australia pesticide ban trial results 2011 to 2014 ts reports - ts24.14 to ts28.14 - 25 february

8/12/2019 Australia Pesticide Ban Trial Results 2011 to 2014 TS Reports - TS24.14 to TS28.14 - 25 February

1/63

Technical Services Reports

Committee Consideration11 February 2014Council Resolution25 February 2014

Table of Contents

Item No. Page No.

TS01.14 Findings from Chemical Free Park TrialMasons

Gardens.............................................................. .....2

TS02.14 Adoption of Draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan ..... .....10

TS03.14 Rochdale Road Nature Strip Parking .............................. .....15

TS04.14 Melvista Reserve Road Naming ..................................... .....22


2/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

2C14/7

TS01.14 Findings from Chemical Free Park Trial Masons Gardens

Committee 11 February 2014Council 25 February 2014

Applicant City of Nedlands

Officer Andrew DicksonManager Parks Services

Director Mark GoodletDirector Technical Services

DirectorSignature

File Reference CRS/073, PRS/135, M13/36837

Previous Item Item 14.1Council Minutes27 September 2011

Executive Summary

The purpose of this report is to present to Council the findings from the twenty fourmonth Chemical Free park trial at Masons Gardens that concluded on 31December 2013.

Recommendation to Committee

Council

1. receives the findings from the Chemical Free park trial conductedby Administration;

2. regards Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority(APVMA) registered products as an acceptable, cost effective andefficient method of pest control within public open spaces when:

minimised to the extent practicable within an integrated pestmanagement plan for public open space;

implemented in appropriate programs developed by suitably

qualified and competent persons; the product is suitably selected for the intended purpose,

efficacy and risk profile;

used in accordance with product labels; and

stored, handled and applied in accordance with Federal and Stateregulations, codes of practice and guidelines.

3. approves the use of APVMA registered pesticide products for pestcontrol activities in maintenance programs for the Citys public openspaces;


3/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

3C14/7

4. commits to the control of weeds and pests in the Citys parklands andreserves in order to enhance and protect public amenity and fulfill itsobligations in regard to control of environmental pests; and

5. considers the findings from the trial in the future development ofpolicies for the use of pesticides in public places within the City of

Nedlands.

Strategic Plan

KFA: Natural and Built EnvironmentKFA: Community DevelopmentKFA: Governance and Civic Leadership

Background

In September 2011 Council carried a motion asking Administration to nominate apark to undergo a 24 month trial as a Chemical Free park. Administrationnominated Masons Gardens as the location for the trial. One primary reason fornominating this location was to ensure wide public exposure to the trial bychoosing a well frequented City park that was not used for structured sports.

The trial commenced during December 2011 with notification of surroundingresidents by letter drop. Details of the trial were also posted on the Citys websiteand included in the Nedlands News section of the local print media. At the end ofDecember 2013 the trial had been in place for 24 months.

Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions:

Item 14.1Council Minutes27 September 2011

Council Resolution:

1. Council directs Administration to nominate a park in the City to undergo a 24month trial as a "Chemical Free" park, where no herbicides or insecticides willbe used;

2. Before the trial proceeds on the nominated park,

(a) a letter drop to surrounding residents informing them of Council'sResolution and Intent is carried out;

(b) an advertisement or article of the same is placed in the local papersso that the general public is informed; and

3. The test results of the trial (including costs, park usage and communityfeedback during and at the end of the two (2) year period) be brought back toCouncil for further consideration and possible implementation into the City ofNedlands' "Policy on The Use of Pesticides and Herbicides", especially in ourparks.

Consultation


4/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

4C14/7

Required by legislation: Yes NoRequired by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No

At the commencement of the trial in December 2011 the City conducted a letterdrop to approximately three hundred surrounding residents. The letter dropinformed residents of the trial and requested feedback with respect to any

concerns during the period of the trial. This consultation resulted in limitedfeedback with only two (2) responses from the community. The responses aretabled in Attachment 1.

In July 2012, after six (6) months elapsing from the commencement of the trial, theCity conducted another letter drop to a smaller group of approximately onehundred and twenty surrounding residents. The letter drop included a Communityfeedback form encouraging comments and feedback on residents experiencesand observations in relation to the trial. This consultation resulted in one responserepresenting a return rate of less than one percent (1%). The response is tabled inAttachment 1. A sample of the feedback form is provided as Attachment 2.

In December 2013, at the conclusion of the trial, the City conducted a further letterdrop to the same one hundred and twenty residents. The letter drop included asimilar Community feedback form to the letter drop in 2012. Again there waslimited feedback from the community with six (6) responses representing a returnrate of five percent (5%). The responses are included in Attachment 1.

Over the twenty four month duration the City received in total sixteen (16) items ofcorrespondence in direct relation to the trial. These included responses to thecommunity letter drops and a number of unsolicited responses. Unsolicited

community correspondence is included in Attachment 1.

Legislation / Policy

Local Government Act 1995

Health Act 1911

Health (Pesticide) Regulations 2011

Use of Pesticides and Herbicides policy

Budget/Financial Implications

Within current approved budget: Yes NoRequires further budget consideration: Yes No

The trial has demonstrated that if Council were to adopt the Chemical Free

model, and extend this to other locations, it would result in significant maintenance

cost increases for its parks and reserves.

Alternative practices to the chemical control of pests were assessed as being less

cost effective and less efficient. The associated cost in implementing alternative

weed and pest control methods to chemical control significantly outweighed thesavings in not carrying out any pesticide application activities.


5/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

5C14/7

Risk Management

The primary risks highlighted by the trial were in the areas of financial, service

delivery and reputational risk. The main risk relates to potential financial and

budgetary implications if Council were to adopt the Chemical Free model for

broader implementation.

Without making increased funds available for implementing alternative pest

control, the associated cost increase would have the potential to result in inferior

levels of parks maintenance service delivery. In addition, increased maintenance

expenditure may have the potential to negatively impact Councils ability to fulfil its

commitment to the capital renewal of community assets within parks and reserves

as described in the Community Strategic Plan.

The community consultation process highlighted a risk to reputation. The risk,

whilst low, related to concerns from the community with the usability of Masons

Gardens for certain activities due to the proliferation of Bindii/Jo-Jo prickles (Soliva

pterosperma). It was apparent there was a perception held by some in the

community of poor management and/or judgement in not controlling these weeds

in turf areas.

Discussion

The federal regulatory authority for pesticides, the APVMA, has published a fact

sheet on the registration process for pesticides in Australia. The fact sheetcontains information relating to the registering of chemical products in Australia

and the risks involved in using registered products. The fact sheet is attached for

reference as Attachment 3.

There were two (2) issues of significance arising from the trial that are important in

the context of the debate on pesticide use in public places and Councils decision

making:

1. The lack of engagement by the community in response to the trial which was

evident through the Citys consultationprocesses.

Neither strong support nor opposition to the use of pesticides for pest control

in public places was evident during the trial. Of the sixteen items of

correspondence received, fifteen indicated support of for use of chemicals to

control weeds whilst one (1) indicated support of the prohibiting of pesticide

use at Masons Gardens to control weeds.

2. The budgetary implications if the Chemical Free model were to be broadly

implemented across the Citys parks and reserves maintenance operations.


6/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

6C14/7

The increased costs in implementing alternative weed and pest control methods

were principally attributable to increased labour requirements. Manual removal of

weeds and pests has been demonstrated as being labour intensive, time

consuming and cost prohibitive in comparison to appropriate chemical control

methods.

Apart from manual removal, other alternative pest control methods (e.g. thermal

weed control in garden beds and around trees) were observed as being labour

intensive and time consuming. In addition alternative pest control methods were

observed to be generally less effective in most landscape situations when

compared to chemical control methods.

In the case of thermal/steam control, this method was observed to be lesseffective for controlling perennial grasses and woody weeds (e.g. fleabane andcommon dandelion) in addition to being more constrained in relation to the

situations and locations it could be employed.

In the case of turf mowing regimes and practices it was observed ascompletely ineffective in controlling some weed species (e.g. Bindii/Jo-Jo andclover).

In the case of manual weed removal, this was observed as less effective forkikuyu grass, couch grass and other perennial rhizomatous weeds removalfrom garden beds (e.g. creeping oxalis), most notably amongst rockeries thatdid not allow access to remove underground rhizomes (below surfacerunners).

During 2011/12 the City conducted a trial of thermal/steam control of grass around

the base of trees and park furniture in Masons Gardens to evaluate its

effectiveness. Thermal/steam control application costs were evaluated as higher

per application than glyphosate application.

When used for the perennial grass control around park trees and infrastructure,

glyphosate based products were observed to provide between eight (8) to twelve

weeks grass control. Glyphosate effectively eradicated the grass where applied as

articulated on the product label. In comparison, thermal/steam control wasobserved to provide four (4) to six (6) weeks control. This method of control only

provided a suppression effect where applied and did not eradicate the grass.

Suppressing the grass allowed it to recover more quickly and rapidly re-establish

where treated.

During the trial thermal/steam application was observed to be less effective and

evaluated as more costly in controlling perennial grass growth in these situations

in comparison to chemical control methods. Photographic validation of this trial

was recorded.


7/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

7C14/7

The increased cost for manual removal and thermal control of weeds is

demonstrated below.

Table 1 below indicates the overall annual maintenance budgets for the last five

(5) years at Masons Gardens. The table includes the figures for actual annual

expenditure for the sub-activities of pest control and landscape maintenance.

Focusing on garden bed maintenance, Table 1 highlights the increased cost for

maintaining garden bed areas free from weeds when unable to utilise herbicides.

Whilst the increased cost may not appear substantial, the garden bed areas at

Masons Gardens comprise approximately six hundred square metres representing

less than two percent (2%) of the total maintained area within the park.

Table 1: Masons Gardens Annual Budget Figures

FinancialYear

ApprovedOperational Budget

Pesticide ApplicationExpenditure

LandscapeExpenditure

2009/10 $47,340 $1,271 $832

2010/11 $72,000 $135 $1,262

2011/12 $67,697 $0 $1,732

2012/13 $68,200 $0 $4,232

2013/14 $67,000 $0^ $1,544^

Council directive not to treat broadleaf weeds in turf areas this financial year

Chemical Free park trial in operation for six (6) monthsChemical Free park trial in operation for twelve (12) months

^ Expenditure to22 January 2014.

The expenditure figures for pest control in 2009/10 include the cost of contract

broadleaf weed control in turf areas in addition to garden bed weed control.

The figure of $135 for pesticide expenditure in 2010/11 reflects the true cost to

control weeds in garden beds at Masons Gardens for that year. During the

2010//11 financial year the City did not treat weeds in the turf areas at MasonsGardens, due to a resolution passed by Council not to engage the recommended

contractor for broadleaf weed control. There were no other pest control activities

during the year other than weed control in garden bed areas.

In the financial years 2011/12 onwards, the increased cost for garden

maintenance is directly attributable to the increased labour required to remove

weeds manually from garden bed areas during each service.

Table 2 below shows a further breakdown of maintenance cost analysisundertaken during the trial. The table shows the first and second half budget and


8/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

8C14/7

expenditure figures for the respective financial years and actual annual man hours

attended.

Table 2 highlights the increase in man hours and expenditure for maintaining

garden beds by manual weed removal in comparison to chemical control. Each of

the annual budgeted figures is based on an allowance of forty eight (48) manhours of labour for garden maintenance annually at Masons Gardens.

During the calendar years 2012 to 2013, coinciding with the increase in

expenditure for garden maintenance, the overall presentation of the park was

assessed as inferior. Turf and garden bed areas were not presented to previous

standards due to the inability to effectively control weed infestations. The

proliferation of broadleaf weeds in turf areas and kikuyu grass in garden beds as a

result of no chemical control activities, or effective alternative control methods,

detracted from the overall presentation and usability of the park.

Table 2: Garden Maintenance Costs Analysis

Financial

Year

First Figures - 1 July to

31 December

Second Figures - 1

January to 30 June

Annual

Actual

Man

Hours

Budgeted

Costs

Actual

Costs

Budgeted

Costs

Actual

Costs

2009/10 = $749 = $384 = $749 = $708 32

2010/11 = $779 = $893 = $779 = $368 33.5

2011/12 = $830 = $545 = $830 = $1,188 462012/13 = $865 = $1,661 = $865 = $2,571 86.5

2013/14 = $900 = $1,159 = $900 = $384^ 34.5^

Chemical Free park trial in operation for six (6) months

Chemical Free park trial in operation for twelve (12) months

^ Expenditure and man hours to22 January 2014.

The net result of evaluating cost implications demonstrated an increase in

maintenance expenditure, combined with less effective weed control andsubsequently an inferior outcome in presentation and usability of the park.

A set of photographic reference points were established for the duration of the trial

to track weed infestation. A photographic log of a number of turf locations and one

garden bed were recorded monthly. At the time of implementation of the trial in

December 2011, only minor weed infestations within turf and garden bed areas

within Masons Gardens were observed.

The majority of weed pests that occur within turf are annual weeds that activelygrow during the cooler months between April and October. The photographic log

illustrated an increased infestation of broadleaf weeds in turf areas during the


9/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

9C14/7

months April to October in 2012 and again in 2013. As a result of no chemical

control activity in the turf areas during the trial, and with no other practicable

control options able to be employed (other than increased mowing frequency), the

weed population increased significantly. Photographs tracking the weed

population changes are attached in Attachment 4.

Conclusion

Adoption and implementation of appropriate and effective pest control measuresfor the provision of public open space is fundamental to the enhancement andprotection of local amenity, the environment and the expectations of thecommunity.

Drawing on the information publicised by the APVMA, and with there being no

evidence that current pest control practices employed by the City cause harm toits community or the environment when appropriately implemented, Administration

envisages little benefits and large risks in the prohibiting of appropriate pesticide

use from its maintenance programs.

In support of the continued enhancement and protection of its public places

Administration does not support the comprehensive prohibiting of pesticide use

from its maintenance programs for public open space where appropriate.

Administration does however advocate the minimising of pesticide use in public

open space to the extent possible and actively implements integrated pest

management controls within its operations where practicable.

Attachments

1. Community Feedback Results for Chemical Free Park Trial - MasonsGardens

2. Sample Community Feedback Form3. APVMA Fact Sheet - The Registration Process4. Photographic Log of Weed Infestation - Chemical Free Park Trial Masons

Gardens


10/63

Attachment 1 - Community Feedback Results for Chemical Free

Park Trial - Masons Gardens

Responses to Initial Information Letter Mail Out and Advertising of Trial - 13 December2011

TRIM RefRespondent

LocationComments

D11/28157 Kathryn Crescent,Dalkeith

Regarding the trial of not using pesticides in Masons Gardens, I ama great believer in reducing pesticides but Masons Gardens doeshave waterways and we all suffer from mosquitoes in the summer. Ihave lived at ** Kathryn Crescent (currently living at No **) for over30 years and the insect problem has steadily got worse. Years agowe had no mosquitoes - I will watch with interest!

D12/1647 Riley Road,Dalkeith

I am writing to you with direct feedback on the trial of non chemicalbased treatment of mosquitoes at Masons Gardens.In short it is absolutely the worst we have seen mosquitoes in thedistrict.I know that we are not the only one suffering the constant mosquito

attacks, which are so bad that we can not sit outside at night.We respectfully request that you reconsider this trial and treat theproblem in the manner that has worked in the past as a matter ofurgency.I look forward to your timely response.

Responses to 6 Month Letter Mail Out and Community Feedback Form - 16 July 2012

TRIM RefRespondentLocation

Comments

D12/17180 Melvista Avenue,Nedlands

We have lived opposite Masons Gardens for 29 years and muchenjoy the park.1. Would you kindly let us know what chemicals were used inprevious years and for what purposes.2. We consider that there should be spraying for pricklesthese are a hazard for people (particularly children) in bare feet andfor dogs (paws and fur), and also spread to private lawns.3. Would you kindly let us know whether there was sprayingfor prickles in City of Nedlands parks last season, as we did notobserve any spraying for prickles and both Masons Gardens andCollege Park appeared to be infested with prickles.4. There appears to be a current infestation of various broad-

leaved weeds in Masons Gardens.We look forward to your response.


11/63

Responses to 24 Month Letter Mail Out and Community Feedback Form - 6 December2013

TRIM RefRespondentLocation

Comments

D13/27755 Garland Road,

Dalkeith

My only comment is the growth of bindii (Jo-jo or onehunga) in

Mason's GardensD13/27845 Kathryn Crescent,

DalkeithDuring springtime bindis growth and prickly seeds are significant,covering a large area from roadside to pathway around pond area.Children unable to walk bare foot.Small dogs cannot walk across due to significant discomfort causedby bindi grass uncontrolled.We are unable to walk across with our dog during these months.Very unpleasant.

D13/27847 Goldsmith Road,Dalkeith

I think it is great that we dont use chemicals in the park. It is saferfor children and pets. The park looks good less weeds and I feelmore comfortable to be in the chemical free park. It should bechemical free permanently.

I also think that all parks should be chemical free.In the past when you used chemicals to control weeds you killed alot of nice plants as well. The strong weeds still survived and itspreads much more and worse. My dog had sharp arrow headgrass seed in her ear, we spent a fortune at the vets. I dont thinkchemical is good for environment at all.

D13/28043 Hotchin Street,Dalkeith

Thank you for having allowed us to comment. From ourperspective this trial has been a disaster for the following reasons:So many burrs and grass seeds meaning trips to vet to extractgrass seeds from dogs paws, we have to do a paw check everytime we walk the dog.Extra weeds growing on our front lawn, obviously blown/carried

across from the park.You cannot walk barefoot in the park, we hear of numerous parentscomplaining.Please bring back the spraying.

D13/28594 Adelma Road,Dalkeith

I live opposite the gardens.Bindi weed is rampantI have observed children and adults tryingto walk over the grass.The ponds area is neglected and run down and dirty.The big tree logs xxx have ruined the water and appearance.The turtle population is nonexistent.The bush area a fire hazard and dangerous.Big trees dying xxx

It is very sad to see the neglect.D14/171 Garland Road,

DalkeithLarge amount of prickles.PondOvergrown with algae.Where has all the turtles gone?


12/63

Unsolicited Responses

TRIM Ref Name Comments

D13/4602 Milson Street,

South Perth

I understand that the City of Nedlands has been trialling steam as a

method for weed control in some areas. Can you advise whetherthe use of steam to control weeds appears to be a suitablealternative to herbicides and whether it is cost effective? Also,does the City have its own equipment or does it use contractors? Ifcontractors are used, can you advise which ones? I am keen to finda contractor that uses steam for weed control, as most just seem towant to use herbicides.Many thanks


We have noticed significant bindi in the grass around the park, ourdog is extremely reluctant to walk across the grass due to theprickly bindi.Grateful if you can investigate and eliminate the bindi.

D13/22260 Address notsupplied I have been informed by another resident who is a user of MasonsGardens, that the Council will not be spraying the weeds eg. Bindi-eye prickles, at Masons Gardens. I strongly urge you to reconsiderthis decision as I find the prickles especially, a hazard to my dogpaws and to the young children who play barefoot at this park.

D13/25031(phonecall)

Address notsupplied

S**** reporting that the Bindi is really bad. Advised that Councilmade it a chemcial free zone so we can't treat it but that expires inDec so we will be putting in a request to start treating. If she wantsto write in we can include that in the request to Council.

D13/25659(phonecall)

Kathryn Crescent,Dalkeith

D***** ****** has called to report that despite the no spraying trial inMason Gardens the park is full of prickles and the kids have tokeep their shoes on


I would like to advise the Council that the chemical free trial atMasons Gardens has not been a success.We live opposite Masons Gardens at ** Kathryn Crescent, Dalkeith.Our 3 children play in the park every day and we also walk our dog

in the park regularly.The park is now full of prickles and the children cannot play in thepark without wearing shoes. We have had visitors to our house,whose young children have ended up in tears as a result of havingtwo feet full of prickles.Our dog suffers as she also ends up with prickles in her paws.I know that various groups of parents and children regularly meet atthe park after school each week, and these groups have stopped

coming as the prickles are such a nuisance.I appeal to the Council to reinstate the broadleaf weed controlprogram at Masons Gardens once the trial period ends on 31December 2013.

D13/27245 Hotchin Street,Dalkeith

I live near mason gardens and have 4 young children and regularlywalk my dog there. It is a fantastic park that my children love andspend much time there however the problems with prickles hasbecome significant and is negatively impacting on our time spentthere. I urge the council to reconsider its current management ofthis problem


13/63

| Community feedback formTechnical Services

My comments on the 24 month chemical free park trial at Masons Gardens, Dalkeith

are as follows:

My contact details are as follows:

Name _______________________ Address ___________________________________________

Email ________________________________

Once you have completed this form please return it to the City of Nedlands, using any of the methodslisted below, by 4 pm Friday 20 December, 2013.

Email Scan and email to:[email protected]

Fax Fax to:08 9273 3670

Mail Post to:

City of NedlandsPO Box 9NEDLANDS WA 6909

In person Visit the Administration Centre at:71 Stirling HwyNEDLANDS WA 6009

Thank you for taking the time to complete and return this form. Your feedback will be used toconsider future chemical free classification to parks and reserves in the City of Nedlands.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


14/63

THE REGISTRATION PROCESS

Before an agricultural and veterinary chemical

product can be legally supplied, sold, or

used in Australia it must be registered by the

Australian Pesticides and Veterinary MedicinesAuthority (APVMA).

For farmers, food producers, the chemical

industry and the general public, registration

means that the product is safe and will work

when used according to the label.

Chemicals the APVMA Registers

The APVMA assesses and registers agricultural and veterinarychemical products.

Agricultural chemicals include herbicides, insecticides,

fungicides and some pest traps and barriers for pest control.

Veterinary chemicals include vaccines, antibiotics,

anthelmintics, and ectoparasiticides, and some vitamins and

minerals.

In addition, any major variation to the ingredients or use

patterns of a registered product must also be assessed and

approved by the APVMA.

The APVMAs role is that of an industry regulator. It is not

involved in identifying opportunities in the marketplace and

promoting registration of a product to meet a market purpose.

It is up to chemical companies and individuals to identify a

need and develop a suitable product. Alternatively, farmer

associations may identify a market for a new product and

request chemical companies to develop and register a product

that meets this identied need.

Biological and Natural Products

Biological or natural products are sometimes used for the

treatment or protection from pests and diseases.

In cases where a product claims to control a particular

condition or have benecial effects, registration is required.

To nd out if a biological or natural product does require

registration contact the Application Management & Enquires

section of the APVMA.

The Registration Process

Each chemical product submitted to the AVPMA for

registration undergoes rigorous scientic assessment before

it can be approved. In evaluating products the AVPMA takes

full account of the nature of the product, the scientic quality of

the data and comments from consultation with manufacturers,

Commonwealth advisory agencies, state and territory

departments and other stakeholders, including the public.

Information Required to Register a Product

When an application for registration is submitted to theAPVMA, the product registrant must supply enough

information to establish that the product meets criteria of:

product quality

human and animal health and safety

efcacy - that the product works

environmental safety; and

that it will not affect international trade.

Screening

Each application is given an initial check (known as

screening) to determine that it contains the required

supporting data and information. Applicants are advised of

any deciencies.

Evaluation

Specialist staff in the APVMA examine the product and its

ingredients. The APVMA also assesses the chemistry of the

product, how it was manufactured and any residues it leaves

behind after its use. The APVMA commonly seeks specialist

advice from a number of Commonwealth agencies and where

appropriate consults with the states and territory Departments

of Agriculture and other specialist external organisations.


15/63

These include:

The Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA);

Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the

Arts (DEWHA);

Foods Standard Australia New Zealand

(FSANZ);

The Ofce of the Gene Technology Regulator (OGTR);

The National Health & Medical Research Council

(NHMRC); and

The Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service

(AQIS).

Label Directions

As part of the assessment the APVMA also approves theproduct label. The APVMA examines how the chemical

will be used, the application rate, method of application

and concentration levels to ensure the products maximum

efcacy. Preparation, storage and rst aid instructions

are also carefully assessed to safeguard human and

environmental health and safety.

Public Consultation

To inform the public that a new product with a new active

constituent is being considered for registration, the APVMA

places a notice in the APVMAs Agricultural and VeterinaryChemicals Gazette, (available from the APVMA website) and

sends a summary to interested members of the public and

relevant industry bodies seeking comment. All comments are

considered before the nal decision on whether to register

the product is made.

Where a change to a label may have impact on trade the

APVMA seeks advice on this aspect from relevant industry

bodies and the public.

Registration Timeframe

Assessments of a product application can take between

3 and 15 months. This allows time for screening of an

application, evaluation of the data submitted, specialist

consultation (where necessary) and public consultation.

Therefore the time required to register a product varies, and

is dependent on the level of evaluation and assessment

required.

Product Review

Chemicals are not registered forever. The APVMA has a

chemical review program that reconsiders whether older

registered agricultural and veterinary chemicals meet todaysstandards for safety and efcacy. The program also looks at

newer chemicals where there are concerns for public health

and safety.

CONTACTING THE APVMA

Want more information?

If you would like to know more about the APVMA or any of its

services please contact us.

Postal address:

PO Box 6182

KINGSTON ACT 2604 AUSTRALIA

T: +61 2 6210 4700

F: +61 2 6210 4813

W: www.apvma.gov.au

The Registration Process (Contd)

Possible outcomes of a review include: continued

registration, changes to how the chemical can be used,

suspension of chemical use or the product being withdrawn

from the market.

The APVMA Permit Scheme

The APVMA has a Permits Scheme that allows for the legal

use of chemicals in ways that are different to the uses set out

on the product label or, in certain circumstances, the limited

use of an unregistered chemical.

To obtain a permit, the applicant needs to satisfy the same

criteria as for registration. However, because the extent of

the chemicals use may be quite small and the related risks

much lower, the supporting data requirements and evaluationprocesses may be simpler.

The Benets of Using Registered Products

By purchasing registered chemical products, you know:

they have been assessed as suitable for use

under Australian conditions

you are complying with the law; and

when used according to the label, they will not have any

negative effects on you, your family, your crops and

animals or the environment.

The Label

By following the label on the products registered by the

APVMA you know that you are:

using the right product the right way

minimising waste and cost; and

getting the right advice on safety, preparation,

application and storage.

SEPTEMBER 2008


16/63

Attachment 4 - Photographic Log - Chemical Free Park Trial

Figure 1: Photographic reference points for Chemical Free park trial Masons Gardens

Figure 2: Reference point A - 26 July 2012


17/63


18/63

Figure 5: Reference point A - 28 September 2012

Figure 6: Reference point B - 28 September 2012


19/63

Figure 7: Reference point C - 28 September 2012

Figure 8: Reference point A - 29 July 2013


20/63

Figure 9: Reference point B - 29 July 2013

Figure 10: Reference point C - 29 July 2013


21/63

Figure 11: Reference point A - 25 September 2013

Figure 12: Reference point B - 25 September 2013


22/63

Figure 13: Reference point C - 25 September 2013


23/63

Reports TS24.1427.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

10

TS02.14 Adoption of Draft Dinghy StorageManagement Plan

Committee 11 February 2014Council 25 February 2014


Officer Andrew DicksonManager Parks Services


DirectorSignature

File Reference PRS/115, M14/1899

Previous Item Item 12.5 - Council Minutes - 25 September 2012

Executive Summary

In September 2012, Council adopted the Dinghy Storage on River ForeshoreReserve policy. The purpose of this report is to seek Councils endorsement andadoption of the Citys draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan to enableimplementation of the policy.


Council:1. Adopts the Dinghy Storage Management Plan;

2. Approves submission of a Form 7 - Permit Application to the Swan RiverTrust to obtain the necessary approvals to establish the proposed storagefacilities;

3. Lists the inclusion of $6,000 in the Parks Services for consideration in thedraft capital budget for the 2014/15 financial year for establishment of thetwo (2) proposed facilities; and

4. Notes the inclusion of an annual licence fee in the Citys 2014/15 feesand charges schedule for users of the storage facilities.

Strategic Plan

KFA: Natural and Built EnvironmentKFA: Community DevelopmentKFA: Governance and Civic Leadership


24/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

11C14/7

Background

The Citys foreshore reserves sit within the Swan River Trust (SRT) Development

Control Area which includes the waters of the Swan and Canning rivers and all

adjoining parks and public recreation reserves. The SRT administers all

development and significant activity with foreshore reserves whilst the City isvested the day to day management and care of the reserves.

In 2010 the SRT adopted policy SRT/26 - Dinghy Management along the SwanCanning Riverpark Shoreline to enable enforcement of the Swan and CanningRivers Management Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). SRT policy sets out thecircumstances in which the practice of dinghy storage on the river foreshore willno longer be allowed and in which it may continue in the future.

The SRT advised the City they are intending to commence active enforcement of

this policy and the Regulations in the near future. This would result in the removalof private dinghies from the Citys foreshore reserve areas unless they are placedin storage facilities managed by the City and approved by the SRT.

In response, in September 2012, Council adopted the Dinghy Storage on River

Foreshore Reserves policy resolving to allow dinghy storage on foreshore

reserves. Council policy sets out to limit the amount and circumstances in which

this practice can occur.

The draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan has been developed to enableimplementation of Councils policy.


Item 14.1 Report CP41.12Council Minutes25 September 2012

Council adopted the Dingy Storage on River Foreshore Reserve policy.

Consultation

Required by legislation: Yes No

Required by City of Nedlands policy: Yes No

Development of the management plan required consultation with the SRT, the

Town of Claremont, the Department of Transport, private mooring owners and the

Citys community.

The Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006requires all development in

the SRT Development Control Area be approved by the Trust. SRT policy requires

consultation with relevant stakeholders be undertaken as part of all development

proposals and the associated approvals process.


25/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

12C14/7

The City conducted consultation with owners of private moorings adjacent to the

Citys foreshore areas. This consultation was undertaken with the assistance of

the Department of Transport and involved sending letters to mooring owners

requesting feedback on the Citys draft plan. The consultation was targeted to

engage owners of dinghies servicing moorings on the river who currently, or may

be intending to, store a dinghy on the Citys foreshore areas.

The City also conducted consultation with its community in close proximity to the

proposed storage facilities. This was accomplished through a letter drop and

advertising of the draft plan on its website. The City provided a community

feedback form requesting feedback and comment on the Citys draft plan.

The results of the feedback received are tabled in Attachment 1.


Local Government Act 1995

Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006

Shipping and Pilotage Act 1967 (Mooring Regulations 1998)

Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserves policy

Reserves, Foreshores and Beaches Local Law



Administration will be seeking approval for the allocation of $6,000 in the 2014/15

financial year budget to enable the establishment of the two (2) proposed facilities.

In addition, as the storage areas are to be user pays facilities, Administration will

be seeking approval to establish an annual licence fee (amount to be

determined) for the use of the facilities. The licence fee is to be included in the

Citys fees and charges schedule to allow cost recovery of expenditure for

establishment and ongoing maintenance of the facilities.

Risk Management

The primary risks in relation to the management of dinghies on foreshore reserves

are reputational risk, environmental risk and regulatory risk. These risks are all

rated as low.

Councils decision making carries a low level of reputational risk and this has beenaddressed through the process of consultation with relevant stakeholders.

Environmental risk has been addressed by consultation with the SRT and their


26/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

13C14/7

input in relation to appropriate low impact storage facility design and positioning of

the facilities. Regulatory risk has been addressed by developing a management

plan for dinghy storage in response to SRT policy and seeking relevant approvals

for storage facilities.

Discussion

The storing of private dinghies on foreshore reserves adjacent to the Swan and

Canning Rivers is a practice that has historically been tolerated by relevant

authorities. The practice has been in place for decades and has been a

fundamental part of the river foreshore fabric in some locations along the river

system.

The Regulations came into operation in 2007, and the SRT developed policies to

enable enforcement of provisions within the Regulations. With the SRT adopting

policy SRT/26, the long tolerated practice of storing of private dinghies on the river

foreshore will now be actively regulated.

The draft Dinghy Management Plan has been prepared with reference to the City

of Nedlands Local Laws, Council policy and the provisions conferred by the

Regulations. The Plan sets out how the City of Nedlands will manage the storage

of private dinghies within public places under its care and control along the river

foreshore.

The objective of the Plan is to meet the expectations of the Swan River Trust(SRT) for protection of the Swan and Canning rivers and adjacent reserve lands. It

also takes into account consideration of the communitys expectation to preserve

public amenity and access to foreshore reserves under the care of the City of

Nedlands. The plan seeks to address all relevant requirements of the Regulations

and SRT policy with the key focus of maintaining equitable access to ensure

public enjoyment of foreshore reserves and the river environment across a broad

range of activities.

The plan outlines the management controls to be implemented to ensure that thestorage of dinghies within river foreshore reserves is managed in a safe,

responsible manner, minimising harm to the environment and meeting the

expectations of the various users of the river foreshore reserves.

The draft plan is attached as Attachment 2.

Conclusion

Administration is seeking adoption of the draft Dinghy Storage Managements Plan

to enable implementation of Councils policy, Dinghy Storage on River ForeshoreReserves.


27/63


28/63

V.019 August 2013 TS02.14 Attachment 2Draft Dinghy Storage Management Plan

Dinghy Storage

Management

PlanTechnical Services


29/63

1

| Dinghy storage management plan

Contents

1. Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 3

2. Public places covered by this plan ........................................................................................... 4

3. River foreshore usage ............................................................................................................. 4

4. Stakeholder consultation ......................................................................................................... 7

5. Storage of dinghies and watercraft on foreshore reserves ...................................................... 8

6. Special arrangements for managed facilities ........................................................................... 8

6.1 Terms .................................................................................................................................. 8

6.2 Licensing arrangements .................................................................................................... 10

6.3 Location of storage facilities .............................................................................................. 10

6.4 Design and capacity of storage facilities ............................................................................ 11

7. How stakeholders will be informed of this plan ...................................................................... 13

8. Future reviews of the plan ..................................................................................................... 15


30/63

3


1. Introduction

This Management Plan has been prepared with reference to the City of Nedlands Local Laws,

Council policy and the provisions conferred by the Swan and Canning Rivers Management

Regulations 2007 (the Regulations). The Plan sets out how the City of Nedlands will manage the

storage of private dinghies, tenders and other watercraft within public places under its care and

control along the river foreshore.

The objective of this Plan is to meet the expectations of the Swan River Trust (SRT) for protection

of the Swan and Canning rivers and adjacent reserve lands with consideration of the communitys

expectation to preserve public amenity and access to foreshore reserves under the care of the City

of Nedlands. It is the intention of the plan to address all relevant requirements of the Regulations

and SRT policy. Equitable access is a key focus ensuring public enjoyment of foreshore reserves

and the river environment across a broad range of activities.

The Citys foreshore reserves sit within the SRT Development Control Area which includes the

waters of the Swan and Canning rivers and all adjoining parks and recreation reservations. The

SRT have adopted a policy which allows for dinghy storage within the Development Control Area

only in approved facilities that are managed by the Local Government Authority. Council has

previously resolved to allow dinghy storage in managed facilities having considered and adopted

the policy Dinghy Storage on River Foreshore Reserves.

This plan outlines the management controls to be implemented to ensure that the storage of

dinghies within river foreshore reserves is managed in a safe, responsible manner, minimisingharm to the environment and meeting the expectations of the various users of the river foreshore

reserves.

The plan describes:

Which public places are covered by the plan.

Who regularly uses these public places and an estimate on the level of use.

How the City will consult with stakeholders and provide information to the community aboutthe management of dinghy storage on the foreshore.

How the storage of dinghies will be managed through the implementation of managedfacilities.

How the community can access this plan and get more information about the Citysmanagement arrangements.

How future reviews of the plan will be conducted.


31/63

4


2. Public places covered by this plan

This Plan encompasses all foreshore reserve areas within the City of Nedlands Local Government

area under its care and control and defined by its boundaries with the City of Subiaco and the

Town of Claremont; the only exception being the leased premises of the Nedlands Yacht Club and

the Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club. The foreshore reserves under the care and control of the

City are depicted in Figure 1 (highlighted in green).

3. River foreshore usage

The regular user groups and an estimate of the level of community use of foreshore reserves

along with the number of registered boat owners in the City is summarised in Tables 1, 2 and 3.

Table 1: Regular user groups and the estimated level of use of foreshore reserves.

Foreshore ReserveType

Regular User Groups Level of use of Foreshore

Foreshore conservationareas

General land basedrecreational users (e.g.walking, wading,sightseeing, picnicking,fishing)

Lowinfrequent usage by multipleusers, with short to medium stays

General water and landbased recreational users(e.g. swimming, crabbing,prawning, kayaking /canoeing)


Maintained passive andactive reserves

General land basedrecreational users (e.g.walking, wading,sightseeing, picnicking,fishing, playgrounds)

Mediumfrequent usage by multipleusers, with short to medium lengthstays.

General water and landbased recreational users(e.g. swimming, crabbing,prawning, kayaking /canoeing)


General water basedrecreational users (e.g.yacht clubs patrons,launching of tenders to

moorings, canoeing /kayaking)



32/63

5


Informal sportsrecreational users (socialsports games, jogging,bike riding, skateboarding)

Mediumfrequent usage by multipleusers, with short to medium lengthstays.

Formal sports recreationalusers (Rugby, soccer,sailing, triathlons, kitesurfing)

Highfrequent usage by multipleusers, with medium to long lengthstays.

Community / privatefacilities

Tawarri

Yacht Clubs

Jo Jos

Nedlands Rugby

Clubhouse

Highfrequent usage by multipleusers, with medium to long lengthstays.

Table 2 shows the number and percentage of recreational boats registered in the City of Nedlands

Local Government area with reference to the overall Perth Metropolitan region total.

Table 2: Boat Registration in the City of Nedlands (Department of Transport - December

2007).

Boat Size Numbers Percentage of Metropolitan Area

0.01 - 7.50m 794 1.8%

> 7.50m 264 5.2%

Total Registration 1,058 2.2%

Table 3 shows the location and number of swing moorings adjacent to the river foreshore in the

City of Nedlands Local Government area.

Table 3: Boat moorings in the Swan River adjacent to the City of Nedlands (Departmentof Transport - April 2013).

LocationPrivate Formal Swing

Moorings (DPI)Yacht Club Formal

Swing Moorings

Adjacent to Nedlands Yacht Club 40

Between Perth Flying Squadron andNedlands Yacht Clubs

29

Freshwater Bay Area 64

Total Moorings 133


33/63


34/63


35/63


36/63

9


The capacity of the facilities will be limited to a manageable number as determined by the City

and application to store a dinghy / tender will be based on a first in basis. The City will

maintain a waiting list and offering spots in the facility as they become available;

Only tenders / dinghies directly connected to a nearby licensed mooring will be accepted in a

managed storage facility;

It will be a requirement of the licence to use the storage facility that all dinghies / tenders have

its parent vessel's number displayed on each side of the boat, forward of the transom;

Owners use the facility on agreement that they accept liability for loss or damage to tenders /

dinghies stored on foreshore reserves;

Owners pay the annual storage facility licence fee as determined by Council and keep current

and up to date the annual licence;

All tenders / dinghies are to display the licence tag provided at all times when stored in amanaged facility;

Accept any and all terms imposed by Council as may be changed from time to time; and

Accept that the area is under the jurisdiction of the Swan River Trust and is subject to the

provisions of the Swan and Canning Rivers Management Act 2006 (as amended), and that

nothing in the agreement with the City of Nedlands allowing for storage of a tender / dinghy on

the river foreshore permits any owner of a tender / dinghy to undertake any activity in the

foreshore reserve in contravention of theAct.

Figure 2: Perth Flying Squadron Yacht Club lease area


37/63

10


6.2 Licensing arrangements

Users of the managed facilities will be required to pay the annual licence fee as determined by

Council. Upon receipt of the annual licence fee, owners will be supplied with a dinghy licence tag

to be displayed in a prominent location on the tender / dinghy. Any tender / dinghy found in astorage facility not displaying the current licence tag may be subject to impoundment.

Figure 3: Nedlands Yacht Club lease area

6.3 Location of storage facilities

The City will establish two dinghy / tender storage facilities on the foreshore; one being adjacentto the moorings in Freshwater Bay and the other on the Nedlands foreshore area adjacent to the

moorings between the Perth Flying Squadron and Nedlands Yacht Clubs.

The location of the storage facility adjacent to the river moorings in Freshwater Bay has been

chosen for its proximity to the river moorings, to nearby parking facilities in Watkins Road and

Mrs Herberts Park (Town of Claremont), accessibility to and from the river (including a trafficable

ramp leading to the foreshore from Watkins Road) and ability to limit visual impact.

The location adjacent to the river moorings between the Perth Flying Squadron and Nedlands

Yacht Clubs has been chosen for its proximity to the river moorings, to nearby parking facilitieson Esplanade, accessibility to and from the river and ability to limit visual impact from users of

the foreshore by locating it abutting the Nedlands Yacht Club.


38/63

11


In addition, both these locations have been previously developed from their natural state, being

managed as grassed parkland, and as such will prevent the need to disturb natural foreshore

environments in other adjacent foreshore areas. The locations are depicted in Figures 4 and 5.

Figure 4: Tender storage facility location - Freshwater Bay

6.4 Design and capacity of storage facilities

The SRT policy SRT/D26 sets out the broad preferences for the design of approved storage

facilities. The policy states:

The design, size and location of storage systems should respond to demand while

balancing other shoreline user needs. To minimise visual and environmental impacts,

the size of infrastructure installed to secure dinghies should be kept as small as

possible. Storage racks will only be supported in limited circumstances where there is

already significant development such as at a yacht club and where it will not cause

significant loss of amenity.

Assessment of the SRTs design preferences indicates a low level storage facility is most

favoured. Research of existing facilities has indicated that there is an approved SRT dinghy

storage facility located on the foreshore of Freshwater Bay adjacent to The Esplanade,

Peppermint Grove. The Shire of Peppermint Grove has established and manages this facilitywith a very basic approach to infrastructure. Similarly; the City will be providing basic

infrastructure consisting of in-ground bollards with a mechanism attached allowing attachment of


39/63

12


a chain to secure tenders / dinghies. Refer to Figure 9 for an illustration of the facilities to be

provided.

Figure 5: Photograph of proposed site

Figure 6: Photograph of proposed site


40/63

13


Figure 7: Tender storage facility location adjacent to Nedlands Yacht Club

The demand for tender storage at present in the City of Nedlands is not considerable. This is

illustrated by the number of unlawfully stored dinghies present on the foreshore adjacent to

Watkins Road in Dalkeith. At present there are approximately 14 dinghies in this location,

however the exact number that are used as tenders is difficult to ascertain. It is proposed that the

initial capacity of both facilities be capped to fifteen dinghies / tenders.

7. How stakeholders will be informed of this plan

The City will advise stakeholders of this plan and its contents by:

Making a copy of the plan available on request for public viewing free of charge in Citys

Administration Centre at 71 Stirling Highway Nedlands during office hours.

Placing a copy of the plan in the Citys libraries.

Placing a copy of the plan on the City website at www.nedlands.wa.gov.au

Placing a notice in local Newspapers.

Directly advising and providing a copy to the SRT and Department of Transport.

Figure 8: General location for proposed Nedlands dinghy storage
http://www.nedlands.wa.gov.au/http://www.nedlands.wa.gov.au/http://www.nedlands.wa.gov.au/


41/63

14


Figure 9: Illustration of proposed infrastructure to be provided to secure dinghies


42/63

15


8. Future reviews of the plan

The Dinghy Storage Management Plan will be reviewed every three (3) years from adoption. The

review will consider any changes in legislation and/or the Regulations and the effect this may have

on the current arrangements.


43/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

15C14/7

TS03.14 Rochdale Road Nature Strip Parking

Committee 11 February 2014

Council 25 February 2014


Officer Mark GoodletDirector Technical Services


DirectorSignature

File Reference RO3

Previous Item Council decision 26 November 2013, item 14.2.

Executive Summary

This report responds to a Council resolution of November 2013 requiringadministration to investigate and report back to Council regarding any possibleparking, traffic and safety issues on Rochdale Road, Mount Claremont.


Council notes that nature strip parking provides a valuable amenity for theresidents of Rochdale Road and determines that it will be permitted tocontinue.

Strategic Plan

KFA: Transport

This report aligns with the parking and traffic management component of thetransport key focus area. Car accessibility and safe transport are important to theCity. This report assesses the potentially conflicting values of convenient parkingadjacent to housing on Rochdale Road versus road safety.

BackgroundRoad Hierarchy

Rochdale Road is a district distributor B and a blue road under the MetropolitanRegion Scheme, giving it some importance as a transport route.

Accident data

Accident data collected shows five accidents in Rochdale road within the 5 yearsto 2012 of which only one reported manoeuvringaccident possibly relates to an

accident involving vehicles entering or leaving a property (Attachment 1).


44/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

16C14/7

Manoeuvring accidents relate to the type of accident that may be associated withvehicles leaving or entering property, and one accident of this nature is noted butdescribed as other. However, it should be noted that crash informationspecifically identifies parking and driveway accidents and there are no accidentsof this type reported. For the purposes of the risk assessment however the onereported accident has been used as it is described as a manoeuvring other type

accident and as such there is a possibility that it relates this report.

Traffic Speeds

The average speed of vehicles is 54 kph, 4 kph above the posted speed limit.

The 85th % speed (design speed where 85% go this speed or less, 15% go more)of vehicles is 61kph, which is 11 kph more than the speed limit.

Traffic Volume

The average maximum week day peak hour traffic volume is 662 vehicles perhour in both directions total.

The annual average daily traffic is approximately 6000 vehicles total in bothdirections.

Specific Road Use

Rochdale Road has not been identified as a bike route. The No. 27 bus usesRochdale Road between Alfred Road and Asquith Street.

Figure 1. Bus Routes on Rochdale Road

Bus Route on

Rochdale Rd


45/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

17C14/7

Complaints

The City has received ongoing complaints from a resident in Rochdale Road inrelation to vehicles parking on the nature strip in front of the complainantsresidence and on the nature strip of the adjacent residence. The complainantindicated to the City that both situations were considered unsafe by the

complainant.

In relation to the vehicle parking on the nature strip in front of the complainantsresidence it was determined that under the Citys Parking and Parking Facilitieslocal law because the lot shares two houses the residents of both houses arepermitted to park on the nature strip.

In relation to the vehicles parking on the nature strip of the adjacent residence, thesite is under construction and as such the owner has permitted the builder to allowthe trade vehicles to park on the nature strip, as allowed under the Citys local law.Several issues were dealt with however in terms of signage and temporary fencingthat were protruding into the nature strip and the builder was required to removethese items to improve sight lines for the complainant. It is expected that thecurrent high requirement for nature strip parking in this specific location mainlyrelates to the construction works and the level of parking will reduce onceconstruction is complete.

Nevertheless the complainant has requested consideration of a ban on naturestrip parking due to the safety issues associated with entering and leaving theproperty on a relatively busy road.

Nature Strip Parking Assessment

Counts of the vehicles using the nature strips for parking on each side ofRochdale Road have been undertaken on four (4) occasions. There are 72houses within the City of Nedlands with Rochdale Road frontages.

Nature Strip ParkingAssessment Date and Time East Side Parking West Side Parking23/10/13 at 3:45pm 1 929/11/13 at 1:15pm 2 716/12/13 at 2pm 1 11

20/12/13 at 1:30pm 2 9

This would indicate a clear demand for occasional nature strip parking by theresidents of Rochdale Road.

Key Relevant Previous Council Decisions

Council decision 26 November 2013, item 14.2.

Notice of Motion by Councillor Horley.

That administration investigate and report back to Council regarding any possibleparking, traffic and safety issues on Rochdale Road Mount Claremont.


46/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

18C14/7

Consultation

Required by legislation: Yes NoRequired by City of Nedlands Policy: Yes No

Consultation has not taken place with the residents of Rochdale Road, exceptingfor the complainant. Given the recommendation consultation is not required butshould an alternative position be adopted by Council, then consultation may berequired.


Road Traffic Code 2000

The Road Traffic Code 2000 doesnt allow parking on the nature strip unless aparking control sign or a local law permits this to happen.

165. Stopping on path, dividing strip, nature strip or painted islandThe driver of a vehicle (other than a bicycle, an EPT or an animal) shall not stopso that any portion of the vehicle is on a path, dividing strip, painted island, or anature strip adjacent to a length of carriageway in a built-up area, unless

(a) the driver stops in an area, to which a parking control sign applies andthe driver is permitted to stop at that place under these regulations; or

(b) the driver is permitted to do so under a local law.

City of Nedlands Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law

The City of Nedlands Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2013 (section 5.14)allows parking on the nature strip in three circumstances.

1. A bicycle is parking;2. The vehicle is that of the owner or occupier of the adjacent

premise or authorised by them; or3. It is a commercial vehicle being reasonably loaded or unloaded

City of Nedlands Nature Strip Development Policy

Nature Strip/Verge parking should be minimised wherever alternatives exist.Rochdale Road is governed by a detailed area plan which allows a minimum 6mfront setback to the properties except for car ports.



No action is proposed and there are no budget/financial implications.


47/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

19C14/7

Discussion

The Residential Design Code states that on-street parking is a valuablecommunity resource that serves a variety of social and economic needs includingresidential uses. Decision-makers need to consider how to achieve a balancebetween different uses in areas with high and/or competing needs. While no oneparticular use should be favoured, satisfaction of some of the demand forresidential parking, especially visitor and service/delivery parking, is a reasonableuse for on-street parking.

Austroads provides the applicable standard for assessing parking. In the Guide ToRoad Design Part 3: Geometric Design (2008, p. 27), it states that competingdemands for kerbside space should be prioritised as follows:

1. safety of all road users should be given highest priority at all times2. bus stops, taxi zones, loading zones and parking for people with disabilities3. in residential areas, preference may be given for resident parking in

accordance with the State regulations and local guidelines for residentparking permit schemes

Austroads however does not deal directly with nature strip parking but providesgeneral principles regarding on-street parking (parallel parking on the side of theroadway carriageway) from which an assessment of the issue can be made as themost closely related parking type.

In the Guide to Road Design Part 3 - consideration is advised for: intersections and driveways

pedestrian access protection of through traffic

It details unsafe parking locations as: on the inside of sharp curves within a T-junction on islands and reservations including the central island of a roundabout

Pedestrian footways are provided in some sections of Rochdale Road. As parkingis not permitted to obstruct a footway this is not impacted by the nature stripparking.

Austroads (Part 5 Road Management, 2008, p.25) discusses on-street and off-street parking for urban arterials roads and comments on parallel on-road orindented parking. The treatment recommendation when traffic volumes increaseand access onto the road becomes problematic, is to create a parking lane thatthen operates as a clearway during peak traffic demand periods. This issuggested where the peak veh/hr is 800 in a lane.

While an on-street parallel lane is not identical to the off carriageway nature stripscenario, it has the same issues with respect to sight distances for vehiclesleaving private properties and with respect to traffic volumes.


48/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

20C14/7

Rochdale Road is a straight and relatively flat roadway within the City, and assuch does not have issues arising from through traffic that would impact on theprovision of nature strip parking. It does not qualify as an unsafe parking location.The fact that this parking is not located on the roadway, but on the nature strip,further reduces the risks arising from the parked vehicles.

Rochdale Roads average maximum week day peak hour traffic volume is 662vehicles per hour in both directions total. Per lane this is 331 vehicles and lessthan half the recommended 800 vehicles per lane per hour at which clearwayconditions would be considered. Nature strip parking in Rochdale Road istherefore well under the number in which parking prohibitions would beconsidered.

The outstanding consideration is intersections and driveways and specifically therequirement for adequate sight distance. For the risk arising from parked cars thisconsideration has therefore been assessed against roadside hazard managementprinciples. Refer to the Risk Management section of this report.

Austroads (Part 9: Roadside Hazard Management, section 2.2.6) acknowledgesthat it is important that adequate sight distance is provided whenever possible toallow drivers and other road users to safely negotiate the road. Sight distance isrelated to design speed for the road and can be affected by roadside objects (suchas trees and signs).

Risk Management

Austroads is the applicable standard for roads and parking and it prescribes a risk

management approach to assessing and mitigating roadside hazards based onthe frequency and severity of accidents (Guide to Road DesignPart 6: RoadsideDesign, Safety and Barriers).

The hazard risk assessment approach based on the one accident that may havebeen related to nature strip parking (although this is not confirmed thealternative is zero accidents in five years) determines a total annual crash riskscost of $830.

In comparison the benefit of the available 72 nature strip parking bays, assumingconservatively that there is only one bay per lot, each valued at $1,650, equates to

a total of $118,800 annually in benefits.

The benefit cost ratio is therefore 143, with any number above one (1) indicating apositive outcome. The risk approach clearly demonstrates that the benefits of thenature strip parking far outweigh the accident costs based on a history of actualcrashed on Rochdale Road.

Conclusion

The counts done show that on average 17% of properties are benefitting from theuse of nature strip parking at any one time. Nature strip parking, as with on-streetparking, is a valuable community resource that provides extra utility to the residentwho in reality maintains this portion of the road reserve. There is an unwritten


49/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

21C14/7

code of practice in Australia by which the resident maintains the nature strip and inreturn derives benefit in terms of the amenity and use of this portion of land.Therefore any decision to disallow nature strip parking should be weighed upagainst the benefit that is provided in doing so.

The safety concerns associated with nature strip parking on Rochdale Road have

been identified through a review of standards, however, the accident history isminimal.Based on a risk assessment the evidence is that the benefits far outweigh therisks in the case of Rochdale Road.

For these reasons it is proposed to retain nature strip parking along RochdaleRoad.

Attachments

1. Accident History for Rochdale Road


50/63


51/63

y


52/63


53/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

22C14/7

TS04.14 Melvista Reserve Road Naming

Committee 11 February 2014

Council 25 February 2014

Applicant City of NedlandsOfficer Pollyanne Fisher Technical Services Administration

Officer


DirectorSignature

File Reference PRS/047-02

Previous Item Nil

Executive Summary

This report seeks to agree a name for a road within the Melvista Reserve thatis currently un-named.


Councilagrees to the submission of a proposal to Landgate to name theroad within the Melvista Reserve Leisure Lane.

Strategic PlanKFA: Transport

The naming of a road allows the City to better manage its infrastructure, assets,and supply of services.

Background

There is a short road leading into the Melvista Park Reserve that doesnt currently have a name, as shown in Figure 1 and 2.

This road is found on Melvista Avenue and leads into a car park area thatservices the park and several clubs, including a Croquet Club and a Bridge Club.

There is signage for these at the entrance to the road from Melvista Avenue, butthe road itself does not currently have a name or any other signage, as shown inFigure 3.


54/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

23C14/7

Figure 1. Location of the roadSatellite image

Figure 2. Location of the roadDrawing


55/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

24C14/7

Figure 3. Entrance to the road from Melvista Avenue

The City has a current Naming of Parks, Streets, Public Facilities, Buildings andSigns on Reserves Policy (Attachment 1) which relates to the naming of roadssuch as the one shown in Figures 1 and 2.

Section 8 of the Landgate Geographic Names Committee Policy (Attachment 2)states that;

In Western Australia the following road naming policies shall be applied:- all roads shall be named, including private roads which are generally open

to the public access or for services.

As such the City is required to provide this street with a name and register thiswith Landgate, in accordance with both policies.


Nil

Discussion

City Policy advises that Council will be guided mainly by the policies of theGeographic Names Committee of Landgate when naming streets.

Members of the Clubs that the road services in the Melvista Reserve wereconsulted with to identify any preference for naming of the road. As a result two(2) names were proposed by members of the Nedlands Croquet Club:

Leisure Lane Suggested as occupying the area are croquet, bridge and

tennis clubs, with a nearby sports ground, golf course and childrens playarea; and


56/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

25C14/7

Ketterer Lane - To commemorate Victor Ambrose Ketterer MC, whom isreported to be a documented war hero with post war dedication to thewelfare of ex-servicemen and war widows, who resided in the City ofNedlands for the latter part of his life until 1936. Refer to Attachment 3.

Further research would be required to validate the information provided for Victor

Ambrose Ketterer for naming the road in commemoration, and Council wouldfirstly need to obtain the written permission of any living relatives. The length oftime that Victor Ambrose Ketterer actually resided in Nedlands for would alsoneed to be validated and comply with Landgate Policy, and the City would need toengage in wider public consultation regarding the proposal.

The process for naming a road after a person will only be considered by theGeographic Names Committee if the following criteria are met:

such application is in the public interest; there is evidence of broad community support for the proposal; the person has been deceased for at least two (2) years; where the applicant requesting the new name is not an immediate relative,

written permission of the family is obtained; the person being honoured by the naming has had either some direct and

long-term association twenty (20) or more years, with the feature or hasmade a significant contribution to the area in which it is located; and

the proposal commemorating an individual with an outstanding national orinternational reputation has had a direct association with the area in whichit is located. If the person has not been directly associated with the area thename shall not be considered.

Leisure Lane meets the applicable policies and guidelines for road naming. Thereare no roads currently in Western Australia with the same name.

There is one other road in the Perth Metropolitan area with a similar name toLeisure Lane. Leisure Way is located 80km and at least one (1) hours drivesouth of the Melvista Reserve in the City, so is sufficiently distanced to meet thenaming criteria guidelines stipulated by the Geographic Names Committee.

No further public consultation or validation of information would be required tosubmit a request, that the naming of the road in the Melvista Reserve be Leisure

Lane.

Consultation

Required by legislation: Yes NoRequired by City of Nedlands Policy: Yes No


Land Administration Act 1977


57/63

ReportTS01.14 to TS04.1411.2.14 to 25.2.14

26C14/7

Council PolicyNaming of Parks, Streets, Public Facilities, Buildings and Signs onReservesLandgate Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia



Risk Management

There is a risk here that continuing to not have a name in place for the roadidentified in the Melvista Reserve, will impact on the Citysabilities to manageservices in the area, and will impact on the public effectively finding serviceslocated in the vicinity.

Conclusion

It is recommended that Council approve the proposal to name the road LeisureLane. This name is confirmed to be appropriate for its surroundings, wassuggested by a member of the community that the road services, has no conflictswith other named roads in the Metropolitan area, and meets all of the Citys, andLandgates, specifications.

Attachments

1. Excerpt from Council Policy Manual2. Excerpt from Landgate Policy for Geographical Naming of roads in Western

Australia3. Victor Ambrose Ketterer background information


58/63


59/63


60/63 48 Geographic Names Committee

8: Road Names and Extents

8.1 Road naming

Within Western Australia, road naming is standardised to facilitate the application of correct addressinformation and to ensure that a consistent approach is undertaken to benefit emergency services,transport and goods delivery. If established policies for road naming were not applied, the provisions ofemergency services, utilities and postal deliveries would be compromised.

In Western Australia the following road naming policies shall be applied:

all roads shall be named, including private roads which are generally open to public access or forservices. This includes but is not limited to:

highways, motorways and freeways;

roads within complexes such as universities, hospitals and retirement villages;

roads within conservation reserves, State forests, water reserves and any other governmentadministered land; and

pedestrian-only roads such as malls or steps.

all road naming proposals shall be submitted to Landgate for approval.

The naming of major state roads shall conform to these naming policies and standards, and shall bereferred to the Minister for Lands for approval. The process for the selection of names shall includeconsultation with relevant State and local government agencies and should include consultation with thewider community.

Any proposal to name, rename or extend a road shall clearly indicate the full extent of the road to whichthe name will apply. The extent of a road is considered to be its start and end points. This includesbends, divided carriageway sections and curves which are included between these two points.

A road name shall not be applied in a way that is ambiguous or could cause confusion for road users. Theroad name should be applied to a s

australia pesticide ban trial results 2011 to 2014 ts reports - ts24.14 to ts28.14 - 25 february

Documents