 120-150 metres of the premises). Community engagement will close on Monday,18 December 2017. The results will be reported to the December Council meeting. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager John Giorgi, JP, Manager Health and Compliance Services Contributors Steve Cleaver, Health and Compliance Coordinator

Peter Male, Environmental Health Officer

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Car park floor plan. 2. Aerial photo. 3. Aerial photo of extent of consultation


That:- (i) it be noted that prior to granting final approval, the Town will consider the submissions

received as a result of the community engagement to obtain the views of the local residents;

(ii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council gives ‘in-principle’

conditional support for an 'Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval' to be assessed by Health Services and issued with conditions, in accordance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992, for the St Patrick's Day event at JB O'Reilly's Tavern on 17 March 2018;

(iii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the Department

of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries that it is prepared to give ‘in-principle’ conditional support to the Extended Trading Permit to be issued to allow up to 600 patrons maximum (278 patrons internal and 322 patrons in the carpark area) for the St Patrick's Day event on 17 March 2018;

(iv) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the Department

of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries that it is prepared to give ‘in-principle’ conditional support to an Extended Trading Permit to the be issued by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries subject to the St Patrick's Day event on 17 March 2018 complying with the following:

(a) the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;



(b) a minimum of six (6) qualified security personnel/crowd controllers to be provided for the duration of the event– these personnel to be properly informed of their responsibilities in relation to protection of neighbourhood amenity and their area of patrol;

(c) at least four (4) security personnel to remain for at least one hour after closing time to ensure patrons leave the tavern and general area in an orderly fashion;

(d) provision of an area of at least 100 m2 for crowd queuing within the carpark area, (rather than queuing occurring on the footpath);

(e) provision of a waste receptacle at front entry point for litter and packaged alcohol taken to the premises;

(f) moving the marquee, bar area, toilets and other equipment and restore the parking area on the day after the ETP event;

(g) cleaning up all rubbish in the area immediately around the tavern and immediate surrounding streets;

(h) provision of a $1,000 bond to be lodged with the Town, which may be used solely at the Town’s discretion if the Applicant fails to clean up the area or repair any damage to property within 100 metres of the premises;

(i) submission of a Communication Strategy/protocol detailing the cooperation between tavern staff and Town of Cambridge officers and the local residents to be provided and approved by the Town, a minimum of sixty (60) days prior to the event;

(j) provision of suitable signage to be provided on site informing patrons of the need to consider surrounding residents when leaving the tavern;

(k) liaison with Council Rangers with regard to availability of car parking in the area, particularly with regard to the Town Hall carpark;

(l) no sale of packaged liquor during the ETP; (m) in addition to advising the Town, all properties in the streets immediately around the

tavern be notified at the time an application is being made to Liquor Licensing for an ETP and all submissions to be provided to the Town, prior to a final approval being granted;

(n) all health and building requirements being met in relation to toilets, safety of structures (including electrics) etc;

(o) toilets, which consist of not less than a total of 8, be located in two separate blocks of four and be located away from the bar and main drinking area;

(p) adequate lighting being provided in the carpark area to illuminate all areas; (q) unruly patrons removed from the premises to be properly transported away from the

premises, not left in the neighbourhood to create a danger or disturbance; (r) submission of a Management plan detailing the above items (a)-(q) for approval by

the Town, at least six (6) weeks prior to the event and the Applicant giving a written undertaking that he will comply with the Management Plan; and

(v) the applicant be advised any significant breach of conditions may result in suspension or

cancellation of the Town’s support for future ETP’s.



Committee Meeting 12 December 2017 Amendment Moved by Cr McKerracher, seconded by Cr Nelson That clause (g) be amended by adding the words "within 24 hours of the event" and clause (h) be amended by adding the words "at least 14 days prior to the event". Amendment carried 5/0 FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 12 December 2017) It is advised that a survey of residents was sent to owners and occupiers within a 100 m radius of JB O' Reilley's premises on 4 December and closed on 18 December 2017. A total of 350 letters were sent and the results revealed the following: Twenty-nine (29) submissions were received. This is an 8.28% response. Responses are as follows: Q1. Have you had any adverse issues associated with previous events held at JB O'

Reilly's Tavern? Responses: Yes: 10 submissions (30%) No: 20 submissions (70%) Q2. Do you object to the proposed event to be held in the carpark at JB O' Reilly's

Tavern on 17 March 2018? Responses: Yes: 8 submissions (28%) No: 21 submissions (72%) Q3. Do you have any comments or suggestions? Responses: In support 1 response - Support 1 response - happy with one event per year 1 response - one-off ok Opposed: 1 response - strongly object- anti-social behaviour 1 response - clash with Tango Club dance at hall 1 response- urination and bottle thrown over fence 1 response - urinating in front gardens 1 response- noisy, rowdy patrons, damage, parking, litter climbing over fence, traffic, houses sold Neutral 1 response - request parking patrols 1 response- didn't live here last year 1 response- noise to be compliant 1 response - Council should support the majority



Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr McAllister disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "With regard to JB O'Reilly's Tavern, 99 Cambridge Street, West Leederville, I declare that I have an association with the applicant and, as a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality on the matter may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) it be noted that prior to granting final approval, the Town will consider the

submissions received as a result of the community engagement to obtain the views of the local residents;

(ii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council gives ‘in-

principle’ conditional support for an 'Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval' to be assessed by Health Services and issued with conditions, in accordance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992, for the St Patrick's Day event at JB O'Reilly's Tavern on 17 March 2018;

(iii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the

Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries that it is prepared to give ‘in-principle’ conditional support to the Extended Trading Permit to be issued to allow up to 600 patrons maximum (278 patrons internal and 322 patrons in the carpark area) for the St Patrick's Day event on 17 March 2018;

(iv) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the

Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries that it is prepared to give ‘in-principle’ conditional support to an Extended Trading Permit to the be issued by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries subject to the St Patrick's Day event on 17 March 2018 complying with the following:

(a) the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; (b) a minimum of six (6) qualified security personnel/crowd controllers to be

provided for the duration of the event– these personnel to be properly informed of their responsibilities in relation to protection of neighbourhood amenity and their area of patrol;

(c) at least four (4) security personnel to remain for at least one hour after closing time to ensure patrons leave the tavern and general area in an orderly fashion;




(g) cleaning up all rubbish in the area immediately around the tavern and immediate surrounding streets within 24 hours of the event;



(h) provision of a $1,000 bond to be lodged with the Town at least 14 days prior to the event, which may be used solely at the Town’s discretion if the Applicant fails to clean up the area or repair any damage to property within 100 metres of the premises;




(l) no sale of packaged liquor during the ETP; (m) in addition to advising the Town, all properties in the streets immediately

around the tavern be notified at the time an application is being made to Liquor Licensing for an ETP and all submissions to be provided to the Town, prior to a final approval being granted;


(o) toilets, which consist of not less than a total of 8, be located in two separate blocks of four and be located away from the bar and main drinking area;

(p) adequate lighting being provided in the carpark area to illuminate all areas; (q) unruly patrons removed from the premises to be properly transported away

from the premises, not left in the neighbourhood to create a danger or disturbance;

(r) submission of a Management plan detailing the above items (a)-(q) for approval by the Town, at least six (6) weeks prior to the event and the Applicant giving a written undertaking that he will comply with the Management Plan; and

(v) the applicant be advised any significant breach of conditions may result in

suspension or cancellation of the Town’s support for future ETP’s. During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the impact of the proposal on adjoining residents. It was agreed that security should be increased and the total maximum patrons allowed be 500. Amendment Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr Carr That clauses (iii) and (iv)(b) and (c) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (iii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the


(iv) (b) a minimum of nine (9) qualified security personnel/crowd controllers to be




(c) at least six (6) security personnel to remain for at least one hour after closing time to ensure patrons leave the tavern and general area in an orderly fashion;

That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vi) Council conduct an assessment after the event in order to determine any future

applications for this event. During discussion, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (iii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the


Amendment carried 6/3 For: Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell and Timmermanis Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr and McAllister (iv) (b) a minimum of nine (9) qualified security personnel/crowd controllers to be


(c) at least six (6) security personnel to remain for at least one hour after closing

time to ensure patrons leave the tavern and general area in an orderly fashion;

Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell and Timmermanis Against: Cr McAllister (vi) the Council conduct an assessment after the event in order to determine any future

applications for this event. Amendment carried 9/0 Discussion ensued. Cr Bradley suggested that the number of temporary toilets be increased to 10.



Amendment Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Nelson That clause (iv)(o) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (o) toilets, which consist of not less than a total of 10, be located in two separate

blocks of five and be located away from the bar and main drinking area; Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson

and Timmermanis Against: Cr Powell COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) it be noted that prior to granting final approval, the Town will consider the

submissions received as a result of the community engagement to obtain the views of the local residents;

(ii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council gives ‘in-

principle’ conditional support for an 'Application for Variation of Certificate of Approval' to be assessed by Health Services and issued with conditions, in accordance with the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992, for the St Patrick's Day event at JB O'Reilly's Tavern on 17 March 2018;

(iii) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the


(iv) subject to the results of the community consultation, the Council advises the

Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries that it is prepared to give ‘in-principle’ conditional support to an Extended Trading Permit to the be issued by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries subject to the St Patrick's Day event on 17 March 2018 complying with the following:

(a) the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997; (b) a minimum of nine (9) qualified security personnel/crowd controllers to be


(c) at least six (6) security personnel to remain for at least one hour after closing time to ensure patrons leave the tavern and general area in an orderly fashion;






(g) cleaning up all rubbish in the area immediately around the tavern and immediate surrounding streets within 24 hours of the event;

(h) provision of a $1,000 bond to be lodged with the Town at least 14 days prior to the event, which may be used solely at the Town’s discretion if the Applicant fails to clean up the area or repair any damage to property within 100 metres of the premises;




(l) no sale of packaged liquor during the ETP; (m) in addition to advising the Town, all properties in the streets immediately

around the tavern be notified at the time an application is being made to Liquor Licensing for an ETP and all submissions to be provided to the Town, prior to a final approval being granted;


(o) toilets, which consist of not less than a total of 10, be located in two separate blocks of five and be located away from the bar and main drinking area;

(p) adequate lighting being provided in the carpark area to illuminate all areas; (q) unruly patrons removed from the premises to be properly transported away

from the premises, not left in the neighbourhood to create a danger or disturbance;

(r) submission of a Management plan detailing the above items (a)-(q) for approval by the Town, at least six (6) weeks prior to the event and the Applicant giving a written undertaking that he will comply with the Management Plan; and

(v) the applicant be advised any significant breach of conditions may result in

suspension or cancellation of the Town’s support for future ETP’s.

(vi) the Council conduct an assessment after the event in order to determine any future applications for this event.

Carried 5/4 For: Crs Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr and Timmermanis



DV17.143 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2016 - RESULTS OF PUBLIC CONSULTATION PERIOD AND FINAL ADOPTION

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the submissions received as a result of the public consultation on the proposed new Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017 and to adopt the new local Law. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. After a comprehensive review in 2016 of all of its local laws, the Council’s new local laws were adopted at the Council meeting held on 22 November 2016 and as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, all new local laws were published in the Government Gazette, on the 24 January 2017. As required by the legislative process prescribed in Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, a copy was also forwarded to the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (‘the Committee’). On 6 September 2017, the Town received a letter from the Committee which advised that the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 was invalid, as the Governor’s approval was not obtained pursuant to s 3.6 of the Local government Act 1995, to extend the jurisdiction of the local law 200metres from the Town’s western boundary seawards into the Indian Ocean. As a result, the Council recommend the process to make the new local law. The Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 was disallowed on 9 November 2017.



Comment To repeal the existing Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law and adopt the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017, the Town must follow the process of making a local law as prescribed in Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting. As the jurisdiction of the local law is to extend 200m into the Indian Ocean (which is outside the Town’s boundary) a Governor’s Order, as prescribed by s 3.6 of the Local Government Act 1995 was also required to be obtained, prior to the adoption of the proposed local law by the Council. The "Purpose" and "Effect" of the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017 are:- Purpose: The purpose of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of activities and facilities on local government and public property within the district. Effect: The effect of this local law is to establish the requirements with which any persons using or being on local government and public property within the district must comply. Submissions and minor changes At the close of the public consultation period on 24 November 2017, no submissions were received from the general public. The draft local law was submitted to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries and they provided comment and suggested various procedural and formatting changes. The changes suggested by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries are: 1. Deletion of clause 13.4(3) - it is considered this subclause is for guidance and has no

direct legislative effect. This is agreed. 2. Minor edits and formatting of various clauses. These do not alter the substance of the

local law and are considered appropriate.

The following minor changes are recommended by the Town’s Administration: Clause 1.6 Definitions The following new definitions have been inserted, as it is considered that these will assist in the interpretation of the local law: 'article', 'bicycle', 'kerb', 'obstruct' and 'valid'. Clause 4.4(2)(a) - inclusion of the words 'fixture, fitting, chattel or furniture for the use, enjoyment or safety…' Clause 4.4(2)(b) - inclusion of the words 'fixture, fitting, chattel or furniture for the use, enjoyment or safety of any person or building'. Clause 4.6 - amend the definition of 'flora' to insert the words; 'other than plants recognised as weeds'.



Clause 5.7 - to insert a new subclause (1) (2) and (3). These prescribe more clearly the powers and activities of lifeguards and Authorised Persons. Clause 10.1(e) - to amend the wording to include a 'vegetable'. Clause 10.1(e) - to insert a new subclause (i) - to make it an offence for a tree or shrub to overhang a footpath, thoroughfare or local government property in such a manner so as to cause a nuisance, hazard, obstruction or impede a person or vehicle. Clause 11.2(1)- to redraft the clause to make it clearer when a Notice can be issued to remove overhanging branches and shrubs. Schedule- to insert penalties for Clauses 10.1(a) to 10.1 (i), which were inadvertedly omitted from the previous draft local law. As the proposed amendments do not alter the intent of the local law, Council is now in a position to adopt the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017. The proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017, once published in the Government Gazette, will replace the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2001, adopted on 24 April 2001. It is recommended that the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017 be adopted.


Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. This was satisfactorily completed. Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in making a new local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to adopt a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period any submissions received are required to be presented to Council, who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be adopted, with or without any amendments.


There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising and publishing in the Government Gazette the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017 is estimated to be approximately $2,500. The final advertising and gazettal is required to comply with the provisions of Section 3.12(5) and (6) of the Local Government Act 1995.


There are no significant strategic implications in making the new local law. The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023 Our Community Life Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.4: Create and maintain safe environments




Following approval of the Council, at its meeting held on 26 September 2017, the Town gave State wide and local public notice of the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. An advertisement was placed in The West Australian newspaper on 4 October 2017 and the Cambridge Post community newspaper on 4 October 2017. In addition, the advertisement was placed on the Town's website and on the notice boards in the Town's Administration Centre and Library on 4 October 2017. At the close of the public consultation period on 24 November 2017, no submissions were received from the general public. Various procedural and formatting amendments were received from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries which are detailed in Attachment 1. After the close of the statutory consultation period, all submissions received must be presented to Council. A copy of the proposed local law is also required to be sent to the Minister for Local Government. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager John Giorgi, JP, Manager Health and Compliance Services Contributors John Giorgi, JP, Manager Health and Compliance Services

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017 - Marked Version.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the proposed

Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017, as shown in Attachment No. 1 be ADOPTED BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, subject to:-

(a) deletion of page numbers, underlining and all text shown as strike-through, in

the version to be officially published in the Government Gazette; (ii) the Council notes that the 'Purpose' and 'Effect' of the local law being as follows:-

Purpose: The purpose of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of activities and facilities on local government and public property within the district. Effect: The effect of this local law is to establish the requirements with which any persons using or being on local government and public property within the



district must comply; and

(iii) the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to sign and affix the Common Seal to the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2017.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



DV17.144 GRANTHAM STREET, WEMBLEY CAR PARK - INTRODUCTION OF PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND AMENDMENT TO ON-STREET CAR PARKING BAYS IN GRANTHAM AND JERSEY STREETS

SUMMARY:

To approve of a time restriction in the Town of Cambridge Grantham Street Car Park at 215 Jersey Street Wembley and car parking bays on Grantham Street and Jersey Street to prevent the overstaying of all day users and to create turn-over of the car parking bays. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

In August 2017 the Mayor advised of a complaint being received about all day users of the Town of Cambridge Grantham Street Car Park at 215 Jersey Street Wembley staying all day, thereby creating parking congestion and a shortage of car parking bays. The Town’s Ranger Services have investigated the matter.

DETAILS:

The Grantham Street Car Park is located on Jersey Street, near Grantham Street intersection. It is accessible from Jersey Street and Griffiths Lane has seventeen (17) standard bays and 1 ACROD bay. The car park primarily serves the local business.



Grantham Street Car Park- Street parking adjacent to the property: Street parking adjacent to the car park consists of the following:

• 2 x street parking on Jersey Street (no time restrictions) • 3 x street parking on Grantham Street (no time restrictions) • 1 x motorcycle parking on Grantham (no time restrictions)

Survey: Between the period of 5th October 2017 to 12th October 2017, a survey was conducted by Ranger Services with the various business owners located at the business complex at 46-56 Grantham Street, Wembley to ascertain the individual parking needs for each company and to see if changes (i.e. such as time restrictions) would benefit their business. The following businesses were surveyed: 1. Swimmers World (Supplies swimwear and swimming products. 2. Breathe Beauty (Beautician) 3. Ginger B (Small goods shop) 4. Studio On Grantham (Hairdressers) 5. Captain Peter's Fish & Chips 6. Monsterella Pizza Survey Results and Comments: The following comments were provided: 1. Swimmer's World People park out the back all day and catch the bus into Perth for work. School parents park at the rear of the property when dropping/picking up kids from school and sometimes can park there for hours at a time.



There is a property getting subdivided/built along Griffiths Lane. The workers are parking in the carpark. 2. Breathe Beauty No complaints. 3. Ginger B No complaints. It is a fairly new business. 3. Studio On Grantham No complaints. 4. Captain Peter's Fish & Chips Evening parking is the issue for his customers. There are only 2 street parking locations in front of shop, and they're usually taken up by customers from the pizza shop. The carpark is too dark in the evening. Customers have to park out the back and walk around in limited lighting. 5. Monsterella Evening car parking can be busy and more parking bays would be beneficial. Suggestions from business owners 1. Swimmer's World The business owner put forward the suggestion of putting in parking time restrictions. 2. Breathe Beauty Does not want time restrictions. Happy with current situation. 3. Ginger B Does not want time restrictions. Mentioned the possibility of allocated parking bays for each company. 4. Studio On Grantham Does not want time restrictions. Happy with current situation NB: Though if a time restriction were implemented, it would have to be a minimum of 4 hours as some of their customers can take over 3.5 hours to have their hair done. 5. Captain Peter's Fish & Chips Mentioned the possibility of allocated parking bays for each company. Lighting needs to be addressed in the carpark. On 30 November 2017, the proprietor, Mr Yang stated he would like Grantham Street to be only 15 minute bays as his customers call ahead before picking up usually. He sees the Jersey Street bays as more relating to Monsterella Pizza- therefore did not make any comments. 6. Monsterella Suggested the possibility of changing the carpark to a one way carpark with parallel parking on both sides. A vehicle would enter from the Jersey Street side and exit from Griffiths Lane. This would increase the amount of parking for customers. On 30 November 2017, the Proprietor, stated he would like the three (3) car parking bays on Grantham Street be restricted to 15 minutes or 30 minutes maximum at all times and the two (2) car parking bays on the west side of Jersey Street, adjunct to the businesses be restricted to 1 hour at all times..



Ranger Survey Each time a Ranger visited the site, there was usually available parking at the front and rear of the property. The only time the carpark being full was in the evenings when the pizza shop and the fish and chip shop opened. All business owners with the exception of the Swimmer's World shop owner are happy with the current day parking. The evening parking is crowded, due to the pizza shop and fish and chip shop. Photographs were taken and are shown in Attachment No: 1. COMMENT: Time restrictions Time restrictions would be difficult to implement without causing issues for some business customers, due to the differing nature of all the businesses. The allocation of specific car bays for each business is not supported. Day Time: A minimum of a 4 hour time restriction would have to be allowed due to the hairdressers having customers stay for lengthy periods of time. Evening Time: The car park is busy in the evenings, and the introduction of short-term (15 minute or 30minute bays) may be beneficial. This is supported by the proprietor of the Fish and Chip Shop and Monsterella Pizza Shop. The evening has not presented a problem with vehicles overstaying in the car park, therefore no time restriction is considered necessary. Obtaining turnover of the car parking bays would benefit the take-away food premises. One Way Diagonal parking Diagonal parking would increase the number of car bays by approximately 9 - this would benefit the evening parking issues for the pizza shop and fish and chip shop. When designing the layout of the parallel carpark, delivery trucks would have to be taken into account as they unload in the rear carpark. The introduction of one way diagonal parking would need to be investigated. There are no funds on the Budget 2017-18 to do this. On-street Car parking The introduction of time restrictions of thirty (30) minutes for the three (3) car parking bays on Grantham Street and two (2) car parking bays on Jersey Street from 6pm – midnight is recommended, as this will provide for a turn-over of the car parking for the take-away food businesses. Directional Signage The erection of directional signs on Grantham Street to show the car park is recommended. Site works at alongside Griffiths Lane. Rangers will have to monitor the site whilst site works are being done at the property next to Griffiths Lane to make sure that the construction workers are not interfering with the surrounding business's customers. There are site works at the rear of 64 Alexander Street (the property is being subdivided).



Site works access is only from Griffiths Lane. Goods being delivered and workmen parking in laneway or carpark may be an issue over the next 5-8 months until the property is completed.


The proposed parking restriction amendments are in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.22 (i)(b) - parking restrictions shall be reviewed when considered necessary by the Town. Any proposal to change parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council as required by Clause 2.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016.


If approved, the erection of news signs will cost approximately $2,500. In addition, the repainting of the line marking will cost approximately $1500.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1: Plan for commercial development within the Town


This matter has been assessed under the Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which local community consultation was required. The local business proprietors were consulted.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Attachment No: 1- Photographs showing number of vehicles in the car park. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) a maximum time period of four (4) hours for Monday to Saturday from 8.00am –

5.30pm be introduced into the Grantham Street Car Park; (ii) the three (3) car parking bays on Grantham Street be changed from unrestricted to

1/4P from 8.00am to 5.30pm at all times and two (2) car parking bays on the west side of Jersey Street be changed from unrestricted to one (1) hour from 6pm – midnight at all times;

(iii) new signage be erected in the Grantham Street car Park and in Grantham and

Jersey Streets, to reflect the new restrictions;



(iv) new directional signage on Grantham Street be erected to improve identification of the car park; and

(v) local business proprietors and the community be advised of the Council decision. Crs Bradley and Everett left the meeting at 7.37 pm Carried 7/0



DV17.145 REVIEW OF ON-STREET PARKING RESTRICTIONS AND RESIDENTIAL AND VISITOR PARKING PERMITS IN WEST LEEDERVILLE AND WEMBLEY

SUMMARY:

As Subiaco Oval (Domain Stadium) will no longer be used for Australian Rules Football (AFL) fixtures, it is considered appropriate to review the current parking restrictions in West Leederville and Wembley. It is recommended to amend the current time restrictions from being applicable at all hours on all streets where this currently exists in West Leederville and Wembley, to be applicable only between 8.00am to 5.30am Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12 noon on Saturdays. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Subiaco Oval (Domain Stadium) has been used for AFL games for almost thirty years. In response to large crowds and to minimise the impact on the amenity of the area and residents, time restrictions were introduced, together with paid parking in specific streets. In addition, residential and visitor parking Permits were introduced in most streets in West Leederville and Wembley. A list of streets is shown at Attachment No: 1.

DETAILS:

Parking in the Town has become a very competitive over the years and it is a matter that causes considerable complaints to both residents and business proprietors alike. On-street parking: Parking controls are put in place to: • manage the sharing of on-street parking • give access to local businesses • maintain traffic flows • protect residential amenity.



The vitality of businesses in the Town depends on easy access to short term car parking bays. Therefore it is important to keep the bays turning over. It is appropriate to periodically review parking restrictions in response to changing conditions and community feedback. The relocation of AFL events is a significant change and it is appropriate to carry out a review of the on-street parking restrictions. In addition to the stadium relocating their AFL fixtures, Princess Margaret Hospital will be relocating in mid 2018. This may also reduce the need for car parking along Railway Parade. Paid parking- ‘At all times’ Restrictions: The Council introduced paid parking restrictions to apply ‘at all times’, in an attempt to better manage the influx of vehicles driven by persons attending the stadium. There is no current reason to continue with paid parking for these restrictions and therefore, it is recommended that the ‘all hours’ restriction be removed and replaced with 8.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12noon on Saturdays, where this paid parking currently exists. These restrictions (mostly paid) currently exist in the following streets: No: Street Zone No of bays

available Marked or unmarked bays

Restrictions

1. Cambridge Holyrood to Loftus 18 14 unmarked 4 marked

4x2P

2. Connolly Barrett to Cambridge 17 marked 2P ticket 3. Harrogate Street 35

4 m/c marked 16x10P

4. Holyrood 46 unmarked 14x2P ticket 5. Joseph Stent lane- Cambridge 11 marked 11x2P 6. Oxford Close 58 marked Removing 5.30-

10pm and 12noon to 10pm Sat, Sun and P/H

7. Mc Court Railway Pde –Cambridge St 49 marked 49x2P 8. Railway Pde Southport-Bamford Lane(Nth) 4 marked 4x1/4P 9. Railway Pde Southport-Abbotsford Sth 15 unmarked 15x2P 10. Railway Pde Southport-Abbotsford Nth 8 marked 7x1P

1x1/4P 11. Railway Pde Mc Court-Blencowe Sth 17 unmarked 17x2P 12 Railway Pde Mc Court-Blencowe Nth 7 unmarked Residential Permits

only 13. Railway Pde Abbotsford-Salvado Sth 17 unmarked 17x10P 14. Railway Pde Northwood-Blencowe Sth 7 marked 7x1P 15. Railway Pde Rosslyn-Kimberley Nth 8 5xunmarked

3xmarked 5x2P 3x1/4P

16. Railway Pde Rosslyn-Kimberley Sth 7 5xunmarked 2xmarked

5x2P 3x1/4P

17. Southport Railway Pde-Cambridge 22 21xunmarked 21x2P 18. Station- Cambridge- Barrett 14 6xmarked

8xunmarked 14x2P

19. Station- Salvado- Barrett 24 24xmarked

24x2P

Total 388 On-street parking ‘at all times’- unpaid: There are numerous streets in both west Leederville and Wembley where there are restrictions ‘at all times’, however, unpaid, for streets, including residential streets. It is recommended that the Council approve of the Town’s Administration to carry out a review of the on-street parking restrictions and whether they can be justified or warranted. In this regard, it is proposed to form an in-house Working Group comprising:



1. Health and Compliance Services (including ranger services) 2. Strategic Planning and economic Development; 3. Infrastructure Services; and 4. Communications (as required).

Subject to the Council’s approval, the Working Group will be tasked with the responsibility to prepare: 1. Terms of Reference; 2. Criteria for the restriction; 3. Indicative Timeline 4. Community Engagement Strategy and Plan; 5. Indicative costings.

The above will be reported to the Council for approval, in February 2018. Residential and Visitor parking Permits Parking permits are issued to eligible permanent residents and their visitors for the parking area where they live. Permits exempt residents and visitors from time limits and parking meter fees in most nearby parking spaces where the signage includes the words 'permit holders excepted'.

The Town currently has issued the following Resident and Visitor Permits: A detail list is shown in Attachment 2.

Suburb and street Number of residences

with Permits

Residential Permits

Visitor Permits

Verge only Permits

West Leederville (33 streets) 927 573 1,720 251 Wembley (20 streets) 323 103 584 110 Jolimont (2 streets) 37 4 118 28 Floreat (3 streets) 23 7 46 nil City Beach (1 street) 2 0 2 0 Total 1,310 687 2,470 389 In-House working Group It is recommended that a review be carried out of the number of Residential and Visitor Permits issued and whether they can be justified or warranted.


The recommendations are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions", and Policy 5.2.17 Road Design. This report is also guided by Council Parking Restrictions Policy 5.2.22 and the following clauses:- • Parking Restrictions shall be reviewed when -

(a) requested by the adjacent property owner in writing; (b) considered necessary by the Town; (c) requested by other persons in writing.



Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with Clause 2.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016.


Amendment of signage can be completed using existing operational maintenance budgets for signage. There are sufficient finds in the Budget for this. Each new sign will cost approximately $50 to amend and be erected. A number of signs can be amended by using stickers to change the details, thereby saving costs. The loss of income to the Council by Subiaco Oval relocating its AFL fixtures to Burswood Stadium will be approximately $57,000. The loss of income by amending the time restriction from ‘at all times’, in the streets identified in this report is unknown, but it is considered that not many motorists currently pay after hours, so the loss would be minimal. The potential loss in parking revenue from the Ticket Machine has not been evaluated as it was not operational and only a best estimate could be given. However, the potential benefits to the business proprietors in the area will be improved. This is in keeping with the principles of economic development. There are no specific funds in the Budget 2017-18, as such, it is proposed to carry out the reviews in-house.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1: Plan for commercial development within the Town


It is important that a Community Engagement Strategy and Plan be prepared before any review is commenced, so as to communicate with the Town’s residents and business proprietors All potentially affected residents and business proprietors should be have been formally notified and informed regarding the proposed review and be offered the opportunity to provide feedback to the Town.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Register of Street Restrictions 2. Register of Residential and Visitor Permits



Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Powell disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Review of On-Street Parking Restrictions and Residential and Visitor Parking Permits in West Leederville and Wembley, I declare that I live in Blencowe Street and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Cr McAllister disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Review of On-Street Parking Restrictions and Residential and Visitor Parking Permits in West Leederville and Wembley, I declare that I work from premises in Rosslyn Street and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 7.39 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the restriction be amended from ‘at all times’ to 8.00am - 5.30pm Monday to Friday

and 8.00am to 12noon on Saturday, in the following streets:- No: Street Zone No of bays

available Marked or unmarked bays

Restrictions

1. Cambridge Holyrood to Loftus 18 14 unmarked 4 marked

4x2P

2. Connolly Barrett to Cambridge 17 marked 2P ticket 3. Harrogate

Street 35

4 m/c marked 16x10P

4. Holyrood 46 unmarked 14x2P ticket 5. Joseph Stent lane- Cambridge 11 marked 11x2P 6. Oxford Close 58 marked Removing 5.30-

10pm and 12noon to 10pm Sat, Sun and P/H

7. Mc Court Railway Pde –Cambridge St

49 marked 49x2P

8. Railway Pde Southport-Bamford Lane(Nth)

4 marked 4x1/4P

9. Railway Pde Southport-Abbotsford Sth

15 unmarked 15x2P

10. Railway Pde Southport-Abbotsford Nth

8 marked 7x1P 1x1/4P

11. Railway Pde Mc Court-Blencowe Sth 17 unmarked 17x2P 12 Railway Pde Mc Court-Blencowe Nth 7 unmarked Residential

Permits only 13. Railway Pde Abbotsford-Salvado Sth 17 unmarked 17x10P 14. Railway Pde Northwood-Blencowe

Sth 7 marked 7x1P

15. Railway Pde Rosslyn-Kimberley Nth 8 5xunmarked 3xmarked

5x2P 3x1/4P

16. Railway Pde Rosslyn-Kimberley Sth 7 5xunmarked 2xmarked

5x2P 3x1/4P

17. Southport Railway Pde-Cambridge 22 21xunmarked 21x2P



18. Station- Cambridge- Barrett 14 6xmarked

8xunmarked 14x2P

19. Station- Salvado- Barrett 24 24xmarked

24x2P

Total 388 (ii) the requirement for the parking fee from the streets detailed in clause (i) above

outside of the hours 8.00am -5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8.00am to 12 noon on Saturday be revoked;

(iii) a review of the on-street parking restrictions in West Leederville and Wembley be

carried out; and (iv) a review of the number of Residential and Visitor Permits in the Town be carried

out. Carried 8/0 Cr Bradley returned to the meeting at 7.40 pm



DV17.146 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 2017

SUMMARY:

To report on matters which have been determined under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Planning and Development matters. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







DETAILS:

The following items were determined under delegated authority, in accordance with Local Planning Policy 2.6 'Delegation of Authority': City Beach: • 25 Dilkara Way, City Beach - Two Storey Dwelling; • 10 Camborne Street, City Beach - Single Storey Dwelling; • 10 Orana Crescent, City Beach - Pergola, Garden Store, Kitchenette and Disabled Toilet • 11 Peasholm Street, City Beach - Alteration to Street Façade (new door and window) ;

and • 21 Gayton Road, City Beach - Patio. Mount Claremont • 36 Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two Storey Dwelling; and • 52E Biara Gardens, Mount Claremont - Two Storey Dwelling. Floreat • 14 Floreat Avenue, Floreat - Patio; • 152 Alderbury Street, Floreat -Carport; • 4 Caithness Road, Floreat - Single Storey Dwelling; and • 233B Salvado Road, Floreat - Patio.



Wembley • 46A Simper Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling; • 119 Holland Street, Wembley - Carport; and • 174 Daglish Street, Wembley - Kitchen, Family Meals, laundry and master bedroom

ensuite additions and alfresco. West Leederville • 19 Lake Monger Drive, West Leederville - Pergola; and • 80 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Additions and Alterations. Applications for Review (Appeals) - received No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal for decisions of the Council during November 2017. Ongoing applications for review (Appeals): • 8 Dandaloo Street, City Beach - Full hearing scheduled for 21 December 2017. • 40 Challenger Parade, City Beach - Mediation held on 1 December 2017. SAT ordered

that the applicant submit amended plans to the Town by 15 January 2018, and Council to reconsider its previous decision on or before 27 February 2018, under section 31 of the SAT Act.

• 78 Holland Street, Wembley - SAT hearing scheduled for 8 December 2017. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Contributors Chris Schaffner, Planning and Business Systems Support

Administration Officer COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications determined under delegated authority for the period ending 31 November 2017 be received. Carried 9/0



DV17.147 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY REPORT - NOVEMBER 2017

SUMMARY

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in November 2017. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of November 2017. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. November

2017 November

2016 Financial Year

to Date 2017/2018

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2016/2017

Building Permits (Certified) 40 39 179 184 Building Permits (Uncertified)

11 16 72 102

Demolition Permits 8 6 31 22 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 0 8 4

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 3 1

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

4 2 10 21

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

1 0 6 2

Total 65 63 309 336 Value of Construction $12,876,148 $11,745,025 $53,988,588 $101,870,267



OFFICER INVOLVEMENT: Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery, Director Planning and Development Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja, Manager Development Contributors Jacqui Fielding, Building Administration Officer COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the month of November 2017 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 9/0


H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\C CR.DOCX 101

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee held on Monday 11 December 2017 was submitted as under:

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Community and Resources Committee open at 6.00 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Andres Timmermanis (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 8.16 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.03 pm 8.16 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.00 pm 8.16 pm Cr Louis Carr 6.00 pm 8.16 pm Cr Jo McAllister 6.00 pm 8.16 pm Observers: Cr Ian Everett Cr Jane Powell Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets Walter Van Der Loo, Manager Infrastructure Parks Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.16 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Nil



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item CR17.181 - Mr Chris Buckles, City Beach Tennis Club Mrs Sharon Smailes, 37 Branksome Gardens, City Beach Item CR17.191 Mr David Read, TPG


That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 20 November 2017 as contained in the November 2017 Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Item CR17.176 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest Item CR17.183 - Cr Everett - Impartiality Interest Item CR17.184 - Cr Carr, Everett and McAllister - Financial Interest Item CR17.187 - Mr Jason Buckley, CEO - Impartiality Interest Item CR17.194 - Cr Everett - Financial Interest Item CR17.195 - Cr Carr - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



CR17.176 GREGORY STREET-RUISLIP STREET INTERSECTION TREATMENT

SUMMARY:

A design has been prepared which aims to improve intersection safety at the Ruislip Street/Gregory Street intersection. The intersection has been identified for improvement in the 2017-2018 budget. After a period of public consultation, the initial design has been modified to incorporate resident's concerns about road widening and the loss of verge Bottle Brush trees. The revised proposed design now only incorporates construction of a new raised plateau on Ruislip Street east of Gregory Street. This plateau replaces the existing flush nibbed island treatment. In conjunction with this plateau, consideration will be given to establishment of a brown asphalt paved entry statement at the intersection with works being deferred to the 2018/2019 budget and incorporated in a major asphalt resurfacing project on Ruislip Street between Gregory Street and Kimberley Street. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: As part of the Town’s commitment to improving road safety, the intersection of Gregory Street/Ruislip Street was identified for improvements by Council at a cost of $80,000 and adopted within the 2017/2018 financial budget. Ruislip Street is a local distributor road east of Harborne Street, while Gregory Street is a local access street. Both streets have been identified in the draft 5 year Bike Plan 2017 as principal bicycle routes. Over the last 10 years, the Town has received 3 formal requests for intersection safety improvements at Gregory Street/Ruislip Street. While both roads have some degree of traffic calming, the eastern angled part of the intersection and the traffic flow in AM peak southbound down Gregory Street and then west bound along Ruislip Street has resulted in an intersection which relates awkwardly to some motorists. Corner cutting has been observed by officers of the Town.



Since the Town was formed in 1994, the Town has been prioritising road safety improvements under Black Spot programs – State and Federal, using a benefit cost ratio (BCR) process. The aim is to minimise and reduce the number of severe crashes post treatment by using engineering experience and traffic skills with directly targeted countermeasures. Some examples of the countermeasures used are:- • roundabouts; • traffic signals; • traffic calming devices; • pre-deflection treatments; • road closures and partial closures; • raising the priority at un-signalised intersections by installing splitter islands on the

approaches; and • chanellisation measures. The success of the Black Spot program in delivering safe road and intersection treatments has necessitated the exploration of proactive intersection improvements at sites which do not have a high BCR (Benefit Cost Ratio). Gregory Street/Ruislip Street is one such intersection and was therefore included in the 2017/2018 budget program. Over the last 5 years 2012 -2016, nil reported crashes resulted at the intersection of Gregory Street/Ruislip Street. A number of options were investigated in order to improve the safety at the intersection. DETAILS: Design investigation considered the following treatments:- 1. A roundabout treatment. 2. Installation with necessary widening for splitter islands on 3 approaches. There is an

existing pedestrian refuge island on the eastern Ruislip Street leg. 3. Installation of one pedestrian refuge island on the Ruislip Street western leg, with

widening and replacement of a nibbed/central island treatment on the eastern Ruislip Street leg with a plateau.



The existing intersection traffic control is managed by use of 'Give Way' signs on Ruislip Street with Gregory Street the through road. It was considered excessive and impractical to propose a suitable treatment with the first two options, therefore option 3 was proposed (Attachment 1 Plan E 268 17 04) as it addressed the tendency for motorists traveling southbound along Gregory Street and then travelling west bound along Ruislip Street to cut the corner at a higher than acceptable speed. Furthermore, recognising that Gregory Street has plateaus north and south of the Ruislip Street intersection, it was logical to not add any more treatments along Gregory Street at the Ruislip Street intersection. The observation by Town’s officers of a number of pedestrians who use the western side of Gregory Street also reinforced the need for addition of a pedestrian refuge island on Ruislip Street west of Gregory Street. It is evident from the proposed design Plan E 268 17 04 that 2 Bottle Brush trees will need to be removed as part of the widening area south of Ruislip Street west of Gregory Street. Minor road widening was required in order to sufficiently provide enough space for a pedestrian refuge island while also carefully transitioning with tapers on each side of Ruislip Street. Part of the proposal as shown in Plan E 268 17 04 is to replace the flush nibbed/central island treatment approximately 60 metres east of Gregory Street along Ruislip Street with a raised plateau. The proposed Plan E 268 17 04 (refer Attachment 3) which includes road widening of Ruislip Street west of Gregory Street was distributed to the directly affected owners/residents for a two-week period ending 7 November 2017. Furthermore, site meetings were held with some of the owners in order to gauge comments and support. Three adjacent owners presented comments. Response 1 from Resident of Ruislip Street (west of Gregory Street) In its current format I strongly oppose the proposal to alter the intersection for the following reasons:- 1. There has not been a documented accident at the intersection in the last five years so

evidence does not support the need for any alteration, a fact acknowledged by Mr. _____ at our on-site meeting on Thursday October 12th.

2. The proposal has earmarked the removal of two mature bottlebrush trees on the south

western corner of the intersection which currently provides a natural buffer to vehicular and pedestrian traffic and adds significantly to the amenity of the streetscape.

3. The tapering of the resumption of the verge is proposed to commence thirty five (35)

metres from the intersection with the potential to see the loss of several residential parking spaces along the road and verge. At our meeting Mr. _____ was unable to provide details as to the exact number of parking bays that could be affected but acknowledged that it was highly likely that some would be. This information had not been included in the letter from the Town of Cambridge.



4. I was informed by Mr _____ that it is the intention of the Town of Cambridge to resurface

the section of Ruislip and Gregory Streets involving the intersection in a couple of years' time and that some of the current proposed alteration may have to be removed or modified to facilitate that. If that is the case I would question the economic sense in spending $80,000 now only to later change any proposed modifications when the resurfacing is done.

My family and I have lived on the corner of Gregory and Ruislip Streets for over 30 years and we would be the first to support any initiative that made for a safer community environment however the proposal to widen the intersection, remove trees, resume significant areas of verge and reduce residential parking does not achieve that objective. Response 2 from Resident of Gregory Street (west of Gregory Street) Hereunder is the message (and attached photos) we received yesterday from the agent managing 37 Gregory Street for us. You will see it mirrors our own objections to the proposal to widen the intersection of Gregory and Ruislip. For what it’s worth, we also own 81 Ruislip and object to the proposed road works on the grounds that it will impact severely on the appearance and value of the property. However, the biggest impact will be suffered to 37 Gregory, which will have its presentation/appearance to Ruislip made very bare and stark, due to the proposal to unnecessarily remove the very attractive bottlebrush trees on the street verge, detracting from the streetscape and street appeal and the occupier’s privacy and so significantly reduce the property’s value. The proposed so-called “eyebrow” kerb realignment outside 37 Gregory Street will also be a problem for us as it will prevent any off-street parking outside our house. Perhaps our biggest complaint is the lack of need to change the road pattern on the intersection at all. Indeed, not one of the owners of near-by property involved have requested any such work. Finally, I think it is ludicrous that Council is encouraging traffic on Ruislip Street, rather than discouraging it. Encouraging traffic on Ruislip and leading it down to the extremely busy intersection with Harborne Street., which carries such a very heavy volume of traffic is extremely undesirable and tolerating a bus service to do the same is even more so. Turning the section of Ruislip between Gregory and Harborne into a cul-de-sac would be a far better traffic solution. Finally, should the proposal go ahead, I ask that the bottlebrush trees mentioned above be retained as there is no need for their removal if they are kept pruned – which I undertake so to do – as they have grown unnecessarily over-large over many years. Response 3 from Resident of Gregory Street (west of Gregory Street) 1. I support the planned improvements. 2. Following the removal of the existing path on the south eastern corner of the intersection,

I assume there will be landscaping and planting of the affected area and surrounds to blend it into the existing planted area.

3. My children walk to the bus stop on Harborne Street every school day. I assume there

will be safe temporary footpaths provided when changes are being made to create the new permanent footpaths on the western part of Ruislip Street.



Comment Given the major concerns regarding the effect to amenity expressed by the adjacent owners directly affected by the road widening along Ruislip Street west of Gregory Street, the proposed design has been revised and amended to solely incorporate the replacement of the nibbed/island treatment with a plateau as shown in (Attachment 2) Plan E 268 17 06. The cost to remove the existing brick paving and replace with an asphalt plateau is estimated to cost $30,000. The existing brick paved nibbed/island treatment needs replacement and was originally installed in a 1988 traffic study.

Future designs can consider other type of intersection treatments after the Town's 5-Year Bike Plan 2017 is considered by Council. There will be opportunity to review traffic along Ruislip Street (and its side streets) which has been identified as a potential Bicycle Boulevard and the eastern side of Gregory Street as a significant future bike route. The Council is yet to formally endorse the 5-Year Bike Plan 2017 (Refer Report CR17.62 May 2017), however, it is recognised that a bi product of introducing Bicycle Boulevards, is that the road becomes more of a shared zone with speeds predominantly around 30 Kph - the ideal for cyclists and motorists to share the road. An alternative option for consideration as a pro-active approach which recognises the current lack of support from adjacent owners may be to establish a raised intersection treatment with brown asphalt along similar lines to what has been installed in Scarborough on Manning Street. A similar treatment was supported by Council in July 2017 for the Ruislip/Holland intersection (Report CR17.104). This project was submitted as a Black Spot road safety treatment which achieved a BCR of 3.39. Main Roads WA have supported this project with a budget of $48,000 and grant of $32,000.



This concept design is presented in the photograph below:-

A similar treatment has been installed in Cambridge on Northwood Street at the Clune Avenue intersection. If the option to install the raised entry statement pavement over the Ruislip/Gregory intersection and replacement of the existing brick pavement entry statement with a raised plateau is supported, it would be desirable to defer the works until 2018/19. During 2018/19 the Town will receive a Rehabilitation Grant from Main Roads WA for asphalt resurfacing of Ruislip Street between Gregory Street and Kimberley Street. The total project budget is $494,000 which will attract a 2/3 funding grant of $329,333. With the size of this project, the intersection works at Gregory/Ruislip and raised plateaux to replace the existing brick paved entry statement can be more efficiently completed. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Policy No. 5.2.17 (a) Road Design Standards indicate that "design and construction be compatible with best modern practice and design". FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: In the Town's current approved budget for 2017/2018, $80,000 has been approved for construction of the Gregory Street/Ruislip Street intersection works. This can be carried forward to assist in construction in 2018/2019. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy 5.2: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the Town.



COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "CONSULT" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making". The results of this process have been detailed in the report.

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Plan E 286 17 04 2. Plan E 286 17 06 3. Consultation letter to adjacent owners Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to a speed plateau at the Gregory Street/Ruislip Street intersection, I declare that I sold a property to the owner of 37 Gregory Street and was also employed by him from 1978 to 1981 and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) a speed plateau on Ruislip Street approximately 60 metres east of Gregory Street -

replacing the existing central island nibbed treatment as per Plan E 268 17 06 within the 2018/2019 financial budget year;

(ii) a design be prepared and presented to Main Roads WA for approval for a raised

intersection treatment for the Ruislip and Gregory Streets intersection; and

(iii) items (i) and (ii) be implemented in 2018/19 budget as part of the asphalt resurfacing project for Ruislip Street between Gregory Street and Kimberley Street.

Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Bradley That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That:- (i) a design be prepared and presented to Main Roads WA for approval for a raised

intersection treatment for the Ruislip and Gregory Streets intersection as per Plan E 268 17 06; and

(ii) item (i) be implemented in 2018/19 budget as part of the asphalt resurfacing project for

Ruislip Street between Gregory Street and Kimberley Street. Amendment carried 5/0



Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Carr disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to a speed plateau at the Gregory Street/Ruislip Street intersection, I declare that I sold a property to the owner of 37 Gregory Street and was also employed by him from 1978 to 1981 and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) a design be prepared and presented to Main Roads WA for approval for a raised

intersection treatment for the Ruislip and Gregory Streets intersection as per Plan E 268 17 06; and

(ii) item (i) be implemented in 2018/19 budget as part of the asphalt resurfacing project

for Ruislip Street between Gregory Street and Kimberley Street. Carried 9/0



CR17.177 INFRASTRUCTURE PARKS PROPOSED 2018-2019 BUDGET NON- DISCRETIONARY WORKS

SUMMARY: This report outlines the strategic drivers for Infrastructure Parks capital works and summarises non-discretionary works proposed for the 2018/19 financial year to ensure appropriate service level provisions to the community whilst managing assets in a sustainable manner. The proposed works identified in this report will help inform the formal budget process for future consideration by Council. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: Infrastructure Parks currently manages over 475 hectares of parks, sportsgrounds, landscaped road reserves, remnant bushland areas, wetlands and coastal dunes (excluding the Wembley Golf Course). Expenditure in Infrastructure Parks falls within three category types:- • Capital Works (Capital Budget) - expenditure over a particular value to upgrade or renew

assets or provide new infrastructure; • Non-Capital Works (Operating Budget) - program expenditure or non-recurrent

expenditure not resulting in capitalised outcomes; and • Maintenance (Operating Budget) - recurrent operational expenditure to service and

maintain the open space or asset.



DETAILS: Preparation of the proposed Infrastructure Parks Capital and Non-Capital works items for the 2018/19 budget is impacted by a number of key considerations:- 1. A key phase in the implementation of the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework is

currently underway:- a. ongoing refinement of the Town's Community Strategic Plan and Corporate

Business Plan is being undertaken. The plans will be informed by direction and feedback from the community, including regarding service levels. Outcomes of these processes over the next 12 months and subsequent Council consideration may have an impact on strategic directions, key initiatives and service levels that are likely to impact Infrastructure Parks projects; and

b. the development of an Asset Management Plan is underway and is being informed in part by a core asset database for all the Towns assets compiled in AssetFinda. The database captures critical information regarding existing assets including life expectancy, asset condition and replacement value. Asset management programs will become better informed as this database is refined over time.

2. Two of the Town's most significant park assets - Lake Monger and Perry Lakes - are currently or shortly to be the subject of consultancies which will influence future management and development works in these areas.

3. City Beach and Floreat Beach are major destinations in the Town and master plans for

the open space areas are recommended to be prepared or reviewed to help inform any future major works in these areas.

4. A number of informing strategies or strategic frameworks are being developed or will

commence shortly and will likely influence future capital and non-capital works requirements. These include:- a. Local Planning Strategy (underway); b. Sustainability Strategy (budgeted for 2017/18 financial year); c. Public Open Space Strategy (budgeted for 2017/18 financial year); d. Urban Forest Strategy (budgeted for 2017/18 financial year); and e. Natural Areas Strategy - bushland, wetlands and coastal areas (budgeted for

2017/18 financial year). Works can be generally broken into two categories:- 1. Non-discretionary Works - These are works required to sustainably maintain appropriate

service levels of the Town's assets. These works comprise primarily of asset replacement programmes and major maintenance works not normally allowed for as part of programmed and reactive maintenance operations. Assets include both built elements and natural elements i.e. trees, gardens, etc. There are several potential direct and indirect impacts if non-discretionary works are not carried out or delayed including:- a. reduction in service levels; b. increase in maintenance costs; c. increase in reactionary work impacting resources; and d. backlog of works putting upward pressure on future budgets.



2. Discretionary Works - These are optional works the Council may choose to carry out to

greatly improve service levels and/or develop a more sustainable, robust and resilient asset base. These works tend to be the result of improvement or upgrade programmes or where totally new works are required.

Non-discretionary Works Preliminary data collection for all Infrastructure Parks assets has been carried out up to 2017 and is included in the AssetFinda database. Assets created in the 2016/17 financial year are progressively being included. The Assetfinda database is under ongoing review and refinement to ensure all assets have been picked up and critical information regarding asset condition, expected asset life and replacement value is as up-to-date as possible. The current data in AssetFinda, whilst not 100% complete, is useful in gaining an insight into the Town's asset replacement requirements. The data in the table below is broken down into several broad related asset groups, indicating their approximate average base life expectancy (i.e. how long they are expected to last from new) and their replacement value.

Infrastructure Parks Asset Category1

Average Life Expectancy

(x)

Total Asset Category Value2

(y)

Average Yearly Replacement Value

(=y/x) Irrigation (inc. bores, pumps, etc.) 20 years $9.0M $450K Car parks3 50 years $8.6M See note below Paths and paved areas (in Parks) 50 years $5.7M $114K Sports Facilities 25 years $2.4M $96K Lighting 20 years $1.8M $90K Furniture (Inc. shade/ shelters) 15 years $1.8M $120K Play Equipment 15 years $1.7M $113K Fencing/Walls 30 years $0.5M $17K Other/Miscellaneous 20 years $0.1M $5K TOTAL $31.6M >$1M

1 Trees and other natural assets are not currently captured as an asset category in Assetfinda, however, there are several asset management programs associated with this category that are allowed for as non-discretionary work in the budget. 2 Values shown are a preliminary estimate rounded to the nearest $100K based on initial transfer and input of data into AssetFinda and known built works not yet captured in Assetfinda The database is in its infancy and requires further verification and refinement to achieve greater confidence in the accuracy of the data. 3 Value shown for car parks is for total replacement. In reality, only resurfacing is required to maintain the asset. A separate report has been prepared for Council's consideration in December 2017 dealing with car park resurfacing of car parks throughout the Town i.e. not just in parks.

The average yearly replacement value figures provided in the table above are somewhat hypothetical as they do not take into account current condition and whether replacement programmes in the past have been adequate. Also, the above values assume that assets have been installed regularly over time and are due for replacement in a consistent manner. They do not consider whether a lot of assets in the same category were installed or renewed over a condensed period creating potential replacement peaks in the future. An aim of asset management programs is to smooth out costs, where possible, in the long term financial plan and future budgets to help reduce peaks and troughs in required expenditure. The renewal of some asset classes also needs to take into account the requirement to replace assets to a higher standard. This may be due to changes in regulations and industry standards or in response to community expectations or strategic plans. This can result in higher costs than allowed for in the asset data base which assumes like-for-like replacement.



Asset management plans need to be prepared for each asset class to address the above issues among other asset management considerations. Following are the proposed non-discretionary capital and non-capital works for the 2018/19 financial year. For ease of reference, works are grouped according to their asset category and combined costs are provided where numerous items/projects are grouped together. Budget items will be created to suit the budget template as required during the budget development process. Costs shown are approximate only and will be developed further during the budget process.

Program/Initiative Works Element Approx. Cost

Irrigation • Bores, pumps and cubicle renewals • Iron bacteria treatments • Calibrate and replace water metres (DoW requirement) • Irrigation - Winmarley Park • Groundwater monitoring • Contingency - emergency bore/pump/irri. replacement

$255,000 $15,000 $25,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

Subtotal $395,000 Car Parks • Resurfacing (refer separate report to be submitted) TBA Subtotal TBA Paths (in Parks) • Various - replace poor condition paths across the Town $110,000 Subtotal $110,000 Sports Facilities • Various - renovate active turf areas

• Various - replace sports facilities e.g. wickets, goals etc. $35,000 $50,000

Subtotal $85,000 Lighting • Existing parks lighting review

• Sportsground floodlighting - replace poor condition lighting • Parks general lighting - replace poor condition lighting

$30,000 $15,000 $45,000

Subtotal $90,000 Furniture (including shelters) • Various - focus on seats, picnic tables, drinking fountains

signs and shelters across the Town • Shade sail structural risk management assessment • Various - repair/replace damaged shade sails

$100,000

$5,000 $20,000

Subtotal $125,000 Fencing • Coastal beach access paths (includes sand removal)

• Various - replace poor condition fencing across the Town $20,000 $20,000

Subtotal $40,000 Play Equipment • Floreat Beach Playground - replace

• Various - minor play items • Playground soft fall risk assessment

$100,000 $20,000 $5,000

Subtotal $125,000 Trees, Garden Beds and Natural Areas

• Various - General arboricultural risk management works • Pine/Ficus/Palm trees management (includes Hollyrood

figs this round - $30K) • Road reserves garden bed renewals - various across the

Town • Park garden bed renewals - various across the Town • Rehabilitation works with Cambridge Coastcare

$60,000 $100,000

$50,000

$50,000 $10,000

Subtotal $270,000 Other • Feral animal control $5,000 Subtotal $5,000 TOTAL $1.245M The value of $1.245M for the above proposed works is less than the $1.44M presented in March 2017. This reduction predominantly relates to an irrigation project on West Coast Highway completed jointly with Main Roads WA.



Discretionary Works Discretionary works proposed for the 2017/18 financial year will be addressed via specific reports to Council or introduced during the budget development process for review and comment by elected members prior to formulation of the draft budget for consideration by Council. Elected members are encouraged to contact the Administration prior to the budget development process to put forward any proposals for discretionary capital works to be considered in the 2017/18 financial year budget. This will allow Administration time to consider proposals, develop cost estimates and provide feedback to further assist elected members in considering the proposals. Comment: The proper management and funding of the above works ensure that Council’s significant assets are maintained and upgraded on with the aim of maintaining an appropriate service level and quality standard of assets throughout the Town's parks and other open spaces that comply to appropriate safety and health standards, as well as meeting community expectations. In the 2016/17 financial year the Infrastructure Parks have been identified clearly as non-discretionary and discretionary works. In particular the asset renewal programmes have generally been "rolled up" to cover a range of discrete projects to aid the budget development and management process. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report as the proposed works are subject to review as part of the development of the draft budget for 2017/18 financial year. The proposed works need to consider demands that may be placed on Council for spending in other areas and potential revenue constraints. Council has previously been successful in securing grant funding for eligible projects. Grant applications will again be submitted as they become available for those projects considered eligible.


The report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.2: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact Strategy 3.4: Create and maintain safe environments



Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategy 4.3: Keep our neighbourhoods green and pleasant Our Natural Environment Goal 7: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy 7.2: Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean water consumption Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides sustainable public assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.1: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This report is for information purposes and therefore an assessment in relation to the Town’s Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11 was not undertaken. The Town engages with sporting clubs, user groups, community groups, residents, businesses and visitors in accordance with the Community Engagement Policy No. 1.2.11 depending on the program, or projects once they are adopted in the budget by Council.

ATTACHMENTS: Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the proposed Infrastructure Parks 2018/19 proposed budget works program, as below, be fully costed and included in the 2018/19 draft budget collation as part of the budget development process:-

Program/Initiative Works Element Approx. Cost

Irrigation • Bores, pumps and cubicle renewals • Iron bacteria treatments • Calibrate and replace water metres (DoW requirement) • Irrigation - Winmarley Park • Groundwater monitoring • Contingency - emergency bore/pump/irri. replacement

$255,000 $15,000 $25,000 $80,000 $10,000 $10,000

Subtotal $395,000 Car Parks • Resurfacing (refer separate report to be submitted) TBA Subtotal TBA Paths (in Parks) • Various - replace poor condition paths across the

Town $110,000

Subtotal $110,000 Sports Facilities • Various - renovate active turf areas

• Various - replace sports facilities e.g. wickets, goals etc.

$35,000 $50,000

Subtotal $85,000



Lighting • Existing parks lighting review • Sportsground floodlighting - replace poor condition

lighting • Parks general lighting - replace poor condition lighting

$30,000 $15,000

$45,000

Subtotal $90,000 Furniture (including shelters)

• Various - focus on seats, picnic tables, drinking fountains signs and shelters across the Town

• Shade sail structural risk management assessment • Various - repair/replace damaged shade sails

$100,000

$5,000 $20,000

Subtotal $125,000 Fencing • Coastal beach access paths (includes sand removal)

• Various - replace poor condition fencing across the Town

$20,000 $20,000

Subtotal $40,000 Play Equipment • Floreat Beach Playground - replace

• Various - minor play items • Playground soft fall risk assessment

$100,000 $20,000 $5,000

Subtotal $125,000 Trees, Garden Beds and Natural Areas

• Various - General arboricultural risk management works

• Pine/Ficus/Palm trees management (includes Hollyrood figs this round - $30K)

• Road reserves garden bed renewals - various across the Town

• Park garden bed renewals - various across the Town • Rehabilitation works with Cambridge Coastcare

$60,000

$100,000

$50,000

$50,000 $10,000

Subtotal $270,000 Other • Feral animal control $5,000 Subtotal $5,000 TOTAL $1.245M Carried 9/0



CR17.178 ROAD IMPROVEMENT - CAPITAL WORKS FOUR YEAR PROGRAM FROM 2018-2019

SUMMARY:

Council reviews a proposed capital works program annually. This review is submitted for Council discussion and then used as a basis for preparation of the Draft Budget for the following financial year and subsequent budget years. Further, the projects proposed in the review are progressed to preliminary design in order to refine the Budget estimates which assist with grant applications and to enable the works to be carried out more efficiently in the following financial years. Preparation of this report has been based on current Town of Cambridge programs and community requests received throughout the last 12 months. Elected Members also raise with Administration projects based on discussions with residents of the Town of Cambridge.

BACKGROUND:

In February 2017 (Item CR17.5), Council considered a Road Improvement Capital Works program for 2017/18 to 2021/22. It is now proposed that Council reviews and upgrades the program for the next four year period recognising the works that have been budgeted to be carried out in the 2017/18 financial year. The draft program was developed from Council's previously approved works and community requests with an objective to:- • improve safety for vehicles and pedestrians • reduce traffic accidents; • manage traffic speeds; • reinforce the road hierarchy; • provide cyclists and pedestrian facilities; • upgrade the streetscape; and • recognise adjacent land developments. The criteria for prioritising work to be considered with this program includes:- • roadway capacity and efficiency; • traffic accident statistics and road safety audits; • traffic speed and volume statistics; • community and Elected Member requests; • public transport requirements; • pedestrian, cyclists and adjacent property requirements; and • traffic study reports. Adoption of a program of project proposals is desirable due to the complexity of preparing designs in conjunction with existing public utilities, the time taken to obtain the necessary statutory approvals and the process required to carry out community consultation. Further, the program allows for grant submissions to be prepared in line with Council approved direction and additional funding may be obtained if successful.



DETAILS:

Road Network The Council maintains approximately 168 kilometres of road. The road design standards conform with established Australian Standards and guidelines from Main Roads WA. All road traffic management signs and lines on all projects are required to be approved by Main Roads WA in accordance with the Main Roads WA Act. Council has established a road hierarchy that is coordinated with Main Roads WA and the West Australian Planning Commission. The road classifications within the Town's municipality are:- • Primary distributor roads. These provide for major regional and inter-regional traffic

movement and carry large volumes of generally fast moving traffic. These include Mitchell Freeway and West Coast Highway in the Town. These roads are managed by Main Roads WA;

• District distributor roads. These carry traffic between areas and generally connect to a

primary distributor road. They generally form a grid which would ideally be spaced around 1.5 kilometres apart. They include Cambridge Street, Oceanic Drive, Grantham Street, Lake Monger Drive, The Boulevard, Herdsman Parade, Railway Parade, Harborne Street, Selby Street, Empire Avenue, Durston Road, Bold Park Drive, Howtree Place, Brookdale Street, Hay Street, Underwood Avenue, Stephenson Avenue, Rochdale Road, Southport Street, Powis Street, Hale Road and Challenger Parade. They are managed by Local Government.

• Local distributor roads. These roads carry traffic within a residential cell and are linked to

district distributor roads at the boundary of the cell. Local distributor roads distribute the traffic to local residential precinct cells. They include Kimberley Street, Ruislip Street, Kirkdale Avenue, Alderbury Street, Ulster Roads, Kalinda Drive, Brompton Road, Chipping Road and Kingsland Avenue. They are managed by Local Government;

• Access Roads. These provide access to abutting properties with amenity, safety and

aesthetic aspects having priority over vehicle movement function. These roads are bicycle and pedestrian friendly. They are managed by Local Government.

Recognising the varying demands on the various road classifications, the Council is challenged to develop different levels of serviceability for each criteria. Issues for Consideration for 2018/19 - Year 1 1. Continuous improvement in streetscape amenity and the quality of infrastructure can be

achieved in all streets if streets are prepared in the year prior to asphalt overlays. Preparation works include drainage grate improvements and re-kerbing. An annual allocation of $150,000 would allow for preparation of up to 2,500 metres of kerbing on both sides. This prepares 1.2 kilometres of pavements prior to asphalt overlay.

2. In order to provide safer entry and exit from laneways, an allocation of $15,000 will allow

this program to continue.



3. Safe pedestrian crossings for district distributor streets is an important issue if Council is to encourage increased pedestrian activity. It is evident several crossing locations on Grantham Street should be provided. Holland Street was listed for consideration for construction in (2017/18), however, it was not included within the 2017/18 budget. Previous budgets have funded pedestrian crossings over Grantham Street at McKenzie and Essex Streets. On this basis, the Holland Street crossing is listed.

4. State and Federal Blackspot grant funding projects were considered by Council in July

2017 (CR17.104). A project for a raised intersection plateau at the Ruislip Street/Holland Street was supported by Council to submit. Council has been advised this project has been supported. Total budget $48,000 and a grant of $32,000.

5. The report Attachment 1 provides detailed information on proposed projects for inclusion

in the 2018/19 Draft Budget, together with details on other projects for future years. It is expected during Committee discussion, direction can be given in relation to the Council's priorities and the Attachment revised accordingly. This will then allow the Administration to prepare estimates for inclusion in the Draft Budget for 2018/19.

Other Projects Pedestrian safety improvements over Cambridge Street to access St John of God Hospital somewhere between Connolly Street and McCourt Street has been on the program for several years. Preliminary assessment of locations and pedestrian movements has been completed and a submission to Main Roads WA has been completed. All infrastructure associated with the "Pelican Crossing" requires prior approval from Main Roads WA and are to be fully funded by the Town. Main Roads WA required further justification on the need for this crossing and this is being progressed. The project proposal will need to be deferred and reviewed as the imminent construction works proposed for the St John of God Hospital need to be accommodated following the JDAP application by the hospital. Each year, a review of the traffic accident statistics is compiled and forwarded to Council by Main Roads WA. From the review of this data, new projects are highlighted. State and Federal Black Spot Grant applications are assessed annually for Council consideration. When these projects are successful, a Council contribution of approximately one third of the project cost is required for State grants. Federal Blackspot projects are fully funded and do not require a contribution from the Town. As highlighted above, Council's Blackspot sites were last reviewed by Council in July 2017 (CR17.104). The State Government provides grants for Local Government Rehabilitation and Road Improvement and funding is based on a cost benefit ratio assessment. These projects may be chosen from those incorporated in the four year works program, however, they must meet a specific criteria for improvement of the street environment as well as show that they have a priority greater than those submitted by other Councils throughout Western Australia. Road Rehabilitation grants are specifically for road asphalt resurfacing and may be supported by Council funds for upgrading of kerbing and/or drainage. A report was considered by Council in December 2016 (CR116.200) for projects in 2018/19. Any projects receiving a grant will be included within the asphalt program. No Road Improvement Grants were considered in 2017/18 as no projects were assessed as meeting the Main Roads WA grant criteria. This is the same scenario for 2018/19. The Town did participate in a Road Improvement Grant in 2016/17 by way of a financial contribution to City of Nedlands for improvements to the Underwood Avenue/Brookdale/Brookway intersection. This intersection has joint Councils responsibility.



Other Capital Works Programs This program of projects is supplemented by other programs presented to Council:- • Five Year Program for Footpaths; • Bicycle Path Plan Program; • Program for Road Resurfacing; • Carpark Resurfacing Program; • Laneway Upgrading Program; • Development of a drainage program resultant from CCTV assessment of infrastructure;

and • Bus Shelter Management Program Comment: It is acknowledged this draft program is based on previous Council programs, issues raised by the public over the last 12 months, and from investigations by Infrastructure staff. Extra projects will be listed for consideration when raised by elected members.


All roads are designed to the Austroads, relevant Australian Standards and Main Roads WA guidelines. Main Roads WA signs and lines approval is required prior to proceeding to construction.


The allocated funding for the 2017/18 budgeted works was $520,000 for the budget year. The total program presented for 2017/18 was $1,075,000 plus Grants and Carry Forward works. The level of funding is variable as it depends on Council priorities in the areas of Infrastructure like footpaths, road resurfacing, laneways and over the last two budgets an increased requirement for drainage improvements has been made.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy 5.1: Plan for commercial development within the Town. Strategy 5.2: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal 6: Efficient transport networks Strategy 6.1: Develop an integrated transport strategy in response to population changes.



Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides sustainable public assets, services and facilities. Strategy 10.1: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects.


This project has been assessed under the Community Engagement policy 1.2.11. As this report is for information, consultation has not been undertaken. Any projects which are included in the Draft Budget will be the subject of consultation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Capital Works Roadworks Priorities Program 2018/19 to 2021/22 - Draft 4 Year Program

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the proposed four year capital road works program for 2018/19 to 2021/22, as

attached, be endorsed for future planning and budget preparation; (ii) the projects, as listed on the 4 Year Program for Year 1, 2018/19 be costed and

included in the 2018/19 draft budget submission for consideration by Council; and (iii) investigation, design and grant funding applications be prepared in line with the

accepted five year program. Carried 9/0



CR17.179 10 YEAR PROGRAM FOR CAR PARKS 2018

SUMMARY: The ten year program for resurfacing the Town's car-parks has been reviewed. The first year of the program is recommended for construction in the 2018/19 Draft Budget. Many of the Town's car-parks were constructed 25 to 30 years ago and are expected to require resurfacing during the next 6 years. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: In February 2017, Council considered (Report CR17.4) "10 Year Program For Car Parks" and decided:- That:- (i) the updated Program for Car-Parks be endorsed as an asset management program; (ii) the projects listed in year 1 of the program be considered for funding in the 2017/18 Draft

Budget:- • L20 Leederville Memorial Gardens $52,000 • F210 Quarry Amphitheatre upper $70,000 • F211 Quarry Amphitheatre lower with access roads $165,000 • L26 Lake Monger Reserve (Bowling Club) $41,000.

Total funding proposed for the 2017/18 Budget was four car-parks for $328,000. Later, in August 2017, the approved 2017/18 Budget included funding for the following car-park projects under a new heading of, "Infrastructure - Carparks".

• L20 Leederville Memorial Gardens - Car Park $52,000 • F210 Quarry Amphitheatre - Car Parks $40,000 • L26 Lake Monger Recreation Club - Car Park $41,000. Club Reserve funded. • F212 Administration Centre - External Lighting to car park $65,000 • City Beach Precinct - Carpark resurfacing and drainage design $5,000 • City Beach Precinct - Carpark Directional signage $10,000



Total funding approved in the current 2017/18 Budget is $213,000 with funding of $41,000. Only two of the four car-parks proposed for resurfacing in 2017/18 are funded. DETAILS: To address the Department for Local Government's "Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework", the Town is required to prepare four year and ten year programs for managing assets, such as roads, footpaths, buildings, parks and mobile plant. The details of these assets are recorded in the Town's asset register "Asset Finda" and geographic information system "Intramaps". The location and a summary of asset details of car-parks are provided in Attachment 1 to this report. Car-parks are identified as an individual asset group for the purpose of asset management and funding in the annual budgets. A car-park is defined as an area of land that has been improved for the purpose of parking cars. It includes:- • car-parks on land owned or vested in the Town; • car-parks that are listed in a lease or licence agreement with a club or association. The

lease agreements include maintenance of the car-park but not capital works such as asphalt resurfacing. However, the clubs contribute to a maintenance fund for car parks, which is managed by the Town; and

• access roads to car-parks if they are not gazetted roads and are likely to be resurfaced at the same time as the car-park, for example Perry Lakes Reserve internal access roads.

The car-park asset inventory does not include parking bays on roads within road reserves since these are managed as part of the road and included in the road asset inventory. The asset data was updated as car-parks were resurfaced or re-constructed during 2015 and 2016. Specifically, Bold Park Aquatic Centre, Wembley Golf Course, Wembley Sports Park, City Beach Surf Club, Fred-Burton car-park, and Grantham Park (resurfacing only). For the purpose of this report, the two car-parks funded for resurfacing in the current budget, L20 Leederville Memorial Gardens and L21 Lake Monger Recreation Club, are considered to be resurfaced and rated excellent. Type of Car-Park Surfacing The surface of car-parks is either asphalt, laterite asphalt, brick-paving, road-profilings, limestone or grass. The asphalt surfaced car-parks generally require resurfacing every 30 years, depending on use and construction standard. The type and quantity of various surfacing is summarised in the table below. It indicates that 95% of car-parks have an asphalt surface of either granite or laterite asphalt. The three brick-paved car-parks represent 1.5% of the total and none of these are likely to require resurfacing for another 20 years.

Surfacing Area m2 Area as

percentage of total

Current Replacement Cost of surface / m2

Total Current Replacement Value

of surface Asphalt 146,837 84% $27 $3,964,599 Laterite Asphalt 19,705 11% $27 $532,035 Brick Paving 2,769 2% $75 $207,675 Road Profilings 4,068 2% $14 $56,952 Limestone 1,559 1% $23 $35,857 Grass 247 0% $0 - Totals 175,185 100% $166 $4,797,118



Current Condition of Car-park Surface ( Asphalt and Laterite Asphalt only) The overall condition of the asphalt surfaced car-parks is summarised in the table below. Only the asphalt surfacing is shown because asphalt resurfacing is a significant cost that needs to be scheduled over several years to avoid a "funding crisis" in any one year.

Condition Rating Condition as a % of Estimated Economic

Working Life

Area of Car-Park with the condition rating

(m2)

Percentage of Area with the condition

rating

Excellent 91 - 100% 50,553 30% Good 71 - 90 % 27,309 16% Average 21 - 70 % 19,990 12% Poor 6 - 20 % 28,276 17% Very Poor 0 - 5 % 40,414 24% Totals 166,542 100%

Due to several recent car-park projects, the surface of 46% of car-parks are currently rated as Excellent or Good with less than 30% of their economic life used up. However, approximately 41% of the other car-parks were constructed 25 to 30 years ago, and the surface of these car-parks is now ranked as Poor or Very Poor. These car-parks have less than 20% of their economic life left and will require resurfacing sometime during the next 6 years. Their total area is 68,690m2. At an average resurfacing cost of $27/m2, this will require funding of $1,855,000 over the next 6 years, or an average of $309,000 each year. Proposed 1, 4 and 10 Year Car-Park Asphalt Resurfacing Program A program re-surfacing car -parks is proposed in the table below to address the resurfacing of the 68,690m2 of car-park with a rating of "very poor" or "poor" over Year 1 to 6. After Year 6, there is a reduced level of funding for Years 6 -10 for car-parks that are currently rated as average condition.

Year Car Park Number Description Condition

Rating Area (m2) Cost $

1 W101 Henderson Park Very Poor 655 $18,000 1 W106 215 Jersey Street behind shops on

Grantham Street Very Poor 564 $16,000

1 C306 Fred Burton Park Very Poor 11,960 $323,000 Total $357,000

2 C305 City Beach Park (restaurants) Very Poor 2847 $77,000 2 C307 City Beach Park (south kidney) Very Poor 5765 $156,000 2 C308 City Beach Park (north kidney) Very Poor 6170 $167,000 Total $400,000 3 F210 Quarry Amphitheatre upper1 Very Poor 2,582 $70,000 3 F211 Quarry Amphitheatre lower with

access roads1 Very Poor 6,125 $165,000

3 C319 City Beach Civic Centre Poor 3920 $106,000

Total $341,000

4 C302 City Beach Park - opposite Jubilee Park Poor 1720 $47,000

4 C303 Jubilee Park Poor 476 $13,000 4 Clancy's Clancys (Leasee responsible) Poor 1460 $40,000



Year Car Park Number Description Condition

Rating Area (m2) Cost $

4 C320 Oban Road Doctors Surgery Poor 381 $11,000 4 C309 Floreat Beach Park south Poor 4912 $133,000 4 C310 Floreat Beach Park middle Poor 2786 $75,000 Total $319,000 5 C311 Floreat Beach Park north Poor 3661 $99,000 5 C300 Challenger Park south Poor 940 $26,000

5 C301 Challenger Park north Poor 687 $19,000

5 L21, L22, L23, L24 Lake Monger Reserve - four car parks Poor 5395 $146,000

5 C317 Frinton Park Tennis Poor 1120 $31,000

Total $321,000 6 F xxx Perry Lakes Reserve -various access

roads and carparks Poor 5074 $137,000

Total $137.000 7 Various Various car-parks Average 1,112 $30,000 8 Various Various car-parks Average 1,112 $30,000 9 Various Various car-parks Average 1,112 $30,000 10 Various Various car-parks Average 1,112 $30,000

1 The Town is still finalising its Master plan, which may impact on car park resurfacing work. A separate report on the Quarry Master Plan will be presented to Council by mid-2018. Any modifications to car parks can be rescheduled with the resurfacing. The scheduling of this resurfacing is based on:- • Car-park C306 Fred Burton Park has a condition rating of Very Poor and is listed in

Year 1 (2018/19). Two small car-parks in Wembley at Henderson Park W101 and the Jersey/Grantham W 106 shops are included since they are Very Poor and highly used.

• The three City Beach beach-front car-parks that have a condition rating of "Very Poor" and have 1 or 2 years of life left, are all listed in Year 2 (2019-20). They will be subject to a re-design.

• The two Quarry Amphitheatre car-parks are rated as "Very Poor" and are listed in Year 3 to allow time to develop plans for proposed improvements.

• The remaining car-parks that have a condition rating of "Poor" and have up to 6 years of life left are listed in Years 3 - 5

• The 12% of car-parks with an asphalt surface rated as "average" can be expected to require resurfacing sometime between Year 7 and Year 21, at a reduced average funding level of $30,000 each year.

• The 46% of car-parks that are currently rated as Excellent or Good, can be expected to require resurfacing in Years 22 to 30 and are not listed.

• As a benchmark, if all the car-parks are resurfaced every 30 years, then approximately 3.3% or 5,550m2 of car-park would need to be resurfaced each year. At a unit rate of $27/m2, this would cost approximately $150,000 each year. This uniform funding pattern would have occurred if car-parks had been constructed at a uniform rate each year over the last 30 years.

• Some years are greater than average expenditure because it is not practical to re-surface part of a car-park. Therefore, only whole car-parks are listed in each year.



Other Car-Parks with Brick, Limestone, Road Profilings and Grass Surfaces Currently 3.2% of car-parks are unsealed and have a surface of either crushed limestone, road profilings or grass. These are located in Perry Lakes Reserve and along the service road between City Beach and Floreat Beach. These car-parks are normally maintained by topping up with fresh limestone or road-profilings as required and not normally a capital expense. These car-parks may be considered for upgrading to asphalt or brick paving for approximately $150/m2 if the frequency of their use supports it. This will be considered in a separate report for the Infrastructure Parks Capital programs since the cost to upgrade each car-park is in the order of $50,000 - $200,000. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The recommendations of this report comply with:- • Policy 5.4.9 Asset Management; and • Policy 3.1.10 Community-Facilities Asset-Management Policy. A Strategic Asset Management Plan has been developed by the Town and considers the material and programs in this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are no financial implications related to this report other than Council budget approvals. This review of the 10 Year Car-Park Program recommends that the three car-parks listed in Year 1 of the program are included in the 2018/19 draft budget at a total cost of $357,000. The funding requirement for resurfacing car-parks over the following 5 years is forecast to be average $311,000 per year. The funding requirement after Year 6 is forecast at $30,000 per year. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5: Successful commercial, retail and residential hubs Strategy5.2 Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides sustainable public assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.1: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects.

Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.1: Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit. Strategy 11.3: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.



COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. No external impacts are envisaged until development of the Draft 2018/19 Budget. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Car-Park Location and Numbering 2. Car-Park Asset Details ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the updated Program for Car-Parks be endorsed as an asset management program; and (ii) the projects listed in year 1 of the program be considered for funding in the 2018/19 Draft

Budget:-

• C306 Fred Burton Park $323,000 • W101 Henderson Park $18,000 • W106 215 Jersey Street behind shops on Grantham Street $16,000

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Bradley That the item relating to the 10 Year Program for Car Parks 2018 be deferred. Lost 3/6 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, Nelson and Powell

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the updated Program for Car-Parks be endorsed as an asset management program;

and (ii) the projects listed in year 1 of the program be considered for funding in the 2018/19

Draft Budget:-

• C306 Fred Burton Park $323,000 • W101 Henderson Park $18,000 • W106 215 Jersey Street behind shops on Grantham Street $16,000



Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Nelson That clause (i) of the motion be deleted. Amendment carried 5/4 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, McAllister, Nelson and Powell COUNCIL DECISION: That the projects listed in year 1 of the program be considered for funding in the 2018/19 Draft Budget:- • C306 Fred Burton Park $323,000 • W101 Henderson Park $18,000 • W106 215 Jersey Street behind shops on Grantham Street $16,000. Carried 9/0



CR17.180 FIVE YEAR PROGRAM DRAINAGE 2018

SUMMARY: Five intense storms occurred in the Town during 2010, 2011 and 2014 and caused flooding to some private properties and roads where the rainfall was intense. This flooding highlighted where the Town's storm-water drainage network requires improvement so that it will perform to current local government standards. The various flood sites were investigated and a program of drainage improvement projects was developed in 2010 and has since been reviewed annually. The projects adopted in the first year of each program were then included in the next draft budget for consideration of funding. The Five Year Program for Drainage Improvements has been updated for the period 2018/19 to 2022/2023 so that the first year of the program may be included in the draft 2018/19 Budget. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: The Town has approximately 108km of stormwater drainage pipe that was installed between 1930 and 2017. This network of pipes and drainage pits drains stormwater runoff from the road reserve to numerous soak wells, 55 sumps, 4 lakes and 4 Water Corporation main drains. Most of this network is buried underground and so faults are difficult to identify until there is an intense storm to reveal the problem. The older sections of drainage network were typically designed to carry stormwater runoff from low intensity storms with a probability of recurrence of once in five years. The modern drainage systems installed recently in the Ocean Mia, Perry Lakes and Mt Claremont Area G subdivisions, are designed to prevent flooding of properties in an 'once in 100 year storm' event. For comparison, the volume of stormwater runoff from a once in 100 year storm is approximately twice that of a once in five year storm event. In terms of drainage pipe sizes, a drainage network designed for a 100 year storm requires the next size pipe to be installed above that required for a 5 year storm. For example, 300mm diameter pipe is now installed in place of the old standard 225mm diameter pipe).



Intense storms with a theoretical recurrence of between once in 50 years and once in 100 years occurred within the Town on 22 March 2010, 20 May 2011, 24 June 2011, 12 December 2011 and 18 October 2014. These storms resulted in reports of flooding at 140 locations in 2010, 70 locations in 2011, and 3 locations in 2014. A localised intense storm on 18 April 2016 resulted in reports of flooding of 6 garages and 1 swimming pool. This flooding is exacerbated by runoff from private properties that do not have adequate stormwater drainage to retain their stormwater. No flooding was reported during 2012, 2013, 2015, 2016 and 2017 mainly because no intense storms have occurred. To address these flooding issues, Council last reviewed a five year program for improvement of the stormwater drainage network on 22 November 2016 (Report CR16.179) Five Year Program Drainage) and decided:- That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2018/19 to 2021/22) for Drainage Improvement be

endorsed for planning and budget considerations; and (ii) the works proposed for 2017/18 year of the Drainage Improvement Program be

considered for funding in the Draft 2017/18 Budget:-

Drainage Maintenance CCTV pipe inspection of 10 km of storm-water pipe Drainage pit and pipe rehabilitation (based on CCTV inspection and Drainage Assessment 2013/14) Drainage network capacity improvement.

• 77 and 79 McCourt Street- underground sump and new park landscaping and playground.

Total

$210,000

$35,000

$100,000

$600,000

$945,000 After the draft budget process, the drainage works funded in the current 2017/18 Budget are summarised below. These works are expected to be completed by 30 June 2018.

Drainage Maintenance CCTV pipe inspection of 10 km of storm-water pipe Drainage pit and pipe rehabilitation (based on CCTV inspection and Drainage Assessment 2013/14) Drainage network capacity improvement.

• 77 and 79 McCourt Street- underground sump and new park landscaping and playground.

• Clanmel Road - enlarge 260m of pipe • 37 Pandora - install side entry pit • 27 and 30 Perina Way - install 2 side entry pits • 9 Peasholm / Hastings - install side entry pit

Total

$186,000

$40,000

$100,000

$400,000

$140,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000

$911,000



DETAILS: Summary of 5 Year Drainage Program The program is composed of four sub-programs:- • maintenance - cleaning pits and jetting pipes; • inspection - CCTV Pipe Inspection program; • renewal - Pit and Pipe Rehabilitation program; and • improvement - Drainage Improvement program. The proposed funding of each sub-program for the next five years is summarised in the table below. Funding for maintenance, inspection and renewal is similar to the current 2017/18 Budget with increases for CPI and new contractor rates. Funding for improvements is similar to previous years that did not have the extraordinary underground sump project at 77 McCourt Street that costs $400,000. Current Year 0 2017/18 Work Budget $ Comments Maintenance $192,000 Cleaning pits and jetting pipes Inspection $35,000 CCTV pipe inspection to carry out visual

inspection of all pits and pipes in Town's drainage network.

Renewal $100,000 Rehabilitation of grates, pits and pipes, removal of blockages and faults in the pipe system identified by the CCTV inspection

Improvement

Improvement of capacity of the drainage network

77+79 McCourt Street - underground sump

$400,000 House No. 77 and 79 were flooded in 2010. Stage 1 works was completed in 2014 and installed 14 additional inlet pits. Stage 2 works is for the installation of an underground sump in the existing park and reinstate the playground and landscaping. Tenders are in progress.

11 Clanmel Road $140,000 House No 9 and 11 Clanmel Road were flooded in 2010. Stage 1 works was completed in 2013 and 2015 and installed 4 additional inlets and a larger pipe in Glengariff Road. Stage 2 works is for replacing the existing 300mm pipe between 11 Clanmel Road and Glengariff Road with a 375 mm pipe.

37 Pandora - install side entry pit

$15,000 Catch debris before it blocks grate at low point

27 and 30 Perina Way - install 2 side entry pits

$15,000 Flooding of road at low point in Perina Way

9 Peasholm / Hastings - install side entry pit

$15,000 Flooding of house in Hastings Road

Total $911,000



Year 1 2018/19 Work Budget $ Comments Maintenance $192,000 Cleaning pits and jetting pipes Inspection $42,000 CCTV pipe inspection to carry out visual



Improvement


Lake Monger Drive - low point in road west of Kimberley Street

$100,000 Flooding of road at low-point on Lake Monger Drive between Kimberley Street and Northwood Street causing traffic to stop. Stage 1 works was completed in 2014 and installed 2 additional inlets and 4 kerb overflow outlets. Stage 2 works is for installing a 375mm pipe to replace the existing 225mm pipe that takes runoff from the low-point on the south side to the north side of Lake Monger Drive.

68 Moray Avenue $100,000 Garden and garages of 4 properties at the low point were flooded in 2010. Stage 1 works completed in 2012 and 2015 was raising the footpath 150mm and installing 8 additional inlets and 6 large soak wells. Stage 2 Install 50m of 375 mm diameter pipe in easement through 68 Moray Avenue to connect to the existing 450mm pipe in North Banff Road.

Total $534,000 Year 2 2019/20 Work Budget $ Comments Maintenance $192,000 Cleaning pits and jetting pipes Inspection $42,000 CCTV pipe inspection to carry out visual



Improvement


Railway Parade / McCourt $120,000 The intersection of Railway Parade and McCourt Street was flooded in 2010. Runoff then flows on to railway tracks and into Subiaco Station. Stage 1 works was completed in 2015 and installed 7 additional inlets and a larger pipe connection to them. Stage 2 works is for increasing the pipe size from 300 mm to 375mm between McCourt Street and the 900 mm pipe in City of Subiaco.



Scadden Street intersections $60,000 Properties on the north side of Scadden Street report flooding during intense storms when the drainage grates are blocked with debris that has washed down the intersecting roads on the south side. (Essex Street, Nanson Street and McKenzie Street). Stage 1 works were completed in 2014 and installed 4 soak wells with side entry pits adjacent to grated pits in Scadden Street. Stage 2 works propose to install large soak wells with side entry inlets adjacent to the grated pits at the north end of Essex Street, Nanson Street and McKenzie Street.

234 Salvado Road. Low point between Birkdale Street and Selby Street

$20,000

Rear garden of No.232 near the low point flooded in 2010 due to the drainage grates being blocked with leaves. Propose installing 2 additional side entry pits/soak wells at the low point to capture leaves and debris during storms and keep the grates clear of debris.




Improvement


417- 422 Cambridge Street (West of Selby Street)

$60,000

4 properties were flooded west of Selby Street during 2010. Stage 1 works installed additional gully gate inlets, established a sump in No. 420 Cambridge Street and connecting pipes. Stage 2 works propose installing additional inlet pits next to existing pits that are overloaded in intense storms.

11 - 21 Harborne Street $100,000 Properties and footpath on west side of Harborne Street are lower than the road. 3 properties reported flooding in 2010. Stage 1 works were completed in 2014 and installed 2 additional side entry inlets. Stage 2 works are for installing an additional 50m of 375 mm diameter pipe in the road. Road resurfacing of this section of road is imminent.



Kintyre Crescent / Lothian Park $40,000 This is a low point in Kintyre Crescent and is part of the catchment that contributes to flooding at 68 Moray Avenue. Propose installation of 4 large soak wells in Lothian Park at the low point to reduce discharge to 68 Moray Avenue and recharge groundwater instead of discharging to Herdsman Lake.




Improvement


Oceanic Drive opposite Tullow $150,000 Low point in Oceanic Drive on south carriageway is drained by a 225mm pipe that overflows runoff to the north carriageway and this then flows down the road to Perry Lakes Drive. This small pipe sometimes gets blocked with debris that has washed down the road and the south carriageway then floods. Stage 1 works was completed in 2015 and installed a drainage system that intercepted most of the runoff from Oceanic Drive to the sump near Bold Park Drive. Stage 2 works proposes the installation of 140 m of 375mm pipe from the low point to the sump on the north side of Oceanic Drive / Bold Park Drive. A lower cost for Stage 2 to just upgrade the 225mm pipe to 375mm and continue to let the runoff flow down Oceanic Drive. The connecting pipe can be installed in future.

Chandler Drive West $20,000 Install 2 side entry pits to improve capacity of single drainage grate at low point in this section of road.






Improvement


Improvement of drainage in old lanes

$200,000 Install additional soak wells to reduce runoff from lanes that have few soak wells

Total $534,000 Specific Details relating to items in this program are now provided:- 1. Drainage Maintenance This is routine maintenance of the existing drainage system and includes cleaning of debris from inside the pits, jetting of blocked pipes, replacing damaged pits and cleaning debris off grates before storms. In general, all drainage gullies are educted at least once per year to remove leaves and silt from the pits. Annual cost is currently $190,000. 2. CCTV Pipe Inspection This is a long term inspection program of all storm-water pipes in the Town using a CCTV camera. Approximately 10km of pipe is inspected each year by a contractor for a cost of $40,000. It was funded in seven previous budgets between 2009/10 and 2016/17. The inspection determines:- 1. Location of underground services that have been installed in a pipe. 2. Location of localised damage to a pipe due to excavations or vehicle loads. 3. Location of blockages in a pipe due to debris and root intrusion in the pipe. 4. Location of long sections of pipes that have reached the end of their lives. 5. Overall condition of the pipe for the purpose of asset management valuation. This is likely to take another 6 years to complete the entire 108 km pipe network at the current rate. This sub-program was not funded in 2013/14 and 2014/15 since a large scale asset location pick-up of the storm-water drainage network was carried out instead. This pick-up has provided an accurate representation of the Town's storm-water network on its Geographical Information System (Intramaps). 3. Pipe and Pit Rehabilitation Program This is for replacing or rehabilitating damaged pipes and pits that have been identified by either the CCTV Pipe Inspection program, location on roads that are listed on the Road Resurfacing Program, or by visual inspection during gully education in the previous year. The proposed funding for rehabilitating damaged pipes and pits is $100,000 per year. This will continue until the CCTV Pipe Inspection program is completed in 6 years' time. If underground services are located within a storm-water pipe, then the cost of repair is paid by the relevant utility. If a section of pipe is damaged or cracked, then the pipe is relined with a plastic liner and made larger if possible. Roots and debris are removed by root cutting and jetting. As an asset management strategy, storm-water pipes are expected to reach their end of life at around 80 - 100 years age depending on ground water conditions. Therefore, the Pipe and Pit



Rehabilitation program will evolve to provide for the replacement or upgrade of pipes that are at risk of collapsing. Based on an average base life of 90 years and a total length of pipe of 108km, an average of 1.2 km of pipe will require replacement or upgrade each year. Based on the recent cost of large scale drainage works in the Ocean Mia and Perry Lakes developments, the cost for replacing or re-lining the 1.2 km of pipe will cost approximately $400,000 per year. This is not expected over the next five years since the first four years of the CCTV inspections has covered the older pipe network in West Leederville and has not found any long sections of pipes in immediate need of replacement. 4. Drainage Improvement Program This is based on observations of how different sections of the drainage networks performed during the four storms in 2010 and 2011. The worst affected roads had drainage grates that had become partially or completely blocked with leaves, mulch, litter and other debris during the storm. Only a small amount of debris was required to reduce the capacity of the grated pits significantly and resulted in road flooding. Other roads had a side entry pit that had also become blocked due to large items going into the large opening and blocking the small pipe inside. The most robust drainage system was a combination of a grated pit with a side entry pit installed immediately upstream. The side entry pit had captured most of the debris that had washed down with the "first flush" before its pipe became blocked with large pieces of debris. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The total funding of drainage infrastructure works proposed for the 2018/19 Budget is $534,000 and is comprised of: • maintenance – regular cleaning, jetting and educting of drainage pits - $192,000; • inspection – inspection of 10km of network by CCTV each year - $42,000; • renewal - repair or replacement of old or damaged drainage pits and pipes as discovered

by the CCTV inspection each year. - $100,000; and • drainage Improvement - projects to address local flooding locations and increase the

capacity of the network $200,000.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027:- Our Council Goal 10: The Town is a proactive local government that provides sustainable public

assets, services and facilities Strategy 10.1: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects. Goal 11: A strong performing local government Strategy 11.1: Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit. Strategy 11.3: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.



COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. No external impacts are envisaged until development of the Draft 2018/19 Budget. The Town has received verbal and written reports from residents following these storms and at site visits. For each location, the affected residents will be notified of the proposed works prior to commencement of work through a letterbox drop. ATTACHMENTS: Nil Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That the item relating to the Five Year Program (2018/19 to 2022/23) for Drainage be deferred. Lost 2/3 For: Mayor Shannon and Cr Bradley Against: Crs Carr, McAllister and Timmermanis COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2018/19 to 2022/23) for Drainage be endorsed for

planning and budget considerations; and (ii) the works proposed for Year 1 2018/19 year of the Drainage Program be

considered for funding in the Draft 2018/19 Budget:-

Maintenance Inspection - CCTV pipe inspection of 10 km of storm-water pipe Renewal - Drainage pit and pipe rehabilitation Improvement - .

• 5 Lake Monger Drive - 375 mm pipe at low point in road west of Kimberley Street

• 68 Moray Avenue - 375mm pipe through easement Total

$192,000

$42,000

$100,000

$100,000

$100,000

$534,000 Carried 9/0



CR17.181 2017 CITY BEACH TENNIS CLUB REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL TIME FOR NIGHT TENNIS

SUMMARY:

Council has previously examined the use of the lights at the City Beach Tennis Club (CBTC) on three previous occasions, April 2011 (CR11.35), February 2013 (CR13.6) and December 2013 (CR13.164). The CBTC have again requested an extension to the use of the floodlit courts from 10pm to 10.30pm Monday to Thursday on the Frinton Avenue courts and from 10pm to 10.30pm Monday to Thursday on the Swanage Avenue Courts (courts 13, 14, 15 and 16). Two additional nights have also been requested on the Swanage Avenue Courts, specifically Friday and Saturday until 8.30pm. In order to seek the views of nearby residents for the increase use of lights at the CBTC, further consultation has been undertaken by the CBTC ( June 2017) and the Town ( November 2017) with nearby residents. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND: In May 2012 the CBTC upgraded four synthetic tennis courts, fencing and installed lighting on courts 13, 14, 15 and 16 (referred to as Swanage Avenue Courts) .The cost of these works was split between the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries, the Town and the Club. Previously, these courts were not floodlit. In accordance with Town's Policy Number 2.1.17 (Lighting), as new lights were installed consultation was undertaken with the local community. Results of the consultation were presented to Council in April 2011 (CR11.35) where it was decided that the hours of operation of the flood lights on Swanage Avenue would be restricted to Monday to Thursday until 9.30pm with the exception of pennants matches (Wednesday and Thursdays) to 10pm.



In February 2013, the CBTC requested Council re-consider the hours of use for the flood lights and extend the use to Monday to Sunday (i.e. seven days a week) until 10.30pm on both Swanage Avenue courts and the Frinton Avenue courts. In relation to the Frinton Avenue courts (4 flood lit plexipave tennis courts) these courts were previously managed by the Town up to February 2013. Following the February 2013 Council decision, the CBTC assumed management of these courts. For the Club to seek the extension of use of flood lights up to 10.30pm Monday to Sunday, further consultation was undertaken and following a report to Council (February 2013, CR13.60), Council decided that the use of lights on the Swanage Avenue courts (courts 13,14,15 and 16) be approved during the following days and times: Monday, Tuesday until 9.30pm Wednesday and Thursday until 10pm; and Frinton Avenue is approved during the following days and times: Monday, Tuesday, Friday, Saturday and Sunday until 9.30pm Wednesday and Thursday until 10pm. The CBTC once again requested to increase the hours in December 2013 up to 10pm seven days a week on Swanage Avenue and Frinton Avenue. Community consultation was again undertaken (third time) and Council decided at the December 2013 meeting (CR13.164) to restrict the use of the flood lights at the CBTC to: a) Swanage Avenue (courts 13, 14, 15 and 16) Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday until 10pm; and b) Frinton Avenue Monday - Sunday until 10pm. Council further decided that it will not consider any CBTC application for lights on Friday, Saturday and Sunday night at Swanage Avenue (courts 13, 14, 15 and 16) for a period of 3 years until December 2016, unless, before that time, there is demonstrated support from the Swanage Avenue precinct residents. It is noted that the 'Swanage Avenue Precinct' was not defined by Council. The Town has assumed this precinct to be the properties facing or backing onto the CBTC, 38 residents along Frinton Avenue, Branksome Gardens, Boscombe Avenue and Toro Place. A copy of this area is provided as an Attachment. The CBTC contacted these residents in June 2017 to seek their support to increase the use of the floodlit courts on Swanage Avenue from 10pm Monday to Thursday to 10.30pm Monday to Sunday. In addition, the Club requested an increase on the Frinton Avenue courts from 10pm Monday to Thursday to 10.30pm. The CBTC did not get 100% support for the increase to the hours from nearby residents and the Town also received 2 negative comments from nearby residents to the CBTC .

DETAILS:

As the CBTC did not get 100% support for the increase to the hours by nearby residents, the Club contacted the Town for advice. The Town met with representatives of the CBTC on 10 November 2017 who advised that the Club are willing to compromise and are seeking support to increase the use of the Swanage



Avenue floodlit courts to 30 minutes each day, Monday to Thursday (from 10pm to 10.30pm) to coincide with pennant competitions and two (2) new nights, Friday and Saturday until 8.30pm. The Club are also seeking extension of time of 30 minutes each day on the Frinton Avenue courts from 10pm to 10.30pm, Monday to Thursday. Consultation was undertaken by the Town to 38 residential properties (a map of the area is provided as an Attachment). Of the 38 residential properties, 15 responses were received or 40%. Of the 15 responses, 8 (53%) were for the increase in lights and 7 (47%) were against. However of the 7 against, 1 response did support Monday to Thursday to 10.30pm to coincide with pennant tennis but not Friday to Sunday. Another respondent also against stated no Friday or Saturday nights. A summary of the responses with the addresses and names blacked out are provided as an Attachment. The predominant concern from the residents was noise. It is noted that the Town did receive 2 written complaints from nearby residents during the consultation process undertaken by the CBTC in June 2017. Concerns expressed included light pollution to neighbours, noise (half an hour after play finishes), security, parking issues in Swanage Avenue and this is the fourth time in 7 years that the CBTC is trying to increase their hours of night tennis. Prior to the June 2017 comments, the Town over the past 4 years has not received any written complaints about the CBTC. It is acknowledged that the Town has a number of reserves and sporting facilities that are floodlit. In addition to the CBTC, the Town has two other resident tennis clubs, Floreat Park and Reabold Tennis Clubs. Both clubs have lit courts available for use seven days per week up to 10.30pm (Floreat Park has 12 courts and Reabold 8 courts). However, for both clubs the hours of night time use vary, depending on pennant competitions and public bookings. From the Town's point of view a balanced decision needs to be made taking into consideration a number of factors including but not limited to:

• Feedback from residents • Impact on Residential amenity • Club's needs • Compliance to the Town's Lighting Policy; and • Other resident Tennis Courts hours of operation.

Taking these points into consideration and also that the lights on Swanage Avenue were only installed in 2012 (residents around Swanage previously did not have impact from lights), a request by the CBTC to have the lights increased as outlined in the Table below is not supported. Swanage Avenue ( Courts 13-16) Frinton Avenue Day Current Requested Current Requested Monday 10pm 10.30pm 10pm 10.30pm Tuesday 10pm 10.30pm 10pm 10.30pm Wednesday 10pm 10.30pm 10pm 10.30pm Thursday 10pm 10.30pm 10pm 10.30pm Friday Not permitted 8.30pm 10pm 10pm Saturday Not permitted 8.30pm 10pm 10pm Sunday Not permitted Nil 10pm 10pm



However, it is suggested that a compromised position should be supported that will allow pennant tennis matches to be completed, specifically extension of lights to 10.30pm on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday on the Swanage Avenue courts. All other hours of operations stay the same, i.e. no change. This represents an increase of 2 hours per week. It is further recommended that the CBTC should not approach the Council in the future to extend their hours of tennis court lighting use.


Policy No. 2.1.17 - Lighting Specific clause states that external lighting is to be turned off by 10.30pm The proposal by the CBTC will comply with this policy.


Nil


The request for additional time for night tennis at the CBTC Course supports the following goals and strategies of the Towns' Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018:, specifically: Our Community Life Goal 1 A Sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support participation in a range of activities and events Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities


Community Engagement has been undertaken with 38 surrounding residential properties of the City Beach Tennis Club.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Consultative area 2. Summary of responses received.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the comments received from residents in relation to the extra use of lights for night

tennis at the City Beach Tennis Club be noted; (ii) the use of the lights on the Swanage Avenue courts ( courts 13,14,15 and 16) be

approved during the following days and times:- Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday to 10.30pm (to coincide with night

pennant competition) Note: No Lighting on Friday, Saturday or Sunday; (iii) the use of Frinton Avenue courts to remain as is, i.e. Monday to Sunday to 10pm;

and (iv) no other request from the City Beach Tennis Club for an increase to the flood lit

tennis courts hours be approved. Carried 9/0



CR17.182 BOLD PARK AQUATIC CENTRE - AWARD OF HEAT PUMP PROCUREMENT AND CONSTRUCTION TENDERS

SUMMARY:

Council has determined that electric heat pumps will be used as the preferred technology to replace the old electric heat pumps at Bold Park Aquatic and requires the works to be implemented in a short time frame. It is recommended that Council by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to award the necessary heat pump procurement and installation contract works tenders as one means of reducing the overall project program. BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, Council considered Item 12.2 Notion of Motion from the Mayor regarding a prior decision of Council in the selection of heating technology to be used to replace three heat pumps at Bold Park Aquatic. It was decided that: (i) Council's decision made at its meeting held on 25 July 2017 (Item CR17.113) for the

replacement of the two electric heat pumps for the main pool at Bold Park Aquatic being a combination of cogeneration and gas boilers be revoked by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;

(ii) the following revised recommendation be adopted:-

"That:- (i) the preferred technology for replacement of the two electric heat pumps for the

main pool at Bold Park Aquatic is the option of air cooled electric heat pumps as detailed as option 1 in the report CR17.113 use best endeavours to be completed before June 2018;

(ii) the preferred technology for replacement of the single electric heat pump for the leisure pool is re-use of the three electric heat pumps procured by the Town in 2016;

(iii) quotations be sought for design and documentation of these works; and (iv) the draft 2017/2018 budget be amended to include an allocation of $920,000 for the

works to be funded 50% from the Endowment Lands Account and 50% from the Area Improvement Reserve.

The Administration provided advice in this Notice of Motion that there is significant lead time in the procurement and delivery to site of the electric heat pumps and that a provisional program for the project would indicate that the heat pumps could be procured, installed and commissioned by mid-August 2018. It was suggested that program time savings could be achieved if Council provided the Chief Executive Officer with delegated authority to award the separate heat pump procurement and works installation contracts.



DETAILS:

Project Plan This project entails primarily the design, procurement and installation of new heating systems at Bold Park Aquatic along with ancillary works regarding associated pipework, control valves, pumps and control systems (BMS) to manage the systems effectively and efficiently. The Town has sought quotations for the design team and is currently completing assessment and award of these works. The main heating plant (electric heat pumps) to be installed has long lead times in their manufacture and delivery to site. In order to minimise the new heating plant commissioned in the shortest timeframe, the project plan entails:- 1) the design team completing as first works, the technical specification for the new heat

pumps, allowing the Town to call tenders for this plant; 2) the tenders for the plant are assessed, a contract awarded and manufacture commences.

The intent would then be that the plant becomes a Principal supplied item under the works contract;

3) during this manufacture stage, the design team completes their technical scope of works for the entire works (pipework, pumps, valves, controls, commissioning etc.);

4) this work is then tendered by the Town and a contract awarded; and 5) it is expected that the works contractor will be able to commence work immediately as the

plant would be on site at that time. An indicative project program was provided in the Administration's comments on the Notice of Motion considered that the heat pumps would be commissioned, all things being equal, by mid-August 2018, which doesn’t meet the requirement to be 'use best endeavours to be completed by June 2018' set out in the Notice of Motion. A suggested method to reduce the program is through the tender award process. Award of Tenders It is anticipated that the total cost of the heat pump procurement and works installation contracts will be in the order of $550,000, with $300,000 for the heat pump contract and $250,000 for the works installation contract. The works installation contract includes the changes in pipework for the leisure pool heating, Building Management System, installation of the new heat pumps as well as ancillary works regarding pipe work alterations, pumps and control valves for the systems and commissioning activities. The value of the contracts being over $150,000 requires them to be dealt with in accordance with s3.57 of the Local Government Act and Regulation 11 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations in which public tenders have to be called before the local government can award the contracts. Section 5.42(1) of the Local Government Act allows Council to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer some of its powers or discharge of its duties. In this case, Council may determine by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to delegate to the Chief Executive Officer the authority to award the procurement and construction contracts. This would materially reduce the program for the project as it would avoid any time delays in the normal Council decision making cycle. It is proposed that this delegation is given to the Chief Executive Officer who will seek majority support from Elected Members for a tender recommendation prior to award and then submit a subsequent report to Council for noting the decision.



This is a recommended action to reduce project program. At this point in time it is uncertain that this decision alone will ensure completion by June 2018, but will certainly make it earlier than the mid-August 2018 forecast date previously advised. It is also recommended that the delegation provided to the Chief Executive Officer is capped at a value of 10% higher than the estimates provided above to allow for any unforeseen circumstances during tender assessment. Overall Project Budget At this stage, the forecast project budget is as follows: Heat Pump procurement $300,000 Installation contract $250,000 Design Fees $ 50,000 Internal costs & project management $ 20,000 Contingency $ 50,000 Total $670,000 This project budget will be refined as each element of tender is known.


The requirement to call tenders for these works comes from s3.57 of the Local Government Act and its associated regulation 11 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations. A decision to delegate the authority to award the tenders is taken in accordance with s5.42(1) of the Local Government Act.


The 2017/2018 Budget has identified funding of $920,000 for this project. When the construction contract tender is awarded, Council will be advised of a revised project budget. It is expected that this revised budget will be materially below the $920,000 original budget given the change from gas heating technology to electric heat pump technology.


This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027- OUR COUNCIL Goal 10 The Town is a proactive local government that provides sustainable public

assets, services and facilities


This matter had been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy No 1.2.11. It is proposed that upon reaching a decision on this matter, the Town will engage in dialogue with the community in line with the "Inform" matrix within the policy.



ATTACHMENTS:

Nil. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That: (i) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the

Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to award a contract for the procurement of the electric heat pumps for the heating project at Bold Park Aquatic at an amount no greater than $330,000 plus GST;

(ii) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the

Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to award a contract for the procurement of the construction works for the heating project at Bold Park Aquatic at an amount no greater than $275,000 plus GST; and

(iii) in both cases, a majority of Elected Members must indicate they are in agreement with

the tender recommendation prior to award of the contract and that subsequently a report is submitted to Council for notation.

Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 During discussion, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (i) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the

Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to award a contract for the procurement of the electric heat pumps for the heating project at Bold Park Aquatic at an amount no greater than $330,000 plus GST;

Carried 5/0 (ii) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the

Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to award a contract for the procurement of the construction works for the heating project at Bold Park Aquatic at an amount no greater than $275,000 plus GST; and

Carried 3/2 For: Crs Bradley, Carr and McAllister Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis (iii) in both cases, a majority of Elected Members must indicate they are in agreement with

the tender recommendation prior to award of the contract and that subsequently a report is submitted to Council for notation.

Carried 5/0



COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE

MAJORITY the Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to award a contract for the procurement of the electric heat pumps for the heating project at Bold Park Aquatic at an amount no greater than $330,000 plus GST;

(ii) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE

MAJORITY the Chief Executive Officer be given delegated authority to award a contract for the procurement of the construction works for the heating project at Bold Park Aquatic at an amount no greater than $275,000 plus GST; and

(iii) in both cases, a majority of Elected Members must indicate they are in agreement

with the tender recommendation prior to award of the contract and that subsequently a report is submitted to Council for notation.

During discussion, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (i) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE


Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0 (ii) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE


Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 6/3 For: Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McCallister, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs McKerracher and Timmermanis (iii) in both cases, a majority of Elected Members must indicate they are in agreement


Carried 9/0



COUNCIL DECISION: That: (i) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE


(ii) in accordance with s5.42 of the Local Government Act by an ABSOLUTE


(iii) in both cases, a majority of Elected Members must indicate they are in agreement




CR17.183 SOUTH CITY BEACH KIOSK AND TOILETS - OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY SURVEY

SUMMARY:

The Town received 1,360 responses to a survey seeking their views on retaining or demolishing the South City Beach Kiosk and Public Toilets, and if they wished the building to be retained, ideas as to how it could be re-purposed going forward. In response to the overwhelming feedback received from the community that the South City Beach Kiosk building, it is recommended that for the immediate future that the building is retained and not demolished. The recent survey provided clear interest from potential operators of both commercial and not for profit/community space as future uses for the building. The Town has also identified that a potential future use would be conversion of the building into a beach shelter/BBQ area operated and maintained by the Town. It is proposed that Expressions of Interest are sought from the public to operate the building in the future allowing Council to determine a preferred future use and then enable this use. Finally, information is provided for Council consideration as to the implications of State Planning Policy 2.6 Coastal Protection in regards to the longevity of the building. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its









BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 September 2017, Council considered a report (Item CR17.143) regarding the community survey recently completed regarding the kiosk and toilets at South City Beach and decided that:

(i) the detail of the community survey and feedback be discussed at an Elected Members Forum; and

(ii) a report is presented to Council discussing the options for future uses of the building and a plan to develop and implement a preferred future use.

It was proposed to Elected Member that this matter be reported directly to Council without the need for an Elected Members Forum. None of the Elected Member indicated a preference to go to an Elected Members Forum first.

DETAILS:

Community Survey Analysis As reported to Council in September 2017; 1,354 survey responses were received at the time of preparation of the Council report. A further 6 surveys were received by post after the Council meeting and were subsequently included in the survey database, for a total of 1,360 surveys. The Town engaged Creating Communities to assist the Town in analysing the 1,360 survey responses received. Of these 1,360 surveys, 1,143 provided open ended responses regarding their views on the future use of the kiosk and toilets. The analysis provided insights into:

• the sorts of facilities that the community wished to see at the building; • the number of persons who 'put up their hand' to operate new facilities; • support for retaining the building got stronger the further away the respondent lives from

the Building; and • the age demographics of respondents.

The dashboard over encapsulates the analysis, with the full report from Creating Communities provided as Attachment 1.



Planning and Development Considerations The building sits within the coastal reserve of Crown Land vested in the care of Council. It is zoned Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). This is important in that any proposal to repurpose the building that requires a Development Approval (DA) would have to be assessed and approved by the WAPC and not the Town (as is the case for most Planning Approvals within the Town). The major risk envisaged in this aspect is that, if a new commercial use of the building requires substantial investment of funds (by any party) that had to be amortised over a medium to long term (e.g. 15 years or more) then the building, by implication, has to be able to be serviceable for this period of time. It is likely that WAPC will require that State Planning Policy SPP2.6 Coastal Planning is applied to the DA. If the building is required to remain serviceable for the medium to long term, then SPP2.6 requires that foreshore protection works are undertaken. It is noted that that the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach required a $800,000 sea wall to meet SPP2.6. This may render the economics of any commercial development unviable. It is noted that the policy accepts that Infrastructure for public use may be considered 'sacrificial' in the medium term and would not require the same level of investment in protection works. The Town had commissioned a report into the anticipated impacts of the sea level change/storm surge events detailed in SPP2.6 (M P Rogers, 2013), in which it was advised that the kiosk was assessed as a Medium Risk of loss by 2020 and High Risk of loss by 2062. There is a deal of uncertainty as to when & if these events will occur. This leads to the conclusion that if sea level changes and storm surge events forecasted by the State do eventuate it is unlikely that the kiosk and toilets will be viable for the medium - long term unless investment is made in coastal protection works. Finally, if the building was to be repurposed that substantially deviated from its old use as a kiosk, it is likely that the Planning Approval will require bringing the building up to current Building Codes, requiring further investment. Whilst the above matters appear significant, until such time that the Town is working on a preferred proposal these matters are provided as information only and then they would have to be taken into consideration at the appropriate time. Land Administration Conditions The building sits on Crown Land. The State would need to consider any proposals by the Town to lease out or dispose of the building in relation to the Lands Administration Act and may impose conditions upon a lease or sale (which may impact the commercial terms). Proposed New Uses It is not appropriate at this stage to make any decision as to one preferred form of future use for the building given the variety of suggestions and proposals contained in the survey feedback. It is evident that the preferred form of future use will have some of the following characteristics:- • use of the building by way of lease or license; or • access to the building by way of procured management services to the Town. The Local Government Act notably s3.57, s3.58 and s3.59 deal with matters relating to commercial enterprises by the Town (including leases & disposal of land and buildings) and procurement of goods and services.



Once a preferred manner of use of the building is determined by Council, the relevant parts of the Act (depending on the type of operation) will come into consideration. Therefore, at this stage, the most appropriate way forward is to seek Expressions of Interest in accordance with s3.57 of the Act which allows the Town to resolve the preferred use and maintain flexibility in decision making. It is proposed that the Town seeks Expressions of Interest (EOI) by way of public advertisement from people who wish to take over operation of the building. The EOI process would seek to understand:- • proposed type of operation (nature, operating hours, clientele); • operator's experience; • views on the tenure arrangements (lease or management rights, term of the

arrangement) between the Town and Operator; • proposals regarding commercial terms if a commercial operation is proposed; • proposals regarding management arrangements if a not for profit / community operation

is proposed; • proposal as to who undertakes the necessary capital investment in the soffit repairs; • proposal as to who undertakes the changes to the building to meet Code requirements

(which at the very least may require sewer connection to a Water Corporation main); and • proposal as to who undertakes necessary capital investment in any fitout. Assessment of the EOIs submitted will take into account:- • financial risk / impacts for the Town; • Community benefit; • assessment in terms of Planning issues identified above; and • if the operator proposes licensed premises, what discussions have taken place between

the operator and the regulatory authority. Whilst this EOI process will probably generate proposals of a commercial nature (e.g. kiosks, cafes, small bars etc.) it is likely that some proposals will also be provided where the operator proposes a not for profit or community facility. These would be assessed in line with the above criteria. Forecast commercial return to the Town of these sorts of proposals will not be a determining factor in assessment of those proposals. The Town would also provide an alternate use of converting the facility to a public use beach shelter / BBQ area fully funded and managed by the Town for consideration by Council, as this option could be considered in light of the Planning issues detailed above. The EOI process can commence in February / March 2018 after the necessary documentation is prepared. Advertising the EOI will be through state-wide press, email to those who have registered their interest and hospitality trade magazine. It would be practice that this EOI period extends for two months to allow potential operators sufficient time to prepare their submissions. After this EOI process, a report will be provided to Council with a recommendation as to how to proceed from the EOI to final Operator/Operation. Public Toilets and Showers It is noted that the Town has completed new public Male, Female and Disabled toilets and showers (both indoor and outdoor, with cold showers and warm water showers) within the new Surf Club building, 150 metres from the existing building and more centrally located to the patrolled surf beach.



Whilst some survey respondents requested that the old toilets and showers at South City Beach be reopened for convenience, it is considered unnecessary to maintain this facility for public use noting the proximity of better facilities elsewhere and that the fixtures in the building will require replacement in the near future. It is recommended that these toilets and showers remain permanently closed for public use, and that the space forms part of the floor space for potential re-use of the building (which may be include a smaller toilet facility if desired/required by the operator) Soffit Repair It is recommended that the Town defers undertaking the large scale repairs to the soffit for the immediate short term until such time that greater clarity is known around the likely re-use of the building as these works may need to be incorporated in a larger building project. The Town will monitor the building condition in the meantime taking minor corrective action as needed.


The Expression of Interest phase is undertaken in accordance with s3.57 of the Local Government Act and Regulation 21 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations.


Until such time that a preferred operation for the building is known, the financial implications for the Town cannot be forecast.


Depending on the proposed future use of the building, its retention would support the following Goals of the Town's Strategic Community Plan:- • Our Community Life; and • Our Planned Neighbourhoods.


This report details the analysis of community engagement on the building's future.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Creating Communities Report on analysis of the community surveys.



Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to the South City Beach Kiosk, I declare that I lodged a submission during advertising and included reference to the kiosk in my election materials and, as a consequence, there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly." Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item at Council Cr Everett advised that he had received advice and would not be disclosing an Impartiality Interest in this item at the Council Meeting. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the building known as the South City Beach Kiosk and Toilets is to be retained; (ii) the public toilets part of the building remains closed and be available as floor

space for any future use of the building (which may include a smaller toilet area); (iii) expressions of Interest be sought in February/March 2018 for proposals to operate

at the building; (iv) the Town prepares a proposal for a community use beach shelter/BBQ area for

consideration; and (v) no major investment be made in repairing the soffit until such time that Council

has determined the nature and timing of new use for the building. Carried 9/0



CR17.184 WEMBLEY WEST LEEDERVILLE UNDERGROUND POWER - SURVEY MATERIALS

SUMMARY:

The proposed survey information brochure and survey response card are recommended for approval by Council such that the survey of property owners in Wembley/West Leederville Underground Power Area can commence. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, Council considered a report (CR17.164 refers) and decided (in part) that:

(iii) a survey of property owners within the Wembley/West Leederville underground power project be conducted to ascertain their support for the proposed charge for their relevant property and indicative preferred payment terms;

(iv) the survey brochure and form be provided to Council for endorsement prior to the

survey commencing; (v) the outcomes of the survey be considered by Council before a decision is made to

commit or otherwise to funding underground power within the Wembley/West Leederville project area;

This report deals with item (iv) of the decision.



DETAILS:

The survey card and accompanying brochure would be the same format as that of the State Underground Power Program Round 6 surveys and brochure that were used for Floreat West, Floreat East and Floreat North The survey brochure and a sample survey card are included as Attachment 1 to this report. If Council endorses these materials, the anticipated timing of the survey is: Surveys are printed and posted mid Jan 2018 Survey period (including allowance for School Holidays) mid Feb 2018 Council report on survey outcomes end Feb 2018


Any subsequent decision to undertake underground power works in Wembley/West Leederville and recover some costs from property owners can be undertaken as a Service Charge in accordance with s6.38 of the Local Government Act. Pensioner and senior rebates can be offered in accordance with Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Act 1992, associated Regulations and Department of Treasury Guidelines.


The 2017/2018 Budget has a provision of $17.65m, forecasted on cash flow payments to Western Power for all Floreat projects and the Wembley/West Leederville project. This will be funded from the Area Improvement Reserve. The draft 2018/2019 Budget will forecast the remaining required expenditure (based on actual project costs) as well as recovery of the property owner's portion of the project costs.


Progression of underground power programs support the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2017/2027:- OUR PLANNED NEIGHBOURHOODS Goal 4: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the

character and responsive to future needs; Strategy 4.3 Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant; and Project: Pursue underground power in the remaining areas of the Town in partnership

with the state government.


Property owners within the relevant project areas will be surveyed by the Town regarding underground power with cost information as it relates to them. This will provide an opportunity for gauging community support for the project.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Brochure and Survey Card for Wembley/West Leederville Underground Power. Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.02 pm. Cr Powell deputised for the Wembley Ward members from 7.02 pm to 7.04 pm when Crs Carr and McAllister returned to the meeting. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.48 pm. The nature of their interest is that Cr Carr owns two properties in the affected area. Cr Everett is the contractual owner of No. 2 Abbotsford Street. Cr McAllister owns a commercial and residential property in the affected area. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the survey brochure and survey form regarding underground power in the Wembley/West Leederville area detailed in attachment 1 to this report be endorsed by Council for use in the subsequent survey of property owners in this area. Carried 6/0 Crs Carr, Everett and McAllister returned to the meeting at 7.50 pm.



CR17.185 DOCUMENTS SEALED - DECEMBER 2017

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







DETAILS:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council. A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below:

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

21 Nov 2017

Withdrawal of Caveats over 24 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach. Lot 539 on Deposited Plan 58139 - minor error in the previous documentation provided by the Lawyer.

Dwelling constructed and compliance meets the Town's requirements, therefore Caveats are no longer required.

1

21 Nov 2017 Withdrawal of Caveats - Floreat Forum Shopping Centre.

Removal of two Caveats to allow registration of five new leases (Kiosk 5, Shops 21A & 21B, Shop 77, Shop 81, Shops 97 & 99) - Floreat Forum Shopping Centre.

2




There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.




Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 priority area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 9/0



CR17.186 REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACT 1995 - SUBMISSION TO DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT, SPORT AND CULTURAL INDUSTRIES

SUMMARY:

The Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) have commenced a review of the Local Government Act 1995. The review is to be undertaken in two phases, and the comment period on the first phase closes on 9th February 2018. This report and report attachment summarises the issues from the discussion paper and seeks the Council position on the eleven topics identified, such that the Council's positon can be put to the Department. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

On 20 June 2017, the Local Government Minister announced that the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) would commence a review of the Act. This is the first major review since the Act was introduced more than 20 years ago. In November 2017, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) launched the review, commencing with industry and community workshops and a discussion paper for the first phase.

DETAILS:

It has been stated that a review of the Act is overdue by Government. Some parts of the Act restrict the ability of local governments to deliver services to the community. Other parts have not kept pace with modern technology and community expectations.



The review will introduce changes that will modernise the Act and identify ways to reduce red tape to ensure Western Australian communities benefit from efficient and effective Councils now and into the future. The review is being conducted in two phases:- Phase one of the review will focus on four key areas:

• Making information available online • Meeting public expectations for accountability • Meeting public expectations of ethics, standards and performance • Building capacity through reducing red tape*

Commencing in 2018, phase two will ensure local governments are positioned to deliver for the community by examining ways to:-

• Increasing participation in local government elections • Increasing community participation • Introducing an adaptive regulatory framework • Improving financial management • Building capacity through reducing red tape* • Other matters raised in phase 1 consultation

*matter to be dealt with in both phases The need to conduct the review in two phases is to ensure that those aspects of the Act that are clearly outdated are addressed sooner rather than later and have therefore been prioritised. Other matters that are more complicated and would require detailed consideration of the options available have been listed for consideration as part of phase two. The review will be supported by a reference group with representation from the Western Australian Local Government Association, Local Government Professionals Australia (WA), Western Australian Electoral Commission, Western Australian Council of Social Service, Regional Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the WA Rangers Association. Local governments will be engaged throughout the review, with a discussion paper for the first phase released in November this year by the DLGC, followed by a series of workshops. The discussion paper can be found here: DLGSCI Discussion Paper WALGA has also circulated its own discussion paper for comment. This was undertaken prior to the launch and therefore does not directly correlate to the phase one discussion paper. The WALGA document. The WALGA Discussion Paper incorporates a number of proposals that have either been raised through Zone or Sate Council meetings or are matters that have been highlighted by the sector as requiring attention. A hard copy of both discussion papers will be circulated with the agenda. The proposals have been transposed into the submission table shown at Attachment 1 and the proposed Council response added for consideration. Once confirmed, the responses will then be forwarded to the Department of Local Government before the closing date of February 9th 2018.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.

https://www.dlgc.wa.gov.au/Publications/Pages/Local-Government-Act-Review-Phase-1-Consultation-Paper.aspx






Goal 9 Transparent, Accountable Governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Discussion Paper Summary and Town of Cambridge Response 2. Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) - Discussion

Paper (hard copy) 3. WALGA Review of Local Government Act 1995 - Discussion Paper (hard copy)


That Council endorses the responses to the Local Government Act 1995 review discussion paper (as amended by Council) in Attachment 1 and the responses be forwarded to the Department of Local Government. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the item relating to the Review of the Local Government Act 1995 be deferred to the February 2018 Council meeting. Carried 9/0



CR17.187 POLICY - CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER TAKING OF LEAVE AND APPOINTMENT OF ACTING CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

SUMMARY:

The Council decided at its meeting held in November 2017 that a policy be developed which deals with the Chief Executive Officer taking leave and the performance of duties while absent from council offices. A review has been undertaken of other local government policies where they exist or are available and a new policy developed for the Town’s circumstances. The policy is presented for adoption. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

A Notice of Motion in relation to the leave arrangements for the Chief Executive Officer was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 28 November 2017 and it was decided as follows: That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer develop a policy which deals with the taking of his

leave and the performance of his duties while absent from council offices; (ii) the policy be circulated for consideration at the December meeting of Council. The Notice of Motion was supported with the following comment: It is good governance to have policies which constrain the appropriate exercise of discretion. The approval of leave whether paid or unpaid, and the absence from Council while on duty should be clearly defined and not left to the discretion of the CEO. This report is consistent with the Council decision and includes the policy for Council's consideration as requested.



The purpose (objective) of the policy is to guide the taking of leave by the Chief Executive Officer and arrangements for the appointment of an Acting Chief Executive Officer in the absence of the Chief Executive Officer due to annual, long service, extended personal leave or other circumstances.

DETAILS:

A review has been undertaken of other local government policies where they exist, or are available. It is noted that policies from other local governments focus on the appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer and not so much to the process of the Chief Executive Officer taking leave and the communication to elected members in this regard. Given the context of the request from Council the policy proposed has combined both those functions so that it covers the process of the Chief Executive Officer taking leave and the circumstances, including the process, where an acting Chief Executive Officer is appointed. Examples included the policies from City of Perth, City of Gosnells and City of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. The Chief Executive Officer is eligible to annual leave, long service leave and personal leave (including carer’s leave, sick leave and compassionate leave) as provided in the contract of employment. The policy has been developed to facilitate those arrangements and to ensure the continuous operations of the Town. The policy provides differing guidelines for varying leave periods as follows: 1. for periods of leave less than five days (i.e. less than one week); 2. for periods of leave of five consecutive days (i.e. one week) and up to four weeks; and 3. for periods of leave more than four weeks. The Policy also outlines the acting arrangements and identifies that all Directors are eligible to act in the role of Chief Executive Officer and when doing so will be paid higher duties. Guidance is also provided to avoid, where possible, for the Chief Executive Officer to be absent from ordinary Council meetings which is generally consistent with the past practice of the Chief Executive Officer. At this time, the Chief Executive Officer has planned leave for seven days in mid-January 2018 and 3 days in early March 2018.


The Local Government Act 1995 provides that a local government is to employee a Chief Executive Officer under Section 5.36. The functions of the Chief Executive Officer are detailed in Section 5.41. The Chief Executive Officer can delegate the powers and the duties of the Chief Executive Officer, other than the power of delegation, to another officer as provided in Section 5.44. This report proposes that a new policy be adopted for the taking of leave by the Chief Executive Officer and appointment of an acting Chief Executive Officer in particular circumstances.






Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance; Strategy 9.1: Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is administration in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Policy - Chief Executive Officer Taking of Leave and Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer.

Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Mr Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to the Policy relating to Taking of Leave and Appointment of Acting Chief Executive, I declare that as I am the Chief Executive Officer there may be a perception that my impartiality may be affected." It was agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Mr Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer and all Directors, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act, declared that they have a financial interest in this matter. COUNCIL DECISION: ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the attached Policy - “Chief Executive Officer Taking of Leave and Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer” be adopted. Amendment Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That clauses 1, 2 and 4 of the Chief Executive Officer Taking of Leave and Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer Policy be amended as follows:- 1. For periods of leave less than five days (i.e. less than one week)

(a) the Chief Executive Officer will provide notification to the Mayor and Councillors of planned leave of less than five days one week in advance or as soon as practicable if the leave is unplanned for approval by the Mayor;



2. For periods of leave of five consecutive days (i.e. one week) and up to four weeks

(a) the Chief Executive Officer will liaise with the Mayor at least two weeks prior for

planned leave of five consecutive days and up to four weeks for approval by the Mayor;

4. Acting Chief Executive Officer Arrangements

(a) where the Chief Executive Officer is absent from the state of Western Australia, he must appoint an Acting CEO to perform his duties in his absence; and

(b) the following employees are eligible to be appointed to the role of Acting Chief

Executive Officer:

• Director Community Development; • Director Corporate and Strategic; • Director Infrastructure; and • Director Planning and Development; and • Director Projects.

Discussion ensued. Cr McAllister suggested that 1(a) and 2(a) be amended by adding the words "and that such approval not be unreasonably withheld" and 4(a) be deleted. In accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, the mover and seconder agreed to delete 4(a) from the policy and amend the wording of 1(a) and 2(a) as follows:- 1. For periods of leave less than five days (i.e. less than one week)

(a) the Chief Executive Officer will provide notification to the Mayor and Councillors of planned leave of less than five days one week in advance or as soon as practicable if the leave is unplanned for approval by the Mayor, and that such approval not be unreasonably withheld;

2. For periods of leave of five consecutive days (i.e. one week) and up to four weeks

(a) the Chief Executive Officer will liaise with the Mayor at least two weeks prior for planned leave of five consecutive days and up to four weeks for approval by the Mayor and that such approval not be unreasonably withheld;

Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That the attached Policy - “Chief Executive Officer Taking of Leave and Appointment of Acting Chief Executive Officer, as amended, be adopted. Carried 9/0



CR17.188 DELEGATED AUTHORITY 2017 - 2018- CHRISTMAS NEW YEAR RECESS

SUMMARY:

This report seeks delegation of some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer (other than those listed under Section 5.43) to deal with urgent items of business that may arise during the 2017/2018 Christmas/New Year recess period. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Council will be in its usual recess from the last meeting of the year, to be held on 19 December 2017 to the first Ordinary Council Meeting in the new year. In accordance with past practice, it is proposed to make arrangements to enable urgent items of business, which may arise during that period, to be dealt with.

DETAILS:

The Local Government Act 1995 details the Council’s ability to delegate some powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer. Section 5.42 states:- “a local government may delegate to the Chief Executive Officer (by absolute majority) the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under this Act other than those referred to in Section 5.43 and this power of delegation.” Section 5.43 of the Act specifies those powers and duties unable to be delegated to a Chief Executive Officer. The Act also states that the delegation may be general or as otherwise provided in the instrument of delegation. It is recommended that in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43, during the Christmas/New Year period for 2017/2018, subject to the following:-



(i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant Ward being in agreement with the recommendation;

(ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business of a

general nature, a majority of all Elected Members being in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority be

submitted for information to the February 2018 Council meeting; (iv) the Mayor be kept informed of all items of business considered during the Christmas/New

Year period. Should any item require an absolute majority of the Council, the requisite level of consent will be sought. During previous Christmas/New Year recesses, it has been agreed that the Chief Executive Officer be advised by Elected Members individually if they are to be absent and that a contact person be nominated if they wish to be consulted on matters relating to delegated authority. This procedure has been used most effectively for the Christmas/New Year recess period of Council every year since 1995. It should be noted that Council decided at the Ordinary Council meeting held on 28 November 2017 to set aside a tentative Special Council Meeting date to deal with any urgent matters of business that may arise during the January period, requiring a Council decision. Typically, these would be development matters, where time is of the essence, requiring a Council decision within a statutory timeframe.


The Christmas/New Year delegation is in addition to the Schedule of Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer authorised each year by the Council.


Nil


Strategic Community Plan 2017-2027 Capacity to Deliver - Goal of transparent, accountable governance.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- That in accordance with Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Chief Executive Officer be delegated authority by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to exercise the powers and duties of the Council, other than those referred to in Section 5.43 of the Act, from 20 December 2017 to 19 January 2018 provided:- (i) in relation to Ward matters, a majority of the four Ward Members of the relevant

Ward are in agreement with the Administration recommendation; (ii) in relation to general matters, where the recommendation is for an item of business

of a general nature, a majority of all Elected Members are in agreement; (iii) a report summarising the items of business dealt with by delegated authority is

submitted for information to the Council meeting to be held on 27 February 2018; (iv) the Mayor and Councillors be kept informed of all items of business to be

considered under delegated authority during the Christmas/New Year period; (v) Elected Members to notify their agreement or otherwise to issues within the

timeframe set out in the request. If no response received, it will be assumed that the status quo position will be maintained (i.e. no change).

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR17.189 HAMPTONS, CITY BEACH - PERMISSION FOR OUTDOOR MUSIC

SUMMARY:

This report seeks the approval of Council to permit the tenant of Hamptons at City Beach to project electronic music in the alfresco area. The lease places certain limitations on noise emissions and music specifically. In this proposal, the music is proposed to be played by a DJ, at particular times and on particular occasions. As such, the matter is referred to Council for determination under the provisions of the lease. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Council, at its meeting of 26 November 2013, entered into an Agreement for Lease and Lease with Starwest Investments Pty Ltd (the Hamptons) as the Hospitality Operator at Tenancy A in the City Beach Commercial Precinct.



DETAILS:

A request has been received from the Hamptons, City Beach for the Town to permit electronic music on the alfresco deck at Hamptons City Beach on Sundays from 4pm till 8pm. They have also requested the use of a DJ for wedding receptions and for special functions which include the Melbourne Cup, Christmas Eve, New Year's Eve, and Australia Day festivities. The current lease contains Precinct Rules, which only allows for background recorded music, as long as the lessee ensures that it does not annoy any other tenants or occupiers using the Precinct. The background music at Hamptons currently plays on a sound system with speakers throughout the building. The lessee has been approached by clients who have requested to use the services of a DJ. The majority of these have been for wedding receptions. The lessee has declined these requests due to lease constraints that only allow for background recorded music. Alfresco Area of Hamptons, City Beach

Lease Provisions The lease contains provisions dealing with noise which makes reference to the creation of a nuisance to occupiers or visitors to the precinct, or occupiers of other properties in the vicinity.

11.5 Tenant's prohibitions The Tenant must not:

(d) allow any circumstances to arise in the Premises which might annoy, damage, disturb or be a nuisance to the Town or other occupiers or visitors to the Land or to the occupiers of other properties in the vicinity of the Land, including but not limited to nuisance by way of noise or smell



The lease also operates with Precinct Rules, which stipulate that: Rule 7: Music in Premises

7.1 If the tenant plays music, makes any sound using sound equipment or uses a television, the Tenant must make sure the sound is not heard or likely to be heard outside the premises.

7.2 However, the Tenant may play 'background recorded music' as long as the

Tenant makes sure that it does not annoy any other tenants or occupiers using the Precinct.

7.3 The Tenant may not spruik or permit any other loud or like noise either inside or

outside without the Managers written consent.

It is open to the Town to make, vary or repeal Rules from time to time, by giving notice to the Tenant if those Rules do not materially prejudice the Tenant's rights under the lease. If Council is of the mind to support the request, it is suggested that permission be granted for a trial period from January through to March. The other tenancies within the precinct have been contacted for their initial comment and have no objections. The approval could be withdrawn at any time if the Town receives nuisance complaints. The Rules would be varied to in effect permit electronic music up to a decibel limit set by the Town on Sundays between the hours of 4pm to 8pm from January 2018 to March 2018. Functions requiring a DJ are to be approved by the Chief Executive Officer on a case by case basis. The Tenant has agreed to keep the music within a decibel limit set by the Town and that the noise would be closely monitored by the Lessee (through the duty managers) to ensure that the music emanating does create a nuisance. Note that the closest residence is approximately 200 metres from Hamptons City Beach.


The lease and Precinct Rules operates under the Commercial Tenancies (Retail Shops) Agreements Act 1985


Nil


The report reflects the following goals and strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1 Facilitate commercial development within the Town




This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil


That permission is granted to Hamptons to play outdoor electronic music for a trial period of 3 months between 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2018, subject to the following:- • Electronic music is only permitted on Sundays between the hours of 4pm to 8pm; • The music is not to exceed a decibel level set by the Chief Executive Officer; • Evidence of consent from the immediate adjoining tenancies must be provided; • Permission may be withdrawn at any time and in particular following any complaints

regarding the noise omitted creating a nuisance; • Special functions outside the above times may be approved by the Chief Executive

Officer on a case by case basis, and the Chief Executive Officer may impose such special conditions as he sees fit, including but not limited to the type of music that can be played and the decibel limits.

Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That the last dot point be amended by deleting the words "but not limited to the type of music that can be played and the". Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, McAllister and Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That permission is granted to Hamptons to play outdoor electronic music for a trial period of 3 months between 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2018, subject to the following:- • Electronic music is only permitted on Sundays between the hours of 4pm to 8pm; • The music is not to exceed a decibel level set by the Chief Executive Officer; • Evidence of consent from the immediate adjoining tenancies must be provided; • Permission may be withdrawn at any time and in particular following any

complaints regarding the noise omitted creating a nuisance;



• Special functions outside the above times may be approved by the Chief Executive Officer on a case by case basis, and the Chief Executive Officer may impose such special conditions as he sees fit, including the decibel limits.

Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That the fifth dot point be amended to read as follows:- • Special functions outside the above times may be approved by the Chief Executive

Officer on a case by case basis, and the Chief Executive Officer may impose conditions relating to decibel limits.

Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That permission is granted to Hamptons to play outdoor electronic music for a trial period of 3 months between 1 January 2018 to 31 March 2018, subject to the following:- • Electronic music is only permitted on Sundays between the hours of 4pm to 8pm; • The music is not to exceed a decibel level set by the Chief Executive Officer; • Evidence of consent from the immediate adjoining tenancies must be provided; • Permission may be withdrawn at any time and in particular following any

complaints regarding the noise omitted creating a nuisance; • Special functions outside the above times may be approved by the Chief Executive

Officer on a case by case basis, and the Chief Executive Officer may impose conditions relating to decibel limits.

Carried 9/0



CR17.190 INSTALLATION OF SIGNAGE ON WEST COAST HIGHWAY - FLOREAT BEACH KIOSK

SUMMARY:

The Tenant of the Floreat Kiosk has requested permission to install a directional and an informative sign on West Coast Highway, indicating Floreat Beach and the surrounding amenities. This report seeks the approval of directional signs within the West Coast Highway Road Reserve but does not approve a Floreat Beach Kiosk advertising sign on property owned by the Town. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Town has received a request from the owner of the Floreat Beach Kiosk to install signage on West Coast Highway that informs motorists of Floreat Beach and the amenities in the area. The tenant's requests is summarised as follows: 1. Add a tourist attraction type sign on West Coast Highway for north bound traffic. 2. Replace the current sign on West Coast Highway southbound direction with a tourist

attraction sign. 3. Grant permission for a private business sign to be placed on the north west corner with

West Coast Highway. This sign would be paid for by tenant and advertise The Kiosk Floreat Beach. It would be placed on council land close to Main Roads reserve.

The Town has previously approached Main Road to install signage on the road reserve on West Coast Highway as signs on West Coast Highway are the responsibility of Main Roads. The Town does not have the authority to grant approvals for signs on West Coast highway. Previously, when the Town has made enquiries regarding signage, Main Roads advised the Town that:



"The Floreat Beach tourist sign would have been approved by Tourism WA, as the beach is a Natural Attraction. The uses of road signs are to reassure motorists of the tourist location and it is expected that visitors looking for the attraction have planned their journey in advanced of setting off. The café, volleyball, playground etc do not meet Main Roads guide lines for signs within the road reserve. Any facilities within a tourist destination can be promoted in brochures or tourist information centres. Due to the above Main Roads cannot approve the additional signage as requested".

DETAILS:

The signs that exist currently on West Coast Highway do not denote either City Beach or Floreat Beach - rather, they promote the Sunset Coast Tourist Drive, north and south of the Oceanic Drive intersection and also north and south of the Challenger Parade (Floreat Beach end) intersection. The Tourist Drive signs also refer to food and beverage.

Currently, there is no specific signage that advises motorists of the location of the Floreat Beach Kiosk or the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club for those traveling north on West Coast Highway. A sign indicating Floreat Beach is positioned on the east side of West Coast Highway so cars traveling south can observe it, there is no reference to food or beverage on this sign.



Attachment one provides a location map illustrating the signage in place for Sunset Drive and Floreat Beach on West Coast Highway and Challenger Parade. The Authority for placing signs in the West Coast Highway road reserve is that of Main Roads. It is open to the Town to seek: • a brown tourist information sign on the west side of West Coast Highway indicating

"Floreat Beach". • A blue tourist information signs underneath the brown tourist Floreat Beach signs

indicating food, playground and toilets. A Council endorsement of this position will assist the request. In addition, or as an alternative, consideration could be given to the western side of West Coast Highway on the corner of the access road that leads to the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club and the Kiosk. The location is indicated in red below.

The proposed sign would be located on freehold land owned by the Town, however the zoning is MRS Parks and Reserves, and WAPC approval may be required. All other locations within 200 meters of the intersection are problematic as the areas are either covered in thick bushland or would impede traffic sightlines. The request from the Kiosk operator also seeks permission for a private business sign to be placed on the North West corner with West Coast Highway. At present, the Town has not approved business signs on property owned or controlled by the Town, except where a sign is located on a leased community facility and is associated with sponsorship of the community tenant. On this basis, the request is not supported.



If the Town were of the mind to approve a business sign on its land as the "land owner", it ought to do so within a policy framework so that future applications can be considered consistently and equally. It is noted that the Kiosk owner has installed a sign, which is attached to way signage installed by Main Roads on Challenger Parade. This sign has no formal approval by the Town.


Council Policy 5.4.5 Signs - Directional Signs (v) Signs are not allowed for designation of commercial premises, unless otherwise

permissible by Main Roads WA.

As the proposed installation of the sign will be on freehold land owned by the Town and not on the Road Reserve the Town may allow the sign to be installed without MRWA approval.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report as the manufacture and erection costs of the approved sign will be borne by the Lessee of the Floreat Beach Kiosk in accordance with the Town’s requirements.


Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1 Facilitate commercial development within the Town



ATTACHMENTS:

1. West Coast Highway/Challenger Parade Signage


That:- (i) the Town requests the approval of Main Roads WA to install a brown tourist information

sign on the west side of West Coast Highway indicating "Floreat Beach", and further to install blue tourist information signs underneath the brown tourist signs indicating food, playground and toilets at a location agreed with Main Roads within the area indicated below:



(ii) the Town not approve the request from the Floreat Beach Kiosk to install a business sign

on the north west corner of West Coast Highway and the access road, leading into the Floreat Kiosk.

Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 During discussion, the Presiding Member advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (i) the Town requests the approval of Main Roads WA to install a brown tourist information

sign on the west side of West Coast Highway indicating "Floreat Beach", and further to install blue tourist information signs underneath the brown tourist signs indicating food, playground and toilets at a location agreed with Main Roads within the area indicated below.

Carried 5/0 (ii) the Town not approve the request from the Floreat Beach Kiosk to install a business sign

on the north west corner of West Coast Highway and the access road, leading into the Floreat Kiosk.

Lost 1/4 For: Cr McAllister Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr and Timmermanis Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley (ii) the Town allow the request from the Floreat Beach Kiosk to apply for a business sign on

the north west corner of West Coast Highway and the access road, leading into the Floreat Kiosk.

Carried 3/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and Carr Against: Crs McAllister and Timmermanis



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Town requests the approval of Main Roads WA to install a brown tourist

information sign on the west side of West Coast Highway indicating "Floreat Beach", and further to install blue tourist information signs underneath the brown tourist signs indicating food, playground and toilets at a location agreed with Main Roads within the area indicated below.

(ii) the Town allow the request from the Floreat Beach Kiosk to apply for a business

sign on the north west corner of West Coast Highway and the access road, leading into the Floreat Kiosk.

During discussion, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (i) the Town requests the approval of Main Roads WA to install a brown tourist

information sign on the west side of West Coast Highway indicating "Floreat Beach", and further to install blue tourist information signs underneath the brown tourist signs indicating food, playground and toilets at a location agreed with Main Roads within the area indicated below.

Carried 9/0 (ii) the Town allow the request from the Floreat Beach Kiosk to apply for a business

sign on the north west corner of West Coast Highway and the access road, leading into the Floreat Kiosk.

Lost 3/6 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley and Carr Against: Crs Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell and Timmermanis



COUNCIL DECISION: That the Town requests the approval of Main Roads WA to install a brown tourist information sign on the west side of West Coast Highway indicating "Floreat Beach", and further to install blue tourist information signs underneath the brown tourist signs indicating food, playground and toilets at a location agreed with Main Roads within the area indicated below.



CR17.191 PROPOSED SIGNAGE - THE BOULEVARD AND GAYTON ROAD RESERVES (EMPIRE VILLAGE SHOPPING CENTRE)

SUMMARY:

The owner of the Empire Village Shopping Centre, GPA Pty Ltd has submitted a Development Application seeking approval for three (3) signs located within The Boulevard and Gayton Road Reserves. This report recommends the application not be signed based on:

• the signs are not directly abutting the commercial premises; • commercial signs approved on Council controlled property may set a precedent; and • There are two commercial properties in this location and at a future time, the second

owner may want to install a further sign. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Town has received a Development Application from GPA Pty Ltd to install three sign within The Boulevard and Gayton Road reserves (see Attachment 1). By virtue of section 55(2) of the Land Administration Act 1997, section 3.53 of the Local Government Act 1995 and section 168(2) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 the care, control and management of public roads or thoroughfares passes to the relevant local government authority.

DETAILS:

The role of Council for this matter is Executive, as Council is acting in the capacity land owner. Therefore the issue for consideration is whether the development application for signage should be signed, not whether the development application should be approved, the latter being a separate regulator process under the Planning and Development Act.



Without the approval of the land holder (the Town) the Development Application is unable to be lodged. Proposed Signage GPA Pty Ltd seeks approval for three (3) signs consisting of: • Two (2) 'Directional Pillar' signs (located at the corner of Gayton Road/Oban Road corner;

and the corner of The Boulevard /Gardens) and; • One (1) 'Tenant Pylon' sign (located on the Boulevard just east of the Oban Road

intersection).

Presently there are no instances where the Town has approved of signs of this nature that are located in road reserves within the Town. However, the Ocean Village Shopping Centre has a direction sign on a road reserve underneath which is listed a number of businesses. This sign was modified without the approval of the Town. Further east on The Boulevard, the sign at the Wembley Golf Course is located within the boundary of the golf course and the sign at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre is located predominantly within the boundary of the Aquatic Centre. Council Policy 5.4.5 Signs - Directional Signs, identifies the types of directional signs relating to facilities of community interest that can be erected in the road reserve and conditions that apply to their provision, erection and maintenance and states: "(v) signs are not allowed for designation of commercial premises, unless otherwise permissible by Main Roads WA".



If the Council were of the mind to authorise signing the development application as the "land owner", it ought to do so within a policy framework so that future applications can be considered consistently and equally. For example, it may wish to permit this type of signage for local and district centres only. In this case in particular, the land owner conditions that would reside with the approval would include:

• Only one sign permitted • Space must be made available on reasonable terms for the adjoining shopping centre

owner to advertise • Approval can be withdrawn at any time if the Town requires the use of the road reserve

for a public purpose • A licence Agreement must be entered into between the Town and the Shopping Centre

Owner • The costs of preparing any agreements for such an approval to be borne by the Centre

Owner, with such an agreement to include indemnity, maintenance, and term. If this approval is granted, the application will then be assessed by the Town's Planning and Development service. This report recommends the application not be signed based on:

• the signs are not directly abutting the commercial premises; • commercial signs approved on Council controlled property may set a precedent; and • There are two commercial properties in this location and at a future time the second

owner may want to install a further sign.


Land Administration Act 1997 55. Property in and management etc. of roads (2) Subject to the Main Roads Act 1930 and the Public Works Act 1902, the local

government within the district of which a road is situated has the care, control and management of the road.

Council Policy 5.4.5 Signs - Directional Signs (v) Signs are not allowed for designation of commercial premises, unless otherwise

permissible by Main Roads WA




Goal 10 The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy 10.1 Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects





ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Signage - The Boulevard and Gayton Road Reserves COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the development application submitted by GPA Pty Ltd for three sign within The Boulevard and Gayton Rd road reserves not be signed by the Town as the land owner for the following reasons: • The signs are not directly abutting the commercial premises; • Commercial signs approved on Council controlled property may set a precedent;

and • There are two commercial properties in this location and at a future time the

second owner may want to install a further sign. Moved by Cr Bradley That the item be referred back to the Community and Resources Committee for further consideration. The motion lapsed for want of a seconder. The original motion was then put and carried 8/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McAlister, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell

and Timmermanis Against: Cr Bradley



CR17.192 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NOVEMBER 2017

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past month.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan's goal of transparent, accountable governance.




This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level - Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, be confirmed:

Carried 9/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 01-November-2017 03-November-2017 054450 - 054467 $20,883.93Municipal Fund 09-November-2017 09-November-2017 054468 - 054481 $88,204.88Municipal Fund 10-November-2017 16-November-2017 054482 - 054510 $51,110.77Municipal Fund 24-November-2017 24-November-2017 054511 - 054520 $26,869.79Municipal Fund 25-November-2017 30-November-2017 054521 - 054547 $32,775.93Wembley Golf Course 01-November-2017 30-November-2017 000590 - 000591 $571.50

$220,416.80

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-November-2017 30-November-2017 INV00997 - INV01004 $12,783,731.01Direct Bank Charges 01-November-2017 30-November-2017 Sup 410 - Sup 414 $99,016.48Accounts Payable 02-November-2017 02-November-2017 E29605 - E29608 $84,019.45Accounts Payable 02-November-2017 08-November-2017 E29609 - E29698 $502,227.13Accounts Payable 10-November-2017 17-November-2017 E29699 - E29791 $317,710.87Accounts Payable 21-November-2017 23-November-2017 E29792 - E29896 $438,219.20Accounts Payable 24-November-2017 24-November-2017 E29897 - E29989 $253,151.27Payroll 01-November-2017 30-November-2017 000989 - 001000 $1,685,071.12Wembley Golf Course 01-November-2017 30-November-2017 EP000266 - EP000272 $148,744.44

Total EFT Payments $16,311,890.97

TOTAL PAYMENTS $16,532,307.77



CR17.193 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 17

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its December meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 1.50% as expected. Conditions in the global economy have improved over the past year with better than expected growth in the more advanced economies, although uncertainties remain. Chinese economic growth is being supported by increased spending on infrastructure and property construction, with the high level of debt continuing to present a medium-term risk. Australian economic growth to date has been in line with expectations. The outlook for non-mining investment has improved further. Increased public infrastructure investment is also supporting the economy. Employment growth has been strong this year accompanied by a rise in labour force participation.



The Australian dollar remains within the range that it has been over the past two years. The low level of interest rates is continuing to stimulate and support the Australian economy. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same. The major banks rates for one to three month terms are on average 2.07%, for terms of four to six months on average around 2.38% and for terms of seven months to nine months on average around 2.43%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 1.63% for November 2017. The 90 days BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 1.74% at 30 November 2017. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 1.50% for November 2017 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.54%. The weighted average investment period of 210 days (approximately seven months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.40%. Investment Portfolio Performance for November 2017 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period November 2016 to November 2017.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For November 2016 to November 2017

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate



The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since November 2014.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

Nov-14 Feb-15 May-15 Aug-15 Nov-15 Feb-16 May-16 Aug-16 Nov-16 Feb-17 May-17 Aug-17 Nov-17

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For November 2014 to November 2017

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of November 2017 is $78.4 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $20.8 million, Reserve Funds of $49.3 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $6.3 million and Trust Funds of $2 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from November 2016 to November 2017.

0369

121518212427303336394245485154576063666972757881

Nov 16 Dec 16 Jan 17 Feb 17 Mar 17 Apr 17 May 17 Jun 17 Jul 17 Aug 17 Sep 17 Oct 17 Nov 17

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal




The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.

The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of November 2017 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateNovember

2017 IncomeTotal Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "AAA" 2.17% $1,109 $621,124 0.79% 0.02%

Sub-total $1,109 $621,124 0.79% 0.02%Term Deposits and Bank BillsANZ - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 2.42% $1,989 $1,008,553 1.29% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.45% $200 $100,720 0.13% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.40% $1,069 $544,686 0.69% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.45% $346 $515,088 0.66% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.45% $2,049 $1,019,602 1.30% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.40% $1,994 $1,017,218 1.30% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 336 "A1+" 2.60% $4,274 $2,033,337 2.59% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.40% $3,988 $2,032,576 2.59% 0.06%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 2.50% $3,336 $2,032,969 2.59% 0.06%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.35% $2,919 $1,519,708 1.94% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 2.45% $2,025 $1,010,364 1.29% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 2.55% $422 $2,011,882 2.57% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 152 "A1+" 2.50% $2,055 $1,004,384 1.28% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 140 "A1+" 2.50% $3,082 $1,506,062 1.92% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 95 "A1+" 2.40% $1,973 $1,003,682 1.28% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 187 "A1+" 2.45% $3,021 $1,505,034 1.92% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 166 "A1+" 2.45% $805 $1,500,805 1.91% 0.05%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.52% $2,132 $1,032,336 1.32% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.45% $2,080 $1,043,461 1.33% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.50% $1,408 $2,056,398 2.62% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.54% $4,229 $2,033,260 2.59% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.60% $4,274 $2,033,337 2.59% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 355 "A1+" 2.60% $4,274 $2,033,052 2.59% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 140 "A1+" 2.54% $7,398 $3,558,033 4.54% 0.12%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.50% $413 $2,012,508 2.57% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 2.50% $2,055 $1,005,959 1.28% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 2.57% $4,225 $2,009,013 2.56% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 151 "A1+" 2.55% $2,096 $1,003,912 1.28% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 201 "A1+" 2.55% $3,144 $1,505,240 1.92% 0.05%AMP - Term Deposit 365 "A1" 2.60% $10,258 $4,817,780 6.15% 0.16%Westpac - Term Deposit 367 "A1+" 2.57% $6,337 $3,011,829 3.84% 0.10%Westpac - Term Deposit 362 "A1+" 2.52% $365 $660,365 0.84% 0.02%Westpac - Term Deposit 364 "A1+" 2.52% $414 $2,000,414 2.55% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 182 "A1" 2.50% $2,115 $1,039,875 1.33% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 189 "A1" 2.55% $2,155 $1,031,907 1.32% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 2.45% $2,065 $1,031,363 1.32% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 154 "A1" 2.50% $2,111 $1,031,439 1.32% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 175 "A1" 2.50% $4,204 $2,055,376 2.62% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 210 "A1" 2.55% $4,297 $2,055,804 2.62% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 280 "A1" 2.60% $4,274 $2,033,337 2.59% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 236 "A1" 2.60% $4,274 $2,033,052 2.59% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 299 "A1" 2.60% $4,274 $2,033,052 2.59% 0.07%Suncorp - Term Deposit 216 "A1" 2.60% $4,060 $1,921,113 2.45% 0.06%Suncorp - Term Deposit 189 "A1" 2.55% $3,144 $1,508,384 1.92% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 193 "A1" 2.55% $6,895 $3,302,872 4.21% 0.11%Suncorp - Term Deposit 186 "A1" 2.55% $2,096 $1,003,912 1.28% 0.03%Suncorp - Term Deposit 215 "A1" 2.55% $3,144 $1,505,240 1.92% 0.05%Suncorp - Term Deposit 238 "A1" 2.50% $2,055 $1,002,123 1.28% 0.03%Term Deposit Matured in Nov $15,257

Sub-total $157,067 $77,772,414 99.21% 2.52%

Total Investments $158,177 $78,393,538 100.00% 2.54%

Weighted Average 210 2.54%




Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at

30 June 2017 Budget

2017/2018

YTD Budget as at

November 2017

Actual as at

November 2017 %

General * $434,576 $477,500 $161,100 $170,612 35.7% Reserves $955,700 $1,044,000 $439,200 $450,369 43.1% Endowment Lands $21,813 $154,000 $27,000 $24,701 16.0% External Investments $1,412,089 $1,675,500 $627,300 $645,682 38.5% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $579,111 $795,500

$330,000 $329,113 41.4%

Total Investments $1,991,200 $2,471,000 $957,300 $974,795 39.4% * Includes Bank Account Interest of $16,524


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan, specifically: Goal: 11 A strong performing local government. Strategy: 11.1 - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - November 2017 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2017, as attached, be received. Carried 9/0



CR17.194 TAMALA PARK REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETING - AUGUST - DECEMBER 2017

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC) Ordinary Meeting held on the 17 August, 12 October and 7 December 2017 AUTHORITY / DISCRETION Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its







BACKGROUND:

The Town of Cambridge is one of seven members of the Tamala Park Regional Council (TPRC). The complete membership and equity ownership varies between members as follows:- Member Equity Member Representation City of Stirling 4/12 4 City of Joondalup 2/12 3 City of Wanneroo 2/12 3 Town of Cambridge 1/12 1 Town of Vincent 1/12 1 Town of Victoria Park 1/12 1 City of Perth 1/12 1

The purpose of the TPRC is to undertake, in accordance with the Establishment Agreement objectives, the rezoning, subdivision, development, marketing and sale of the Tamala Park land. The objectives of the TPRC are:- • to develop and improve the value of the land; • to maximise within prudent risk parameters, the financial return to the participants; • to balance economic, social and environmental issues; and • to produce a quality development demonstrating the best urban design and development

practice.



Over 2,700 dwellings (2,400 lots) will be developed, establishing a population of 6,500. The dwellings are likely to comprise of:

Single Residential 1,955 Town Houses 555 Flats/Apartments 310

At its Meeting in October 2017, the TPRC considered a revised project cash flow. The following summarises the revised project budgets:-

The following shows the Owners capital injections and profit distributions for the project, in accordance with the revised project plan:-

PTD 2017

Forecast 2018

Budget 2019

Projected 2020 to 2030

Total

Project Duration:6 years 1 year 1 year

11 Years (2018-2028) 17 years

No of Lots Settled: 815 92 87 1495 2489Gross Income: 191.77M 26.82M 39.37M 404.58M 662.54MDevelopment Costs: 98.86M 43.26M 22.12M 179.48M 343.72MNet Cashflow: 92.91M -16.43M 8.28M 234.06M 318.82MTown of Cambridge Share*: 4.48M .25M .58M 21.26M 26.57M

Financial Year Distributions$'000

Cambridge Share$'000

FYE2012* -$13,300 -$1,108FYE2013 ActualFYE2014 Actual $10,000 $833FYE2015 Actual $31,000 $2,583FYE2016 Actual $15,000 $1,250FYE2017 Actual $11,000 $917FYE2018 Forecast $3,000 $250FYE2019 Projection $7,000 $583FYE2020 Projection $13,000 $1,083FYE2021 Projection $20,000 $1,667FYE2022 Projection $23,000 $1,917FYE2023 Projection $21,000 $1,750FYE2024 Projection $26,000 $2,167FYE2025 Projection $31,000 $2,583FYE2026 Projection $28,000 $2,333FYE2027 Projection $41,000 $3,417FYE2028 Projection $36,000 $3,000FYE2029 Projection $15,000 $1,250

FYE2030 Projection $1,124 $94

Total $317,700 $26,475

Capital Injection/ Distribution



The current Sales Strategy for 2018 incorporates a 6 staged sales release, varying in size from 10 to 21 residential lots and intended to satisfy sales demand. The strategy seeks to maximise the efficient use of existing services and infrastructure by releasing land within the Central Precinct and introducing sales releases for the Western Precinct. It includes a Builders Release of 15 lots in Stage 25 prior to the first public release of 21 lots. Sales Stages

The project budget for the FYE 18 year anticipates $37.1M in gross sales revenue and an outlay 48.4M in development costs. The resulting cash flow is -$11.48M due to the acquisition of land in the east of the precinct (as part of the negotiated planning solution), Distributions to member Councils are planned at $4M. The budget has been based on the following key activities and key assumptions: • Sales/Settlements - 118 sales; additional titles created in stages 16A, 16B, 17B, 26 & 27 -

131 lots; and 123 settlements overall; Gross Income of $31M, net income of $37.1M • Bulk Earthworks /Civil Construction -

• Civil construction Stages 16A, 16B, 17B, 26 and 27 - 189 lots; • Bulk earthworks completion of the Central Precinct Primary School site and

Western Precinct. Anticipated budget of $14.6M • Infrastructure – Waste Water Pump Station, totalling $2.0M; Connolly Drive intersection

$1.9M; Aviator Blvd extension $1.4M; Beach Access $1.6M



• Landscape Construction – Stages 10 - 15 Public Open Space areas; Marmion Avenue Eastern Verge Upgrade; Marmion Avenue Catalina Beach Entry Statement; Biodiversity Conservation Area (South), totalling $10.2M

• Marketing - Completion of second Builders Display village, Land Sales office and upgrade signage and Continue Catalina branding, $0.84M;

• Planning - Subdivision application for Stages 16A, 16B, 36 and 37, and detailed planning for the Eastern Precinct.

Operations Stages

DETAILS:

1. Civil Construction - Status Civil construction works for Stage 17B (Catalina Central) commenced on 13 November 2017. The program for construction is 15 weeks with works scheduled for completion in March 2018. Stage 17B comprises 36 lots ranging in size from 245m² to 450m². 2. Landscape works – Status A significant package of works ($2.6M) is committed for the current year and is programed into separable proportions. The linear POS, green link and medians will be completed by January 2018 with further portions completed progressively up to June 2018.



3. Builders Display Village 3 (Catalina Beach) All 15 of the Display Village lots have settled in Stage 25, west of Marmion Avenue. The Catalina Beach Builders Display Village and Sales Office is due to open in October 2018, following the closure of Builders Display Village 2 (Central Precinct). The Catalina Beach Sales Office building located is pending City of Wanneroo planning approval. The contract document and plans for the internal layout of the Sales Office are expected to be finalised for execution in early December 2017. 4. Local Centre Site - Update Settlement of the Local Centre Site in stage 11 of the Central Precinct is anticipated to occur in February 2018. The purchaser is currently progressing with the design of the Local Centre in order to lodge a Development Application with the City of Wanneroo. The site is proposed to be used for residential, commercial mixed use and child care purposes 5. Foreshore Access Proposal The TPRC lodged a draft Foreshore Management Plan (FMP), supporting a beach access proposal, with the City of Wanneroo in April 2017 to support a coastal access road from the western edge of Catalina to provide local access to a safe beach for the local community. It is planned to resolve the few remaining issues with the City of Wanneroo, prior to lodgement with the Western Australian Planning Commission in December 2017. 6. Catalina Beach Pump Station The Catalina Beach Pump Station works commenced in October 2017. Works are progressing well, with completion of the Pump Station expected in late February 2018. This project has a budget of $2.0M. 7. Catalina Grove – Local Structure Plan Amendment The Catalina Grove Local Structure Plan Amendment is expected to be lodged in January 2018 with the City of Wanneroo. The amendment is integral to the subdivision and construction of the first stage of lots in Catalina Grove. 8. Smart Pole Technology The installation of Smart Poles and associated technology is proposed for the Stage 25 public open space located in Catalina Beach. Based on initial feasibility it is anticipated that the Smart Poles will accommodate a Wi-Fi hot spot for the community and CCTV, in addition to LED lighting. 9. Extension of Early Construction Rebate The TPRC have approved a concept over Stages 16A and 16B to create innovative narrow lot housing targeting an emerging market, which includes: 4.5m to 6m frontage; Affordable housing; Lightweight construction. The aim is to encourage innovation in building form; encourage a high quality and distinct urban vernacular; provide various forms of affordable housing.



A total of 28 lots are to be released in phase one to builders using a "hold strategy". 10. Review of Project Forecast FYE 2017 The TPRC considered the revised project forecast and expressed concern that the assumptions reduced the projected profit of $318.8M. Given the significance the Council decided to undertake an independent assessment of the Project Forecast 2017 and underlying assumptions. The distribution to members was predicted to recue from $4 million to $3 million this year. 11. Project Budget FYE 2018 – Mid-Year Review The SPG FYE 2018 Mid-Year Budget Review forecasts lot sales for FYE 2018 of 75 lots, a reduction of 43 lots and settlements of 82 lots, a reduction of 45 lots, both of which will have significant impacts on sales income, lot production/development costs and revenue. Distribution to member local governments remains unchanged at $4.0M. 12. Catalina Housing Built Form Strategy (CHBFS) The CHBFS identifies the following key objectives: Diversity and choice Mixed use Affordability Adaptable housing Sustainability Built form Innovation/demonstration The TPRC reviewed a number of short term initiatives to meet the strategies objectives, including housing type, affordability, innovation, Aged housing and sustainability, adopting the initiatives in total. 13. Lots Sold and Settled The following table provides a summary of the Sales and Settlement position for lots released to 30 November 2017:

Stage Release Date Lots Released Lot Sizes Sold Stock Settled

Stages 1 – 11, 12B, 13A, 13B, 14A, 14B, 14C, 14D, 15A 15B and 15C

-

751

-

751

0

751

Stage 12A May 2014 25 295-463 25 0 24 Stage 14B (Release 2) July 2016 10 262-329 9 1 8 Stage 15D Sep 2016 2 375-376 2 0 1 Stage 17A Oct 2016 25 300-510 22 3 18 Stage 17B Nov 2017 18 300 - 450 1 17 0 Stage 18A March 2016 29 300-510 29 0 26 Stage 18B March 2017 31 200-474 22 9 9 Stage 25 (Display Village) May 2017 15 375-552 15 0 15



Stage 25 May 2017 21 300-450 9 12 4

Stage 25 B October 2017 7

6 1 0 Total 934 891 43 856

14. Catalina Beach Pump Station

The design and tender of the Catalina Beach Sewer Pump Station has been finalised and approved by the Water Corporation. The Water Corporation has finalised the Developer Constructed Works Agreement (DCWA) which sets out the terms/timing of reimbursement by the Water Corporation for the construction of the Sewer Pump Station to the TPRC. The Catalina Beach Pump Station works have been awarded to Buckby Contracting. Works are anticipated to commence October 2017 with completion of the Pump Station in February 2018.

15. Other Items considered by the TPRC

• TPRC Annual Report for the year 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2017 • Review of Auditor Report for the financial year ended 30 June 2017 • Financial Management - Significant accounting policy's review 2017 • Petty Cash Policy Review • Repricing of lots in Stage 12A, 14B and 15D • Purchaser Terms and Conditions • Management Committee Terms of Reference/Delegations • Review of Sustainability Initiatives Plan • Review of Audit Charter • Development Partner's KPIs FYE 2017 • General Policy Reviews


Section 3.61(1) of the Local Government Act deals with the establishment of Regional Local Government by two or more Local Governments, for any purpose for which a Local Government can do things under the Local Government or any other Act.


The Town is set to receive around $30M over the life of the project and for the current year is set to receive $330,000.


Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to strategies and projects - part of a land and property strategy to enable the Town to be a proactive local government that gets things done.


Consultation is being undertaken progressively by the Tamala Park Regional Council, and in accordance with statutory requirements.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil Committee Meeting 11 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.46 pm. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Everett, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter as he is a planning consultant for Tamala Park Regional Council and left the meeting at 8.16 pm. Cr Powell left the meeting at 8.21 pm and returned at 8.23 pm Cr Bradley left the meeting at 8.22 pm and returned at 8.24 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Carr That the report relating to items considered at the Ordinary Meetings of the Tamala Park Regional Council held between August and December 2017 be received. Carried 6/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell Against: Crs Bradley and Timmermanis Cr Everett returned to the meeting at 8.24 pm



8. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

CR17.195 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - POTENTIAL CORPORATE PARTNERSHIP

Refer Item 13.1

CR17.196 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE SERVICE REVIEW AND FUTURE SERVICE DELIVERY

Refer Item 13.2

CR17.197 LAND ACQUISITION - CITY BEACH

Refer Item 13.3


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\17 MINUTES\DECEMBER\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 206

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - NOVEMBER 2017

SUMMARY:

The November 2017 financial statements have been completed and comments are provided on the financial position compared to budget including any permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its


Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council.




Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly



DETAILS:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.

AmendedBudget

YTD Budget YTD Actual

Revenue $66,145 $48,525 $49,248

Expenditure $67,189 $20,876 $19,402

Operating Profit/(Loss) -$1,044 $27,649 $29,846

-$10,000$0

$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000

$'0

00

Operations

Capital Expenditure

Amended Budget $15,166

YTD Budget $4,182

YTD Actual $1,579

$0

$2,000

$4,000

$6,000

$8,000

$10,000

$12,000

$14,000

$16,000

$'00

0

Capital Expenditure



The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1. Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $48.4 million compared to budget of $47.7 million, giving a favourable variance of $673k. Significant variances are as follow: Rates Interim rates year to date is $122k compared to budget of $69k, giving a favourable variance of $53k. Gain on Disposal of Assets In November, the Town received $11.75 million for the sale of St John Woods land against a budget of $11.2 million, giving a favourable variance of $550k. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $19.4 million compared to budget of $20.9 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.5million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for November YTD is $5.5 million against year to date budget of $6.7 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.2 million.

AmendedBudget

YTDBudget

YTDActual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves

-12,209 6,018 6,328

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands

6,427 6,344 6,994

01,0002,0003,0004,0005,0006,0007,0008,000

$'0

00

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets $101,588

Current Liabilities -

$10,981

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds $20,742

Reserves, $49,315

Endowment Lands, $6,315

Trust, $2,022

Investments ($'000)



The following timing variances contribute towards this variance:

Town Planning Scheme $119k under budget;

Recreation Services programs $110k under budget;

Parks ground maintenance non capital works $200k under budget;

Golf course non capital works $80k under budget;

Other property non capital works $121k under budget;

Road Reserves maintenance and non-capital works $122k under budget;

Club leased premises building maintenance, programs and non-capital works $152k under budget;

Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $20.9 million compared to budget of $19.3 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.6 million.

Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 November 2017 relates mainly to carry forward works projects from the previous financial year with $1.6 million spent against budget of $4.2 million, a timing variance of $2.6 million. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following timing variances:

Buildings - $112k spent against year to date budget of $266k;

Furniture and Equipment -$138k spent against year to date budget of $507k, the variance representing timing differences with respect to some key I.T. related projects;

Plant and Equipment - $311k against year to date budget of $398k;

Parks and Reserves - $466k spent against year to date budget of $840k;

Roads and Lanes - $494k spent against year to date budget of $1.7 million, represent a timing difference with projects in progress;

Drainage - $32k spent against year to date budget of $142k; Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus as at 30 November 2017 is $22.1 million which is above the year to date budget of $18.5 million, giving a $3.6 million variance. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works.

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.

Material Variances Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon. As at 30 November 2017, the following material permanent variances exist:

Proceeds from St John Woods estate land sales of $11.75 million received against a budget of $11.2 million resulting in a $550k favourable variance.


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan’s goals of: Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance Goal 11: A strong performing local government




This matter has been assessed under the Community Engagement Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was determined that community engagement is not required as the matter is purely administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Monthly Financial Statements - November 2017 COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Carr That the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 November 2017 be received. Carried 9/0



10.2 NOTICE OF MOTION IN RELATION TO STATUTORY PLANNING

SUMMARY: The purpose of this report is to respond to the Notice of Motion in relation to Strategic and Statutory Planning submitted by Cr Timmermanis and endorsed by the Council at its meeting of held on 28 November 2017. AUTHORITY / DISCRETION

Advocacy When the Council advocates on its own behalf or on behalf of its


Executive The substantial direction setting and oversight role of the Council.




Quasi-Judicial When the Council determines an application/matter that directly



BACKGROUND: At its meeting held on 28 November 2017, Council approved a Notice of Motion from Cr Timmermanis in relation to Statutory and Strategic Planning, as follows: That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer require the names of all officers involved in the authoring of

any planning report to be listed at the end of each report. (ii) the Chief Executive Officer provide a report to the December EM Forum meeting

addressing matters including but not be limited to examination of:-

1. the Town's adherence to statutory timeframes for processing development applications;

2. the impact on adherence to these statutory timeframes resulting from the reliance

on part time planning officers; 3. the adequacy of resourcing in the Town's Planning Department generally;



4. the report dealing with Residential College City Beach which:-

(a) omitted a recommendation for neighbour consultation; (b) omitted to give due regard to the Town’s streetscape policy when making no

recommendation for the need to preserve setback from the front lot boundary; (c) incorrectly classified the development as being wholly within the public

purposes reserve; and (d) omitted to note a significant portion of the proposed building is located within

the Parks & Recreation (P&R) reserve. 5. options to restructure the statutory planning section, in order to increase

effectiveness and efficiency.

The report to be provided directly to Council. (iii) the Town write to the State Planning Commission seeking a reconsideration of the

approval for the redevelopment of the Residential College, to incorporate a 4m front setback;

(iv) the Chief Executive Officer prepare options for the reallocation of budget funds to

Planning to be presented at the EM Forum on 5 December 2017. This report addresses the matters detailed in item (ii) of the Notice of Motion. It is noted that a presentation was provided to the Elected Member Forum on 5 December as required by Council’s decision. DETAILS: A response to each of the items listed in the item (ii) of the decision is provided under each of the headings below: Report addressing matters including but not be limited to examination of:- 1. The Town's adherence to statutory timeframes for processing development

applications The following table provides an overview of the development application processing times over two six month periods, from November 2016 to May 2016 and June 2017 to November 2017. The table provides statistics in regards to the number of development applications determined within 60 or 90 days of receipt of the application, in accordance with Clause 75 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Deemed Provisions relating to the time for deciding applications for development approval. The time allocated for the determination of development applications is based on whether the application requires being advertised (90 day application) or whether no advertising is required (60 days application).



Development Application Statistics Nov 16 – May 17 Jun 17- Nov 17

Total number of DAs received for the period 252 202

Total number of DAs determined for the period 245 144

No of DAs required to be determined within 60 days 138 76

No of DAs determined within 60 days 113 68

% of DAs determined within 60 day timeframe 81% 89.5%

No of DAs required to be determined within 90 days 107 68

No of DAs determined within 90 days 71 58

% of DAs determined within 90 day 66% 85.3%

% of DA's determined in total 75% 87.5%

Average number of days to determine 60 day DA's 56 days 23 days

Average number of days to determine 90 day DA's 35 days 45 days

Average number of days to determine DA's overall 83 days 41 days

The table above shows that the statutory timeframes for the processing of development applications has improved over the past six months and that the Town's statutory planning team is successfully determining 87.5% all development applications within the statutory period. 2. The impact on adherence to these statutory timeframes resulting from the reliance

on part time planning officers A number of factors impact on the ability of development applications to be determined within the 60 or 90 day period. These include applications which are presented to Council for determination, which generally take longer to approve due to Council agenda schedules and deferrals approved by Council. Statutory planning perform a number of important tasks, duties and services that are related to the approval process which impact the delivery of planning applications within the statutory period. These include providing customers with regular planning advice at the front counter and over the phone, attending internal and external meetings, site visits, State Administrative Tribunal Appeals and Design Review Panel meetings. The Town is a family friendly employer and complies with its obligations under the provisions of the National Employment Standards (NES) and legislation within the Fair Work Act 2009. Some planning staff work on a part time basis after reducing hours on return from parental leave/maternity leave. Efforts are being made to reduce the effects of staff availability due to part time hours and systems being put in place. This is a work in progress. 3. The adequacy of resourcing in the Town's Planning Department generally; The statutory planning team is currently comprised of six staff members in total. This includes two part-time Senior Planners, three planning officers (one of which is part-time and one is



temporary on a short term contract to 31 December 2017) and one planning administration officer. As shown in the table below, the numbers of full time equivalent (FTE) officers in the team amounts to 3.7. While the statistics show that the team is currently determining 87.5% of all development applications successfully within the 60 and 90 timeframe; this can in part be due to the appointment of a temporary planning officer in June 2017, who has assisted with the processing of applications.

Current Structure of Statutory Planning Team

Position Full Time Equivalent

Senior Planning Officers 1.1

Planning Officers 1.6

Administration Officer 1

Sub total 3.7

Temporary Full Time Planning Officer 1*

Total 4.7

*Currently not included within the FTE load. 4. The report dealing with Residential College City Beach which:- (a) Omitted a Recommendation for Neighbour Consultation It should be noted that the Western Australian Planning Commission is the decision making authority for the subject application and that the application was only referred to the Town for comment. The Town of Cambridge is not required to undertake a planning assessment of the proposal and is only consulted on the application. The Town did not advertise the application for the Residential College at City Beach as there was no requirement to do so under Town Planning Policy 2.3: Public Notification and Advertising Procedures. The policy is currently silent on advertising applications that are referred to the Town from the Western Australian Planning Commission for comment. Notwithstanding, it is proposed to undertake a review Policy 2.3: Public Notification and Advertising Procedures to include community engagement for referred development applications where the proposal is deemed to be significant. A recommendation to commence a review of this policy is included for consideration by Council. (b) Omitted to give due regard to the Town’s Streetscape Policy when making no

recommendation for the need to preserve setback from the front lot boundary The Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape, applies to residential zoned land in the Town of Cambridge. The subject site is zoned under the Metropolitan Region Scheme as Public Purpose Reserve (High School) and Parks and Recreation, which therefore means that the Town's Streetscape Policy is not applicable.



It should be noted that the report to Council regarding the Residential College (DV17.81), considered the matter of the front setback. (c) Incorrectly classified the development as being wholly within the public purposes

reserve; and omitted to note a significant portion of the proposed building is located within the Parks & Recreation (P&R) reserve.

The proposal traverses both a Public Purposes - High School reserve and P&R reserve under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) but was referred to in the report to Council (DV17.81) as being wholly within the P&R reserve. This is considered to be a zoning anomaly given the P&R reserve falls within the school site and is being used in conjunction with the functioning of the school (ie: access and parking). It is expected that this matter will be resolved in a future MRS omnibus amendment. The maps below highlight the zoning anomaly. The map to the left (Plan 22685) shows the original lot layout which aligns with the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) Map for the area. The map to the right (Deposited Plan 27391) depicts the current lot layout in relation to the land exchange between the Department of Education and the Botanical Gardens Parks Authority near Kalinda Drive. The colours on the map below depict the different zones. However, it should be noted that the MRS has not yet been amended the plan to reflect the Deposited Plan but this is proposed to be rationalised in an Omnibus Amendment which is expected to be initiated in early 2018. The Residential College sits entirely within the current DP area.



The application for the Residential College was subsequently approved by the WAPC's Statutory Planning Committee on 24 October 2017. In the officer report to the Statutory Planning Committee, the following assessment was provided by the Department of Planning in regard to the issue of zoning: As mentioned above, the section of P&R reserve is considered to be an anomaly given it falls within the school site, is used to assist in the practical functioning of the school sites operations, and falls outside of the Bush Forever classification. This section of P&R reserve will be considered as part of a wider MRS omnibus amendment. Notwithstanding the above, the section of P&R reserve land that is proposed to be used to facilitate the administration building is currently undulating, with no clear indication of access to the site for the purpose of community recreation. Additionally, the building has been strategically located to ensure that it falls outside the Bush Forever area to the north and curves around the large Ficus Tree to the south west which will be a focal point of the proposed design. The landscaping plan provided also demonstrates that where possible, the existing trees on site will be retained, as well as providing an array of additional local species and trees to compliment the surrounding Bush Forever area. This section is envisioned to make this space more useable whilst ensuring the aesthetic of the reserve isn't compromised. Despite the classification of the development as being wholly within the P&R Reserve, the proposal is generally consistent with the MRS reservations, the principles of orderly and proper planning and the preservation of the amenities of the locality. It is not unusual for buildings (including Schools) and other uses to be located within land zoned P&R Reserve. There are examples within the Town of Cambridge of such uses - notably the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre and the Bold Park Community which are located in the P&R Reserve in the north/east area of Lake Monger. Other buildings in P&R reserves include the Town of Cambridge Administration Office, Quarry Amphitheatre, Wembley Golf Course facilities (including Function Centre, Restaurant, Pro-shop and Driving Range), four restaurants at City Beach and café at Floreat Beach.



Therefore the P&R classification does not prevent buildings being developed within the reservation. 5. Options to restructure the statutory planning section, in order to increase

effectiveness and efficiency. It is recommended that the proposed structure of the planning team is increased to accommodate an additional 1.4 FTE planning officers, as listed in the table below.

Proposed Structure of Statutory Planning Team

Senior Planning Officers 1.1

Planning Officers 3

Administration Officer 1

Total 5.1

Statutory Planning has been operating with a temporary full time planning officer since June 2017. Since the appointment of the temporary planning officer, the number of development applications successfully determined within a 60 and 90 day period has increased from a total of 75% in the six months prior (from November 2016 to May 2017) to a total of 87.5% (June 2017 to November 2017). Broken down further into specific 60 day and 90 day periods, the statistics show that there has been an increase in the number of development applications successfully determined within 60 days during this time from 81% to 89.5% and an increase in development applications successfully determined within 90 days from 66% to 85.3%. Notwithstanding some changes that have been made in the processing of development applications, the statistics are evidence that the effectiveness and efficiency of the statutory planning team has improved since acquiring the services of an additional temporary full time planning officer in June 2017. Formalising this position into a full time permanent officer would increase the FTE load by 1 and is recommended to continue to improve service delivery. Furthermore, the addition of an extra 0.4 FTE, in addition to the 1 FTE noted above, is recommended as it would facilitate the employment of a current part time planning officer (working at 0.6 FTE currently) into a full time position. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Should Council resolve to support the officer recommendation, it is expected that there would be an annual financial implication of approximately $121,000 to $135,000 per annum to the operating budget for the addition of 1.4 FTE planning officers to the Statutory Planning Team.



Additional costs of $65,000 in the 2017/18 financial year can be funded by reallocating funds in the 2017/18 Budget as follows: (a) Wealth Management Strategy $30,000 (b) Town Planning Special Projects $20,000 (c) Statutory Planning Consultancy budget $15,000 STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This report is deemed to align with Goal 11: A strong performing local government of the Town's Strategic Community Plan for 2017-2027. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT: This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. OFFICER INVOLVEMENT:

Responsible Director Marlaine Lavery

Responsible Manager Petar Mrdja

Contributors Petar Mrdja

ATTACHMENTS: 1. Nil. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr McAllister, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) additional 1.4 Full Time Equivalent Employees be authorised within the Statutory

Planning Team at an annual cost of between $121,000 to $135,000 with $65,000 required in the 2017/18 financial year;

(ii) the additional cost of $65,000 in the 2017/18 financial year be funded by

reallocating funds in the 2017/18 Budget as follows:

(a) Wealth Management Strategy $30,000 (b) Town Planning Special Projects $20,000 (c) Statutory Planning Consultancy budget $15,000

(iii) a review of Town Planning Policy 2.3: Public Notification and Advertising

Procedures be undertaken. During discussion, Cr Everett suggested that there should be an additional 1.8 Full Time Equivalent Employees with the additional 0.4 being allocated to Senior Planning Officer position.



Amendment Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr McKerracher That clauses (i) and (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) additional 1.8 Full Time Equivalent Employees, with the additional 0.4 being

allocated to Senior Planning position, be authorised within the Statutory Planning Team at an annual cost of between $143,000 to $135,000 with $157,000 required in the 2017/18 financial year;



(a) Wealth Management Strategy $30,000 (b) Town Planning Special Projects $20,000 (c) Statutory Planning Consultancy budget $15,000 (d) to be determined as unbudgeted expenditure $22,000

Amendment carried 6/3 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister, Nelson and Powell COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) additional 1.8 Full Time Equivalent Employees, with the additional 0.4 being

allocated to Senior Planning position, be authorised within the Statutory Planning Team at an annual cost of between $121,000 to $135,000 with $87,000 required in the 2017/18 financial year;



(a) Wealth Management Strategy $30,000 (b) Town Planning Special Projects $20,000 (c) Statutory Planning Consultancy budget $15,000 (d) to be determined $22,000

(iii) a review of Town Planning Policy 2.3: Public Notification and Advertising

Procedures be undertaken. Carried 6/3 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister, Nelson and Powell



11. URGENT BUSINESS

11.1 URGENT APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATE TO DEVELOPMENT ASSESSMENT PANEL

Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Bradley That the following be appointed as Council delegate to the Development Assessment Panel:-

Deputy: BACKGROUND: Cr Powell has resigned as the Town’s deputy delegate on the Development Assessment Panel effective immediately. As the Minister has not appointed the delegates nominated at the meeting held on 24 October 2017 they have not received their JDAP training and therefore are unable to represent the local government in relation to matters coming before the JDAP in the meantime. Reg 26 (4) of the Planning and Development (Development Assessment Panels) Regulations 2011 allows the Minister to register as a representative of the local government a person who is an eligible voter in the district of the local government and who the Minister considers has the knowledge or experience to represent the interests of the local community of that district. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Cr Timmermanis withdrew his motion



12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 MODEL LITIGANT POLICY

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Town ADOPTS the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation; (ii) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be effective immediately and be applied to all

civil litigation currently being undertaken or responded to by the Town; (iii) the Town will receive a report from Chief Executive Officer regarding the conduct of any

civil litigation undertaken and the legal costs incurred by the local government at each full Town meeting.

BACKGROUND: When engaged in any form of litigation the Crown and its many instrumentalities and agencies have an obligation to act as a model litigant. The nature of that obligation has been stated clearly by the courts on many occasions. Those principles form part of the common law. The local government should have similar obligations to act as a model litigant. An explanation of the manner in which the conduct of the Crown is affected in practice by the model litigant obligation is contained below. Government agencies involved in any form of litigation need to be mindful of their model litigant obligation and, where relevant, comply strictly with the obligation. Nevertheless, the duties of the Crown as a model litigant do not prevent it from properly defending matters and denying liability where appropriate. The model litigant obligation does not require the Crown to be a "soft touch" when it is sued. It is entitled to act firmly but fairly when engaged in litigation. The model litigant obligations apply in precisely the same fashion to private lawyers acting for the Crown or an agency of the Crown as it does to the Crown Solicitor and the staff of the Crown Solicitor's Office. In other words, the fact that a private lawyer may be acting for the State or an agency in a particular matter does not remove or modify in any way the model litigant obligation. What is meant by the Crown in this context? The Crown includes

the State of Western Australia

any Minister

any separately incorporated agency or instrumentality of the Crown, e.g. the various statutory authorities and health units.

any administrative unit (i.e. a department or attached office) of the public service, including WA Police. As these are not incorporated, they can only engage in litigation in the name of their Minister.

Why must the Crown be a model litigant? The particular role of the Crown in litigation has long been recognised.



The Crown has been described as "the fountain and head of justice and equity": Dyson v Attorney General [1911] 1KB 410 at 421. The State has created the courts and the legal system it must set an example for the community which it leads and governs. Lord Abinger in Deare v Attorney General (1835) 1 Y &C Ex. 197 at 208; 160 E.R. 80 at 85 stated -

"It has been the practice which I hope will never be discontinued, for the officers of the Crown to throw no difficulty in the way of any proceeding for the purpose of bringing matters before a Court of Justice, where any real point of difficulty that requires judicial decision has occurred."

Probably the most frequently quoted statement of the principle is that of Griffith CJ in Melbourne Steamship Co Ltd v Moorehead (1912) 15 CLR 333 at 342:

"The point is a purely technical point of pleading, and I cannot refrain from expressing my surprise that it should be taken on behalf of the Crown. It used to be regarded as axiomatic that the Crown never takes technical points, even in civil proceedings, and a fortiori not in criminal proceedings. I am sometimes inclined to think that in some parts - not all - of the Commonwealth, the old-fashioned traditional, and almost instinctive, standard of fair play to be observed by the Crown in dealing with subjects, which I learned a very long time ago to regard as elementary, is either not known or thought out of date. I should be glad to think that I am mistaken."

Nature of the Obligation for the Local Government The obligation to act as a model litigant may often require more than merely acting honestly and in accordance with the law and court rules. It also goes beyond the requirement for lawyers to act in accordance with their ethical obligations and the Rules of Professional Conduct and Practice. It requires that the local government act with complete propriety, fairly and in accordance with the highest professional standards. More specifically, the model litigant obligation requires that the local government act honestly and fairly in handling claims and litigation by:

a) dealing with claims promptly and not causing unnecessary delay in the handling of claims and litigation;

b) paying legitimate claims without litigation; c) acting consistently in the handling of like claims and litigation; d) endeavouring to avoid litigation, wherever reasonably possible; e) where it is not possible to avoid litigation, keeping the costs of litigation to a minimum,

including by (i) not requiring the other party to prove a matter which the Local government

knows to be true; and (ii) not contesting liability if the local government knows that the dispute is really

about quantum (although that may be appropriate where there is a real dispute as to whether a breach of duty caused the damage alleged by a plaintiff);

f) not taking advantage of a claimant who lacks the resources to litigate a legitimate claim; g) not relying on technical defences unless the Town's interests would be prejudiced by the

failure to comply with a particular requirement; h) not undertaking and pursuing appeals unless the local government believes that it has

reasonable prospects for success or the appeal is otherwise justified in the public interest. The commencement of an appeal may be justified in the public interest where it is necessary to avoid prejudice to the interest of the local government pending proper consideration of the matter, provided that a decision whether to continue the appeal is made as soon as practicable;

i) assisting the Court and opposing parties to understand the current state of the law by drawing the Court's attention to binding and persuasive relevant case-law and other aids to statutory interpretation;



j) being courteous and professional when dealing with witnesses, parties and their representatives;

k) apologising where the local government is aware that it or its lawyers have acted wrongfully or improperly.

The model litigant obligation does not prevent the local government from acting firmly and properly to protect its interests. It does not prevent all legitimate steps being taken in pursuing litigation or from testing or defending claims made. In particular, the obligation does not prevent the local government from:

(I) enforcing costs orders or seeking to recover costs; (m) relying on claims of legal professional privilege or other forms of privilege and claims

for public interest immunity; (n) pleading limitation periods; (o) seeking security for costs; (p) opposing unreasonable or oppressive claims or processes; (q) requiring opposing litigants to comply with procedural obligations; (r) moving to strike out untenable claims or proceedings; or (s) testing the credibility of a plaintiff or a witness and using lawful means to establish if

a claim is fraudulent or exaggerated.

What do the model litigant principles mean in practice? (a) Act fairly

An overriding obligation that applies at all stages of the litigation process.

(b) Act consistently

Do not treat citizens arbitrarily - you should not settle one claim and fight an identical claim. Similar claims must be treated similarly.

The local government should distinguish between different plaintiffs in class action or multiple plaintiff litigation, if proper basis for distinction exists e.g. different causes of action, different wrongdoers, different damage suffered by plaintiffs, differing degree of involvement by plaintiffs in underlying facts, etc.

(c) Avoid litigation

Where it is relevant, always be open to Alternative Dispute Resolution at all stages of the litigious process.

However, some cases involving the local government often cannot be settled e.g. contempt of court or judicial review.

Be clear on reasons for not wanting to settle claims.

(d) Pay legitimate claims

Where liability is clear and no defences are available the local government should pay.

The guidelines do not require the local government to accede to spurious, vexatious or dubious claims. The local government should properly defend such claims.

(e) Minimise costs

Truth in pleadings.

Admit liability where appropriate.

Deal with Matters in a timely fashion.

(f) Do not take technical defences

Nevertheless, the local government can and should plead defences properly open to it.

The obligation arguably extends to technical points of litigation practice and procedure e.g. late service of documents where no prejudice will be suffered.



(g) Do not take advantage of claimant who lacks resources

Do not issue applications without a proper purpose just to increase costs.

Avoid litigation by paper warfare.

Nevertheless, the local government should seek to strike out unmeritorious claims. If the local government fails to do so, the local government may be embroiled in lengthy litigation over a number of years, culminating in a potentially lengthy and expensive trial.

(h) Do not appeal unless reasonable prospects for success or in public interest The fair but firm principle It has often said that the model litigant principle requires fairness but does not preclude firmness. As to firmness, a number of principles can be stated to guide the Local government in its conduct of litigation:

There is nothing in the principles which precludes the local government seeking to win cases.

The local government must properly maintain any claim to legal professional privilege and protect public interest immunity, especially in relation to sensitive documents such as State Cabinet documents.

The local government should seek to set aside subpoenas where it is appropriate to do so.

The local government should generally claim costs for setting aside subpoenas and legal costs incurred in responding to subpoenas.

The local government can and should use the rules of the court to maximum but proper advantage. For example, in relation to costs and offers to settle.

It must also be recognised that in some types of litigation (e.g. native title and industrial relations claims) a decision by the court may affect the interests of many persons. In those circumstances the local government may potentially have an obligation to take account of the interests of the wider public. That may sometimes require the local government to draw the attention of the court to issues even where that may not be in the interests of any party to the proceedings. Sometimes an opposing party adopts the tactic of making broad but non-specific assertions about the obligations of a model litigant so as to dissuade the local government from properly defending its interests. Where that occurs the opposing party should be asked to specify the basis for their concern and their response should be tested against the policy set out in the Guideline. Behaviour not expected of a model litigant As a result of the model litigant principles, there are a number of things the local government should avoid in conducting its litigation:

The local government should not play litigation "fast and loose" nor adopt a "win-at-all-costs" strategy.

The local government should not use delaying tactics to extract a litigation advantage. Whilst experience suggests that certain time limits and orders are occasionally not complied with due to workload or oversight, such non-compliance should never be a deliberate strategy designed to frustrate an opponent or to secure a practical advantage.

The local government should not commence any legal proceedings for any ulterior or improper purpose.

Maintain objectivity and professional independence. The right advice should always be given from a whole of Government perspective even if that is not what the client was hoping to hear. The client should be constructively assisted to understand why the advice was necessary.

Avoid personality-driven litigation.



Avoid oppression in litigation. Avoid flurries of interlocutory applications to scare plaintiffs into submission. "Fight fair". The Mayor has forwarded a proposed policy as attached. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: POLICY: The Commonwealth government and some state and territory governments have adopted written policies to codify and confirm their commitment to model litigant obligations. The State Government of Western Australia has not adopted a policy of this nature; however, model litigant obligations are still likely to apply at common law. It is understood that the policy proposed to be adopted is an amended version of the New South Wales Model Litigant Policy. The policy is proposed to apply to civil litigation only and does not apply to prosecutions undertaken by the Town relating to parking, dog or building offences; or propagating Council's positon at the State Administrative Tribunal. It is not envisaged the policy would extend to action undertaken by the Town's insurers as a matter of their own accord. It is unknown how frequent this policy would apply in future but in a historical context it would have applied in limited circumstances. The Administration has been unable to identify or recollect any Supreme Court action other than the following: 1. The proposed withdrawal of the City of Stirling from Mindarie Regional Council 2. Dispute relating to the rights concerning parking and access at Gayton Road shops 3. TPS Amendment 31 - judicial review of Council decisions 4. Lot 501 Omaroo Terrace If the Council wanted to adopt a Model Litigant Policy, it should be satisfied that the implications of the policy are understood prior to adopting the wording of such a policy. It is noted that when this matter was last considered by Council in November 2015, the proposed motion made reference to the Commonwealth Attorney General's model, vis: (i) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be adopted; having reference to the

Commonwealth Attorney General's model litigant obligations as described in "Appendix B" of the Legal Services Directions 2005 (Commonwealth);

(ii) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be effective immediately and be applied

to all civil litigation currently being undertaken or responded to by the Town; (iii) a report be submitted to Council by the Chief Executive Officer at each full council

meeting regarding the conduct of any civil litigation assessed as a Moderate Risk under the Town's Risk Consequence matrix and the amount of legal costs incurred in conducting that litigation by the Town.

The remaining policy implications are considered as part of the Law section of this report. BUDGET: There are no budgetary considerations in relation to the adoption of the policy.



LAW: The following advice was provided to Council when it last considered this matter in November 2015 (Item 12.2, 24 November 2015 refers).

The obligation of a model litigant is generally considered to encompass a range of specific duties, including dealing with claims promptly, minimising delay in proceedings, acting consistently in the handling of claims and litigation, minimising costs in proceedings and not taking technical points unless the agencies' interests would be compromised. Behind each of the duties is an overarching duty to act honestly, fairly, with complete propriety and in accordance with the highest professional standards.

The model litigant obligations do not oblige the Crown or other statutory agency to "fight with one hand behind its back in proceedings". The Crown or other statutory agency is not prevented from acting firmly and properly to protect its own interests and "has the same right as any other litigant notwithstanding it assumes for itself, quite properly, the role of a model litigant".

COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Bradley That:-

(i) the Town ADOPTS the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation;

(ii) the Model Litigant Policy for Civil Litigation be effective immediately and be applied to all civil litigation currently being undertaken or responded to by the Town;

(iii) the Town will receive a report from Chief Executive Officer regarding the conduct of any civil litigation undertaken and the legal costs incurred by the local government at each full Town meeting.

Amendment

Moved by Cr Nelson, seconded by Cr McAllister

That the motion be amended to read as follows:-

(i) the Town engage independent legal advice into adoption of a Model Litigant Policy, including assessment of potential cost implications, existing litigation that may be affected, potential benefits and potential unintended consequences of adoption of a Model Litigant Policy;

(ii) consideration of adoption of a Model Litigant Policy be deferred until such time this independent legal advice is received and reviewed by the Council.

Amendment lost 3/6

For: Crs McAllister, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis

The original motion was then put and carried 7/2

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McKerracher Nelson and Timmermanis

Against: Crs McAllister and Powell

Cr Bradley left the meeting at 9.29 pm



12.2 ADVICE TO COUNCIL PROTOCOL

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer require all staff to use written requests for expert advice which

will be used to provide advice to Council;

(ii) the letter of advice list the attachments provided to the expert;

(iii) the Chief Executive officer instruct staff that all reports to Council should indicate when further instructions have been given as part of meetings or telephone conversation with experts.

BACKGROUND: The policy provides increased transparency and clarity of instruction which is important when Council will be relying on the advice to make informed decisions. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Expert advice provided to Council encompasses a wide range of professional services, including, but not limited to; legal, risk, strategic, audit, civil engineering, structural engineering, transport, architectural, electrical, mechanical and other technical advice. The majority of these professional consultancies operate under a formalised scope of works. However, in the case of legal services, it is often the case that instructions are provided to seek advice and representation. It is in this context that the administration response is provided, and if this is the intent, it is suggested that the decision of Council refer specifically to legal advice. Should the Council support the proposed motion, it is recommended that the Chief Executive Officer submit a policy to the February 2018 Council meeting encapsulating the intent of the motion. The Administration has been investigating a legal advice policy, which would provide guidance for the engagement of legal professionals on certain matters. The policy would also set the guidance for the establishment of a legal services panel. This would be an important component of the policy, aimed at providing Council will confidence in the ability of the legal experts who provide advice to Council. The policy would also differentiate between instructions for operational maters (e.g. prosecutions under the Dog Act) and instructions on matters that fall in the Council's ambit of policy and resourcing. The definition of instruction will need to be considered carefully, such that it doesn't capture the general guidance provided by the CEO as a matter of course, otherwise, this could hinder the ability to implement Council decisions. For example, on a recent matter, over 100 email contacts was logged between the CEO and the Town's legal representative, providing information and clarification on the issues at hand, as the matter progressed.



POLICY: This report suggests that Council establish a policy on legal advice. BUDGET: Depending on the extent of the requirements of instructions from Council in relation to this matter, the consequences could impact on the Town's resources and efficiency in implementing council decisions. LAW: Nil COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer require all staff to use written requests for expert advice

which will be used to provide advice to Council; (ii) the letter of advice list the attachments provided to the expert; (iii) the Chief Executive officer instruct staff that all reports to Council should indicate

when further instructions have been given as part of meetings or telephone conversation with experts.

Carried 6/2 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson and Timmermanis Against: Crs McAllister and Powell



12.3 BANNING OF GIFTS FOR ELECTED MEMBERS

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Town’s Elected Members agree to not accept gifts given to them in their capacity as

elected members, excluding where an elected member is required to attend an event in a representative capacity on behalf of the Town. In this circumstance the cost of the event or the cost of the meal or refreshments provided shall be declared in accordance with the Local Government Act and Regulations;

(ii) the CEO publish a note on the Town’s website with the Gift Register that states the Town’s Elected Members do not accept gifts given in the service of their public duties.

BACKGROUND: The banning of gifts is common in most corporate environments in order to dispel any possible bias or influence. By banning all gifts to elected members, members of the public will accept that the rule is applied across all elected representatives. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: LAW: The effect of the decision of Council should be considered. The current wording of the proposed motion implies that all Elected Members agree, however if there is any decent, then the decision of Council would have no effect. The Council also has no power to direct Elected Members on this matter, and it would be effectively ultra vires. It is noted however that the current review of the Local Government Act considers issues around the Code of Conduct and the enforceability, which may address this issue in due course. (Refer to the separate report this month CR 17.176, on the Local Government Act review) POLICY: If the Council decides to support the proposed motion, it is suggested that a policy be developed and submitted to Council for consideration. By adopting a policy position, Elected Members could opt-in on a voluntary basis. Some of the key points that a policy would need to be addressed include:

Definition of a gift - Currently, the Local Government Act defines Gift to mean: any disposition of property, or the conferral of any other financial benefit, made by one person in favour of another otherwise than by will (whether with or without an instrument in writing), without consideration in money or money’s worth passing from the person in whose favour it is made to the other, or with such consideration so passing if the consideration is not fully adequate, but does not include any financial or other contribution to travel.



This definition may have the unintended consequence of capturing gifts received in a genuine personal capacity, and this is an issue that is currently being considered as part of the Local Government Act review. It is also anticipated that this provision not extend to Electoral Gifts, as this could impinge on the democratic process. For example, a sitting member could be constrained by policy from advertising, whereas a non-sitting candidate would not be constrained.

Thresholds for Gifts - Consideration should also be given as to whether a dollar threshold should be applied. For instance, is the purchase of a cup of coffee acceptable?

A policy would address the definition around representative capacity, as Elected Members are often invited to events in their capacity as Elected Members (for example a community sporting group 'season opener' function).

BUDGET: Nil COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Town’s Elected Members agree to abide by a policy to not accept gifts given to

them in their capacity as elected members, excluding where an elected member is required to attend an event in a representative capacity on behalf of the Town. In this circumstance the cost of the event or the cost of the meal or refreshments provided shall be declared in accordance with the Local Government Act and Regulations;

(ii) the CEO publish a note on the Town’s website with the Gift Register that states the

Town’s Elected Members do not accept gifts given in the service of their public duties.

Carried 7/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McKerracher, Nelson, Powell and

Timmermanis Against: Cr McAllister



12.4 SENIOR EXECUTIVE CONTRACTS

Submission by Mayor Shannon The CEO is not authorised to allow termination clauses in Senior Executive contracts that provide notice periods of more than is provided under the National Employment Standards. BACKGROUND: Generous termination clauses are not allowed in the private sector and represent an inappropriate financial liability to the organisation. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: POLICY: There is currently no policy position on this matter. BUDGET: There are no budget implications in relation to the 2017/18 Budget. LAW: Section 5.41(g) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides “The CEO’s functions are to be responsible for the employment, management, supervision, direction and dismissal of other employees (subject to section 5.37(2) in relation to senior employees).” Section 5.37(2) states “The CEO is to inform the council of each proposal to employ or dismiss a senior employee, other than a senior employee referred to in section 5.39(1a), and the council may accept or reject the CEO’s recommendation but if the council rejects a recommendation, it is to inform the CEO of the reasons for its doing so.” Regulation 18B of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 specifies that the maximum amount that can be paid on the termination of the CEO or senior employee is one year's remuneration as follows: For the purposes of section 5.39(3)(c), a contract governing the employment of a person who is a CEO, or a senior employee, of a local government is to provide for a maximum amount of money (or a method of calculating such an amount) to which the person is to be entitled if the contract is terminated before the expiry date, which amount is not to exceed whichever is the lesser of —

(a) the value of one year’s remuneration under the contract; or (b) the value of the remuneration that the person would have been entitled to had the

contract not been terminated. Comments The designated senior employees relates to the position of Directors. No other employees have been designated as senior employees. It is a function of the CEO to be responsible for the employment of employees, and for the Council to accept or reject a recommendation of the CEO to employee or dismiss a senior employee. It is possible that the decision to accept or reject a recommendation also applies to



the conditions of employment. However, it is likely that it is beyond the powers of the Council to make an alternative decision related to any conditions of employment and is only able to reject the CEO's recommendation. The legislative ability to make the decision as proposed in the notice of motion is unclear in terms of an ongoing policy for future appointments, and if the Council wanted to explore this option, further advice should be obtained. It is possible the Council is not able to legally make the decision proposed by the motion and if it did pass the motion it may have no legal effect. Current Director Contracts Contracts for Directors have been entered into for the terms of three years for four Directors and one year for the fifth Director effective in 2017. The contracts provide for termination with six months’ notice for no reason in four Directors contracts and three months in the case of one Director as follows:

Termination by the Town at Will The Town may terminate Your employment by: (i) giving You 6 months written notice; or (ii) by paying You in lieu of that notice, the lesser of the value of the Remuneration

Package for: 1) the unexpired term of the Contract; or 2) 6 months; or

(iii) a combination of both. The contracts also provide for termination for other reasons:

with no notice period for misconduct; and

with notice of eight weeks for persistent breach of the contract, performance after four weeks' notice, unsound mind, incapacitated not related to employment for more than 90 days.

National Employment Standards (NES) Senior employees on fixed term contracts are not covered by the provisions of the NES, relating to termination notice periods. The NES provides that full-time and part-time employees are entitled to notice of termination, or payment in lieu of notice for redundancy, performance, resignation and temporary contract expiry. The amount of notice depends on the employee’s length of service and age.

Period of continuous service Notice period

Not more than 1 year 1 week

More than 1 year, but not more than 3 years 2 weeks

More than 3 years, but not more than 5 years 3 weeks

More than 5 years 4 weeks



Employees who are over 45 and have worked for the business for at least 2 years are entitled to an extra week of notice. The Town cannot terminate employees for no reason (that are not on fixed term contracts), without triggering the remedies available under the Fair Work Act such as unfair dismissal. At this time, the Administration has not taken any industrial advice on the proposed motion in terms of compliance with the National Employment Standards. State Government Notice Periods In September 2017, the State Government announced changes to the compensation payouts for the senior executive service. Details can be found in Premier McGowan's media statement at https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2017/09/Changes-to-payout-provisions-for-senior-bureaucrats.aspx It is noted that senior members of the public service may seek a compensation payment of up to 12 months' remuneration. Under the new policy, compensation payments will be applied on the basis of four months' remuneration for each full year of the contract remaining; up to a maximum of 12 months. This means a minimum payment is four months based on termination for no reason and up to 12 months for contracts with three years or more remaining. Comments attributed to Premier Mark McGowan in implementing this policy are: "Large, excessive payouts are something I want my Government and future governments to avoid when possible. These measures create a reasonable level of fairness and will help limit payouts in the future." As the State Government has adopted a new standard it may be appropriate to consider this position for the Town also. Impact of short notice periods To have short notice periods on Director contracts may be detrimental to the Town and be a disincentive in recruiting suitable candidates and retaining them in Director roles. In addition the Town may potentially be competing for quality candidates with more attractive notice periods such as state government and other local governments. If the provisions are reciprocal with staff leaving the organisation with only 5 weeks’ notice, it may be more beneficial for the Town to have a longer notice period for Directors, so as to recruit replacement staff and allow for a handover if required. Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, all Directors, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act, declared that they have a financial interest in this matter.

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2017/09/Changes-to-payout-provisions-for-senior-bureaucrats.aspx

https://www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/McGowan/2017/09/Changes-to-payout-provisions-for-senior-bureaucrats.aspx



COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr Timmermanis The CEO is not authorised to allow termination clauses in Senior Executive contracts that provide notice periods of more than is provided under the National Employment Standards. Carried 5/4 For: Mayor Shannon (Casting Vote), Crs Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, McAllister, Nelson and Powell



12.5 EMPIRE VILLAGE AND BOULEVARD SHOPPING CENTRE PARKING

Submission by Cr Everett Subject to the provision of temporary parking in Clause (ii) (Item 12.6 - Empire Village and Boulevard Shopping Centre Parking from the November 2017 Ordinary Meeting of Council), that long term parking be restricted immediately in the verge areas around Beecroft Park (Olinda and Oban Roads) by the introduction of a 3 hour parking time limit. BACKGROUND: At the November 2017 Ordinary Meeting, Council decided the following: That:- (i) Council agree to undertake works in the Boulevard Road Reserve to create 29 permanent

parking bays, including additional landscaping to screen the car parking and relocation of the footpath as generally depicted in the attached Concept Plan prior to April 2018;

(ii) to provide immediate parking relief and to avoid disruption to the Centre over the Christmas period Council to allow temporary parking in the identified area through use of woodchips and (if necessary) kerb adjustment;

(iii) subject to the provision of bays in clause (i), that long term parking be restricted in the verge areas around Beecroft Park by introduction of a parking time limit;

(iv) as these works are an unbudgeted expenditure item, the CEO be authorised to spend up to $120,000 on the above by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to be funded from the Endowment Lands Account;

(v) the Town investigate and report further on the implementation and budget options for the balance of the Concept Plan initiatives. This includes calming and landscaping of the section of Oban Road between the carpark entry and the Boulevard, some embayed parking in Oban Road adjacent Lot 100, and the potential reconfiguration of the existing parking area on the western side of Oban Road currently located within that road reserve;

(vi) the Town investigate and report further on landscaping and recreational infrastructure initiatives and budget options for the western open space area (Lot 100) including installation of shade shelters, picnic tables/seats , additional landscaping/trees and irrigation;

(vii) the Town consider Options 5 and 6 above in conjunction with the Beecroft Park Master Plan and advise further on Community and stakeholder consultation options for these two items; and

(viii) the Town commence a review and report to Council on Policy 5.1 Parking to determine what modifications are required to address issues such as the exclusion of alfresco areas in the calculation of required parking spaces in centres such as this.

The temporary parking has now been completed and clause (iii) of the recommendation requires Council restrict long term parking in the verge areas around Beecroft Park by way of parking time limits. There is a need to commence this restriction before Christmas to give early warning to the long term parkers that currently use the area time to find alternative locations. Over the Christmas period the users of Beecroft Park can then park adjacent to the park in the spaces where the long term parking is presently happening.



Given that most users of Beecroft seem to use it for 2 hours or less (based on the survey results) it seems a 3hr limit is appropriate around the Park and can be confined to Olinda and Oban at this stage. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: The intent of the Council decision in November (item 12.6) was to create sufficient parking spaces for customers of the shopping centre and users of Beecroft park, and to control centre staff parking. This motion is in keeping with that decision of Council. BUDGET: In November 2017, the Council approved expenditure up to $120,000 to install additional car parking bays on the southern side of the Centre, in The Boulevard Road Reserve. POLICY: Nil LAW: The proposed amendments to parking restrictions are in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.22 Parking Restrictions; Any changes to parking restrictions or time limits require a formal decision by the Council in accordance with the requirements of Clause 2.1 of the Town's Parking Local Law. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr Timmermanis Subject to the provision of temporary parking in Clause (ii) (Item 12.6 - Empire Village and Boulevard Shopping Centre Parking from the November 2017 Ordinary Meeting of Council), that long term parking be restricted immediately in the verge areas around Beecroft Park (Olinda and Oban Roads) by the introduction of a 3 hour parking time limit. Carried 8/0



12.6 DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITIES GOVERNANCE REVIEW - TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE

Submission by Cr Carr That: (i) the CEO be authorised to submit a copy of the confidential Governance Review

prepared by the Australian Institute of Company Directors to the Department of Local Government and Communities;

(ii) a copy of the Governance Review be provided to the 4 newly Elected Members; and

(iii) Steven Cole of the AICD be engaged to run a further session with the Mayor, Elected Members, CEO and Directors to implement recommendations of this report.

BACKGROUND: On 28 February 2017, Director of Local Government Regulation and Support wrote to Mayor Shannon advising that:- (i) the DLGC had engaged the Australian Institute of Company Directors to deliver a

governance review program to selected councils and (ii) extending an invitation to the Town of Cambridge to participate in this program. (iii) this matter was discussed at the April 2017 elected Members Forum and it was agreed

to participate. (iv) The DLGC agreed to provide the funding for this survey. (v) The survey was conducted in May 2017. (vi) Steven Cole of AICD conducted 3 briefing sessions on 27 July 2017 including one with

the management team, one with the Mayor and Elected Members and one with the combined management and Elected Members.

The Department of Local Government and Communities paid for this survey and briefing sessions and is awaiting a copy of this survey and advice of what the Council intend to do to implement any of its recommendations. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: The Agreement entered into with the AICD and the Department of Local Government is attached. The AICD have provided the Department with a summary report of the Governance review, but not the full report. The AICD have been contacted to determine if there are any impediments to sending the full report to the Department of Local Government if the Council so decides. The AICD have responded that:

The Town of Cambridge cannot provide the report in whole or in part to a third party without our written permission. We need further information regarding the nature of the request to make a determination on this. I will also need to review the content of the report. The motion can only be to seek permission from AICD. We would then consider the request.



BUDGET: There is currently $10,000 provisioned in the Governance Program to undertake further Governance related activities. LAW: Nil POLICY: Nil Council Meeting 19 December 2017 Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Carr amended clause (i) of his motion. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr McAllister That: (i) the CEO be authorised to seek written permission from the Australian Institute of

Company Directors for a copy of the Governance Review prepared by the AICD and paid for by the Department of Local Government and Communities to be submitted to the Department of Local Government and Communities;

(ii) a copy of the Governance Review be provided to the 4 newly Elected Members; and

(iii) Steven Cole of the AICD be engaged to run a further session with the Mayor, Elected Members, CEO and Directors to implement recommendations of this report.

Lost 4/5 For: Crs Carr, McAllister, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon (Casting Vote), Crs Everett, McKerracher and Timmermanis



12.7 SAFE CROSSING OF LAKE MONGER DRIVE

Submission by Cr Powell That: (i) the Council investigate pedestrian usage patterns across Lake Monger Drive with the aim

of developing a plan to further improve the safe crossings for residents in Wembley and West Leederville;

(ii) the Council progress the Lake Monger Activity Plan, which will better position the Town to

apply for financial assistance from the State towards any larger infrastructure project such as a significant crossing from Wembley/West Leederville to Lake Monger.

BACKGROUND: Local MLA Sean L'Estrange announced in his most recent newsletter that it is time for a better, safer road crossing from West Leederville to Lake Monger. “Lake Monger has a rich history as a recreation area to be enjoyed by people of all ages. Up until the 1930s, people sailed on the lake and it remains a popular spot for fitness, picnics and fetes today. Unfortunately, for those living in West Leederville, Lake Monger Drive has become very busy as a major connection point to the Mitchell Freeway. This makes it difficult and sometimes dangerous for people, particularly the young and the elderly, to cross from West Leederville. I am pushing the government authorities to come up with a suitable crossing point.” There are seven crossing points on Lake Monger Drive:-

at the Harborne Street lights with no pedestrian or bike phases

a small median island to the west of St Vincents Avenue,

a large 3m new median island in front of 79b and 81 Lake Monger Drive

a median island in front of 47 Lake Monger Drive

a wide (2 – 2.5m) new median island in front of 2c Clune Avenue

a wide (3+m) through the grassed median in front of 7 Lake Monger Drive

at Southport St lights with pedestrian and bike phases. Previous Councils have considered alternatives to road crossings such as an overpass and an underpass. An overpass was considered to be expensive, difficult to locate and unsightly. The underpass option was considered to be too expensive due to the height of the water table and too difficult to physically locate. The Council chose to upgrade the median crossing points. Residents' concerns continue to include the speed of the traffic on the dual carriageway, the lack of sight lines at Northwood Street, turning traffic and the width of some of the median refuges. Most note that they cross in small groups at any number of points along Lake Monger Drive.



Parents with children at West Leederville Primary School regularly comment that the School has very limited space on their Northwood Street Campus for organised sport and sporting competitions. The School conducts the annual cross country event and some sporting activities at the east end of Lake Monger. Children are walked to the lake down Northwood Street and teachers strategically placed to stop traffic to enable the children to cross. There are about 300+ children to cross between the natural breaks in the traffic. This is the only known regular mass crossing of either the young or the elderly. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: The Administration proposes that this Notice of Motion is addressed in three parts:

1) Investigations into pedestrian crossing patterns and resultant plan for improvements; 2) Progression of the Lake Monger Activity Plan 3) Submission for financial assistance for any significant crossing project(s)

In regards to Part 1, the agenda for the Ordinary Council Meeting of 19 December 2017 includes consideration of Report CR17.178 Road Improvement - Capital Works Four Year Program from 2018-2019. The attachment to this report included a project within years 2 to 4 of the program of a potential overpass or underpass at Lake Monger Drive. If adopted in a relevant budget, this project would commence with a pedestrian usage study to determine crossing patterns and needs which would then assist in development of proposed solutions. In regards to Part 2, Council considered the initial feedback from the community on the draft Lake Monger Activity Plan at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 25 September 2017 (CR17.144 refers) and determined that:

(i) the initial feedback from the on-line surveys regarding the draft Lake Monger Activity Plan be noted;

(ii) the detailed report reviewing the community consultation be presented to an Elected Members Forum; and

(iii) a further report be provided detailing the next steps and consideration of options to finalise a Lake Monger Activity Plan.

At this time, the matter has not been discussed at subsequent Elected Members Forums. It is noted that there are many topics proposed for the Elected Members forums in coming months and that perhaps an alternative may be acceptable to Council. It could be possible that the community consultation report be discussed with Elected Members at a Lake Monger Working Group meeting (which is open to all Elected Members) after which item (iii) of the September report can be dealt with by the Administration. Finally in regards to Part 3, external funding assistance for any major pedestrian works may be available from Main Roads WA who would apply their warrants based assessment criteria regarding traffic volumes and pedestrian crossing data. It is beneficial in proving a case for support based on pedestrian safety that the future activity at Lake Monger contained in the Lake Monger Activity Plan be taken into account. Other potential funding sources will also be explored at the appropriate time.



BUDGET: The 2017/2018 Budget provides $75,000 to undertake Detailed Area Plans for Lake Monger. It is intended to use this budget for the areas of Lake Monger that are deemed the highest priority from the adopted Lake Monger Activity Plan. LAW: Nil POLICY: Nil Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) Administration develop a proposal to investigate pedestrian movements and safe

crossing options at Lake Monger Drive for consideration in the 2018/19 Budget deliberations;

(ii) the feedback from the Lake Monger Activity Plan public consultation be referred to

the Lake Monger Working Group in February 2018 for consideration and subsequent report to Council.

During discussion, the Mayor advised that, in accordance with Clause 9.8 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into separate motions. (i) Administration develop a proposal to investigate pedestrian movements and safe


Carried 7/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis (ii) the feedback from the Lake Monger Activity Plan public consultation be referred to


Carried 6/2 For: Crs Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell Against: Mayor and Cr Timmermanis



COUNCIL DECISION: That: (i) Administration develop a proposal to investigate pedestrian movements and safe


(ii) the feedback from the Lake Monger Activity Plan public consultation be referred to




12.8 2017/2018 BUDGET

Submission by Cr Timmermanis That the 2017/18 Budget as adopted by Council be updated as follows:- (i) the total allowance for expenditure on Budget item 3.17 GOVERNANCE-Other

Governance-Governance Management be reduced by an amount of $175,000.

(ii) the total allowance for expenditure on Budget item 3.38 COMMUNITY AMENITIES-Town Planning & Regional Development-Planning be increased by an amount of $175,000

BACKGROUND: The decision by Council to recognise the need to provide extra resourcing to the statutory planning function of the Town without imposing extra operational costs on the budget has resulted in a need to find specific savings within the operating budget. It is noted the Town's Administration had identified some budget funds from initiatives now not proceeding, however, these were one-off costs which did not address the need to sustainably fund the extra planning capacity. In order to ensure a sustainable resource for funding the extra planning capacity it is proposed to reduce the overall Governance Management allocation and have this re-allocated to the budget allocation for Development and Sustainability to sustainably support the enhancement of the statutory planning section. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: BUDGET: The proposal set out in the proposed motion has two aspects:

1. the current year budget amendments; and 2. future budget planning and sustainability

Current Budget The Governance Budget is summarised as follows:

Revenue (Risk and Insurance Rebates) $52,000

Total Operating Revenue $52,000

Employee Costs $639,000

Office Expenses $20,500

IT & Other Equipment $69,000

Fleet & Plant Running Costs $10,000

Operational Expenses $74,000

Other Expenses $95,000

Programs $425,500

Total Operating Expenditure $1,333,000



Apart from the Governance Programs, the expenditure items should be considered non-discretionary, in the sense that they relate to the delivery of essential governance services - audit, Cambridge News, website, staffing etc. However, the Governance Programs themselves can be considered discretionary (to a large extent) and it is open to Council to determine the priorities in this area. If the Council so directs, the administration will recommend reductions or deletions. This will have an effect on the delivery of some of the Council's objectives. An outline of the programs is provided below.

2016/17 2017/18 Consolidated 2017/18 Committed

C/Fwd Budget Budget Actual

Governance Programs

Regional Collaboration $2,000 $2,000

Mediation Services - Citizens Advice $500 $500 $500

Governance Program $10,000 $10,000 $0

Risk Program $68,000 $75,000 $143,000 $34,000

Integrated Planning & Comm Engagement $27,000 $150,000 $177,000 $60,107 $58,452

Performance Measurement & Benchmarking $53,000 $53,000 $0

Website - Subsite development/Com Directory $40,000 $40,000 $6,200

Total Operating Expenditure $95,000 $328,500 $423,500 $100,807 $58,452

It is noted that Item 10.2 of this agenda also deals with this matter. This report suggests that for the 2017/2018 financial year, $65,000 is required, which could be funded as follows:

a) Wealth Management Strategy $30,000 b) Town Planning Special Projects $20,000 c) Statutory Planning Consultancy Budget $15,000

Future budget planning and sustainability It is prudent for Council to consider future budgets and the redistribution of budget funding. However, it is suggested that this occurs in conjunction with the (four year) budgetary process, which will occur in the first half of next year. This process will incorporate the strategic priorities of Council and will allow the Town's strategic projects and service to be considered in context.

LAW:

In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Council may amend a budget at any time by an Absolute Majority vote.

POLICY;

Nil

Council Meeting 19 December 2017

Cr Timmermanis suggested that this item should be brought forward and discussed prior to Item 10.2.

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr McKerracher

That Item 12.8 be brought forward and considered prior to Item 10.2.

Carried 7/2

For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher and Timmermanis

Against: Crs Nelson and Powell



Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Everett That the 2017/18 Budget as adopted by Council be updated as follows:- (i) the total allowance for expenditure on Budget item 3.17 GOVERNANCE-Other

Governance-Governance Management be reduced by an amount of $175,000.

(ii) the total allowance for expenditure on Budget item 3.38 COMMUNITY AMENITIES-Town Planning & Regional Development-Planning be increased by an amount of $175,000

During discussion, in accordance with Clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, Cr Timmermanis, with the consent of the seconder of the motion altered clause (i) of the motion by adding the words "and the savings come from long term recurrent expenditures associated with item 3.17. COUNCIL DECISION: That the 2017/18 Budget as adopted by Council be updated as follows:- (i) the total allowance for expenditure on Budget item 3.17 GOVERNANCE-Other

Governance-Governance Management be reduced by an amount of $175,000 and the savings come from long term recurrent expenditures associated with item 3.17;

(ii) the total allowance for expenditure on Budget item 3.38 COMMUNITY AMENITIES-

Town Planning & Regional Development-Planning be increased by an amount of $175,000

Lost 4/5 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett and Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and Powell



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS Meeting Behind Closed Doors Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That the following matters be regarded as confidential in accordance with Section 5.23 (2)(a)(c) and (e) of the Local Government Act 1995. Carried 7/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Powell Against" Cr Timmermanis At 10.18 pm, the Mayor requested all persons other than Elected Members and Council Officers to leave the Council Chamber.

13.1 WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - POTENTIAL CORPORATE MEMBERSHIP


Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr Powell That a corporate partnership for the Wembley Golf Course with Lexus Perth for a three year period, with a one year option (the Town's) be finalised by the Town's Chief Executive Officer, effective from 8 January 2018 by the way of a licence agreement. Carried 7/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Bradley, Everett, McAllister, McKerracher, Nelson and

Timmermanis Against: Cr Powell

13.2 TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HOME AND COMMUNITY CARE SERVICE REVIEW AND FUTURE SERVICE DELIVERY

Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell That Item 13.2 be brought forward and considered prior to Item 13.1. Carried 8/0




Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Powell

That:- (i) the significant changes occurring in relation to the Home and Community Care

Program merging with the Commonwealth Home Support Program from 1 July 2018 be noted;

(ii) no new Home and Community Care referrals be accepted from the Regional

Assessment Service from 1 January 2018; (iii) the Town exits the provision of Home and Community Care services on 30 June

2018; (iv) a Communication and Transition Plan be commenced immediately, including

information sessions with clients, staff and volunteers to advise them of the Town's support in transitioning to new arrangements and ensuring continuity of care;

(v) the Town continues to liaise with the Western Australian Department of Health to

ensure that support is provided for the transition of clients and staff; (vi) the Town undertakes an 'Expressions of Interest' process utilising the Expression

of Interest document attached, to identify a suitable and experienced existing North Metropolitan Region HACC service provider to deliver the Town's HACC contract from 1 July 2018, and

(vii) the results of the EOI process, including the preferred HACC Service Provider, be

presented directly to Council in February 2018. Carried 8/0

13.3 LAND ACQUISITION - CITY BEACH


Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Timmermanis

That the confidential recommendation, as outlined in the report, be endorsed. Carried 8/0



13.4 LOT 501 OMAROO TERRACE, CITY BEACH

Prior to consideration of the item, Cr Carr, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a financial interest in this matter as he has known the plaintiff for 35 years and left the meeting at 10.22 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Everett, seconded by Cr McKerracher That the Chief Executive Officer go out to Tender for Legal Services associated with the Supreme Court litigation. Carried 7/0 Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Cr McKerracher That the meeting be reopened to the public. Carried 7/0



14. CLOSURE There being no further business, the Mayor thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 10.42 pm.