council minutes - town of cambridge

Council Minutes

16 DECEMBER 2014

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014

MEETING OF COUNCIL 16 DECEMBER 2014 INDEX OF MINUTES

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

Development Committee 4 DV14.159 Lots 4 and 231 (No. 101) Northwood Street, Corner Ruislip Street,

Corner Ruislip Street, West Leederville - Proposed Retention of Existing Dwelling and Two New Two Storey Grouped Dwellings 6

DV14.160 Lot 1 (No. 170) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Proposed Extension of Trading Days from 5 to 7 days per week - Aliment Cafe 19

DV14.161 Lot 2 (Unit 2, No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Beauty Salon and Therapeutic Massage 23

DV14.162 Lot 1397 (No. 5) Roscommon Road, Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling 29 DV14.163 Lot 675 (No. 64) Holland Street, Wembley - Two Storey Dwelling 35 DV14.164 Lot 100 (No. 71) Woolwich Street West Leederville - Two Storey

Dwelling 40 DV14.165 Lot 284 (No. 17) Callington Avenue, City Beach - Additions and

Alterations to Existing Dwelling 44 DV14.166 Lot 243 (No. 52) Mckenzie Street, Wembley - Second Storey Additions

and Alterations to Existing Dwelling in Front Setback Area 48 DV14.167 Lot 114 (No. 5) Sellenger Court, City Beach - Ancillary Dwelling and

Additions to Dwelling 52 DV14.168 Lot 805 (No. 19) Pearson Place, Floreat - Proposed Ancillary

Accommodation 56 DV14.169 Lot 697 (No. 123) Grantham Street, Floreat - Proposed Carport and

Deck 60 DV14.170 Lot 8 (No. 65) Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Carport off rear Right

of Way 64 DV14.171 Lot 44 Strata Lot 2 (No. 65B) Evandale Street, Floreat - Pool Pump

House Roof 67 DV14.172 Lot 46 (No. 19) Jukes Way, Wembley - Proposed Grouped Dwelling

Development (New Rear Single Storey Dwelling) - State Administrative Tribunal Reconsideration 70

DV14.173 Lots 165 and 166 (No 210) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Proposed Scheme Amendment for Additional Use 'Consulting Rooms' (Group) 77

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\14 MINUTES\December 2014\A Council Front.docx i


DV14.174 Former Nursery Site - Outline Development Plan - Outcomes of Advertising and Council Adoption 81

DV14.175 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for November 2014 101 DV14.176 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority - October 2014

and November 2014 103

Community and Resources Committee 105

CR14.176 Policy Review - 5.2.19 - Street Verges - Landscape and Maintenance 108

CR14.177 New Footpath Works 2014/15 Budget - Public Consultation on Kavanagh Street 117

CR14.178 Proposed Blencowe St Parking Restrictions 122 CR14.179 School Crossing - Herdsman Parade at Alexander Street 125 CR14.180 Mindarie Regional Council Meetings 128 CR14.181 Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan 131 CR14.182 Infrastructure Parks Budget 2015/2016 Proposed Budget Works 137 CR14.183 Laneway Upgrade Program (2015/16 to 2019/20) 144 CR14.184 Five Year Footpath Program (2015/16 to 2019/20) - Footpaths 149 CR14.185 Road Improvement - Capital Works Five Year Program from

2015/16 154 CR14.186 Proposed Cricket Nets Facility - McLean Park 159 CR14.187 Bold Park Aquatic Centre - Request For Tender Cafe Operations 163 CR14.188 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach

Parking Proposal - Outcomes of Community Consultation 166 CR14.189 Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course - Commercial

Arrangements and Approval to Call Construction Tender 174 CR14.190 Local Goverment Reform - Progress Report No. 1 179 CR14.191 Local Implementation Committee for Town of Cambridge and City

of Subiaco 188 CR14.192 Documents Sealed - Dec 2014 192 CR14.193 Bold Park Community School - New Building 194 CR14.194 Lothian Park Building Future Use - Community Consultation 199 CR14.195 Payment of Accounts - November 2014 202 CR14.196 Investment Schedule - November 2014 204

10. Council Reports 221 10.1 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances -

November 2014 221 10.2 City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club - New Lookout Tower 227 10.3 Delegation of Authority for Chief Executive Officer - Annual

Review 230 10.4 Town of Cambridge Boundary Proposal - City Beach, North of

Hale Road 233

11. Urgent Business 238 12. Motions of Which Previous Notice has been Given 238

13. Confidential Reports 238 13.1 Chief Executive Officer - Review 238

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\14 MINUTES\December 2014\A Council Front.docx ii

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014. 1. OPENING The meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.02 pm. 2. ATTENDANCE Present:

Mayor: Simon Withers Councillors: Rod Bradley Louis Carr Sonia Grinceri Tracey King Alan Langer Corinne MacRae Pauline O'Connor JP Colin Walker Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Brett Jackson, Director Projects Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Jason Lyon, Director Corporate and Strategic John Giorgi, Director Local Government Reform Project Ian Bignell, Director Development and Sustainability ` Stevan Rodic, Manager Planning Services Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Contracts Karen Exley-Mead, PA to Chief Executive Officer Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support)

Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournments: Nil

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\14 MINUTES\December 2014\A Council Front.docx 1


3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Stephen Laurence, Wembley Junior Football Club Question Can Council reconsider its decision to demolish BJ Giles Hall as Wembley Junior Football Club need the hall? Response The Mayor reported that the Club was advised several years ago that the BJ Giles Hall was to be demolished and that the President of the Club advised the Town in writing in 2011 that BJ Giles Hall was not required by the Club. On this advice from the Club, the Town has proceeded with the development of the Wembley Sports Park. Paul Tucker, President Wembley Junior Football Club Question When Council proceed with the demolition in January, would Council be prepared to contribute to a canteen/barbeque facility? Response The Mayor advised that Council could consider the request, however, it would have to be assessed by the Administration in the first instance. Thomas Hardigan, 74 Chipping Road, City Beach Question How can the Town support a takeover of the City of Subiaco from July 2015 when it is defeating the whole purpose of local government. Response The Mayor advised that the Council is not supportive of the merger program but accepts the mandate handed down by the State Government. It is a process that local government is not in control of and the Town has sought to get the best outcome for its residents and ratepayers.



4. PETITIONS

A petition containing 43 signatures has been submitted by Steve Apedaile, 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach opposing the Town's proposal for the construction of 90 degree street parking between Oceanic Drive and Jubilee Crescent (which will require cars to back out into the north and south bound traffic on Challenger Parade), and the partial road closure of Challenger Parade to facilitate this dangerous parking. A further 9 signatures were submitted by Bruce Genoni at the Council meeting. Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Bradley That in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received. Carried 9/0

5. DEPUTATIONS

Nil

6. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Walker That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 25 November 2014 be confirmed. Carried 9/0

8. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR WITHOUT DISCUSSION Nil

9. COMMITTEE REPORTS

Prior to consideration of the following 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 DV14.161, 163 and 174 Community and Resources: Items CR14.178, 184, 188 and 191 Declarations of Interest: Item CR14.178 - Cr MacRae - Proximity Interest



DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The report of the Development Committee meeting held on Tuesday 9 December 2014 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: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.40 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.02pm 7.40 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.02pm 7.40 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.02 pm 7.40 pm Observers: Cr Colin Walker Officers: Ian Bignell, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.40 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Item DV14.159 Sally Boyd, neighbour Item DV14.162 David Hollingwood, neighbour Neil Cownie, applicant Item DV14.166 Adam Marslane, owner Item DV14.167 Angelo Del Borrello, applicant Item DV14.174 Rodney Clancy Stephanie Clegg

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\14 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2014\B DV.DOCX 4



Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 18 November 2014 as contained in the November 2014 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 4/0

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS



DV14.159 LOTS 4 AND 231 (NO. 101) NORTHWOOD STREET, CORNER RUISLIP STREET, CORNER RUISLIP STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED RETENTION OF EXISTING DWELLING AND TWO NEW TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS

SUMMARY:

On 12 May 2014, the Town received an application for three new two storey dwellings at the subject site. After public consultation and submission of amended plans, the application was considered by Council at its meeting held on 28 October 2014. Council decided to defer the application to explore with the applicant development options that retain the house at No. 101 Northwood Street and protect its heritage. To address the concerns of Council and community, the applicant has since submitted revised plans showing the retention of the existing dwelling and the construction of two, two storey dwellings between the existing dwelling and the west side boundary. The plans show reduced lot sizes (thereby a density bonus is sought) that could be approved under Clause 27 of the Town Planning Scheme (TPS 1) provided that the existing dwelling is declared a conservation place. The applicant proposes to place a notification on the title under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 for the future protection of this conservation place. Overall, the amended proposal is recommended for approval as the existing dwelling will be retained and have future protection. A number of variations to R-Code and policy deemed-to-comply provisions are required due to the limited space between the existing dwelling and the west side boundary and the applicant’s requirement for a total of three dwellings on the subject site.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0200DA-2014 Owner: Longroad Holdings Pty Ltd Applicant: Longroad Holdings Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – use is not permitted unless the Council has

granted planning approval Land area: 1077 m² On 11 February 2014, the Western Australian Planning Commission granted conditional approval to a survey strata application for the subject site. The proposed survey strata plan shows the demolition of the existing dwelling, the amalgamation of Lots 4 and 231 and the creation of three new lots, with the size and configuration shown on the original, three new grouped dwelling development plans. This application was originally submitted on 12 May 2014 with plans showing three flat roofed, contemporary styled dwellings. To address concerns raised by the Town’s Administration with regard to compliance with the Town’s Streetscape Policy, amended plans were submitted on 31 July 2014 that showed pitched roofs and building height lowered. The amended plans were advertised and an objection was received. Further amendments were made and these plans were submitted on 30 September 2014. It was these plans that were presented at the Development Committee meeting held on 21 October 2014 and the subsequent Council meeting held on 28 October 2014. The Administration’s recommendation, Development Committee’s recommendation and Council’s decision were:



Administration Recommendation That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a grouped dwelling development (three, two storey dwellings) submitted by Longroad Holdings Pty Ltd at Lots 4 and 231 (Street No. 101) Northwood Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 30 September 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the amalgamation of the subject lots (Lot 4 and Lot 231) prior to the issue of a

building permit; (ii) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the street setback areas to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (iii) the upper floor bedroom 1 window panels facing north for the dwellings on

proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 that are marked on the plans as obscure glazed are to be fixed obscure glazed windows;

(iv) the visual privacy screens for the north side of the upper floor front balcony for the dwelling on proposed Lot 3 to be designed to restrict views to the neighbouring property to the north in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(v) the upper floor study nook window facing west for the dwelling on proposed Lot 2 to meet the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(vi) the trees located on the verges directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (vii) landscaping in the front setback area to comply with the provisions of clause 3.1.9

Landscaping of the Town of Cambridge Local Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. This will require an additional landscape strip adjacent to the north side boundary;

(viii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

Committee Meeting 21 October 2014 During discussion, Members agreed that the item be deferred for one month in order to explore with the applicant development options that retain the house at 101 Northwood Street and protect its heritage. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) That the item be deferred for one month in order to explore with the applicant development options that retain the house at 101 Northwood Street and protect its heritage.

On 7 November 2014, following consultation with the Administration, the applicant submitted revised plans and documentation in support of a proposal to retain the existing dwelling and construct two, two storey dwellings between the existing dwelling and the west side boundary. These plans were assessed and advertised to the neighbours and are the subject of the following report. On 25 November 2014, the Town received correspondence from the State Heritage Office in response to a nomination of the subject property for entry on the State Register of Heritage Places. The correspondence states that a preliminary review of the place was considered by the Heritage Council at its meeting held on 14 November 2014. The Heritage Council determined that while the place may have some cultural heritage significance, it was unlikely that the place would meet the threshold for entry onto the State Register of Heritage Places.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site comprises two lots, Lot 4 and Lot 231 Northwood Street and the existing

dwelling is situated over both lots. The site is on the corner of Northwood and Ruislip Streets and has no ROW access.

• The existing dwelling is an original home that has a well maintained exterior and garden setting. Additions, including a carport on the north side, have been undertaken on the property over the years. The dwelling is not listed on the Municipal Inventory or the State Register of Heritage Places.

• The site slopes down from west to east (Northwood Street) and south (Ruislip Street) to north.

• The property to the north on Northwood Street comprises an original dwelling on a large (1034m2) lot with ROW access, and the property to the west on Ruislip Street comprises of an original dwelling that has had substantial additions and alterations, on a 733m2 lot with two boundaries abutting a ROW.

• The proposed development comprises two, two storey attached dwellings between the existing dwelling and the west side boundary and has the following characteristics: • Lot 1 (Unit 1): lot size 173m2, single garage and living areas on the ground floor and

two bedrooms, two bathrooms and a retreat on the first floor. • Lot 2 (Unit 2): lot size 187.83m2, double carport, main living areas and a bedroom

on the ground floor, and three bedrooms and two bathrooms on the first floor. Due to the irregular lot configuration, the proposed carport is located in front of the rear of the existing dwelling.

• Both dwellings have 30 degree pitched roofs and vehicular access to Ruislip Street. • There are variations to site area, open space, outdoor living area, street setback, lot

boundary setback (east and west), street surveillance, carport height and crossover width that are directly attributable to the limited space available to construct two dwellings between the existing dwelling and the west boundary. Council’s priority is the retention of the existing dwelling so these variations, some being significant, are supported. Reasons for support are contained in the report below or the following points: • Open space: Lot 1 has 40% open space and Lot 2 has 29% open space in lieu of

the minimum 45% requirement. The open space proposed is considered to provide sufficient access to natural sunlight for the dwellings and an adequate setting for the development (if no fencing in the street setback area is proposed). Furthermore the first floor partly overhangs open space which is deemed not to be open space, however functions as covered backyard.

• Outdoor living area: Lot 2 does not have the minimum 24m2 and both Lots 1 and 2 do not have the minimum 4.0 metre dimension. The outdoor living areas proposed are, however, capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room, open to winter sun and ventilation and optimise use of the northern aspect of the site.

• Street setback: Unit 1’s minor incursion of a portico/balcony extends for 40% rather than 30% of the width of the narrow 7.5 metre lot frontage. The structure is open style and provides some interest to the facade and is therefore supported. The remainder of the proposed development meets or exceeds the (secondary) street setback area requirements.

• Lot boundary setback (east): the ground and upper floor walls of Unit 2 are closer to the proposed boundary shared with existing dwelling than the minimum requirements. There is a two storey boundary wall and the remainder of the ground floor and upper floor walls are 1.5 metres in lieu of 1.8 metres and 2.1 to 2.2 metres



respectively. The subject walls are parallel to the existing dwelling’s rear porch. There is a setback of 1.0 metre from this porch to proposed Lot 2. The boundary wall makes effective use of space and enhances privacy. Proposed Lot 2 is to the west of the existing dwelling therefore overshadowing is not a major concern.

• Street surveillance: there are no habitable rooms or windows in the ground floor of Unit 1 facing the street, only a single garage, entry, stair and store. This is due to the narrow (7.5 metre) frontage of the lot. The development as a whole, however, has sufficient street surveillance, as both upper floors have large bedroom windows, and Unit 2 has a large bedroom window on the ground floor facing the street.

• Carport height: Unit 2’s double carport is located close to Ruislip Street due to the limited space available. The floor level of the carport is therefore required to match the verge, however the land slopes down from the street, so the rear of the carport is over the maximum carport pier and roof height limit. The variation is acceptable as the over height portions are away from the street and the carport does not appear out of scale with the remainder of the development as viewed from the street.

• Crossover width: due to the close proximity of Unit 2’s double carport to the street, the driveway and crossover cannot be tapered to 4.5 metres over a distance of 0.3 metres. The plans do not show indicate a crossover, however it would be approximately 5.1 metres given the size of the carport and its setback. This variation is considered acceptable as the combined Lot 1 and Lot 2 crossover width of approximately 8 metres is not significant over the 47.68m overall Ruislip Street lot frontage.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written support of the amended proposal and justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions, including the reduced lot size that can be considered under Clause 27 Variations to Standards of the Town Planning Scheme where a development conserves or enhances a conservation place. The applicant is also proposing a notification on the title under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 to classify the existing dwelling as a conservation place. The applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission In assessing the original submission for three new two storey dwellings, the Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the subject site, being No. 107 Northwood Street to the north and No. 24 Ruislip Street to the west. One submission was received from the owners of No. 24 Ruislip Street objecting to building height, lot boundary setbacks, and the lack of consideration of the heritage value of the property. In assessing the amended plans for retention of the existing dwelling and two new two storey dwellings, the Town notified the same owners of the two properties directly adjoining the subject site, being No. 107 Northwood Street to the north and No. 24 Ruislip Street to the west. At the time of writing this report, the advertising period for comments had not finished and the owners of No. 24 Ruislip Street had not finalised their submission. Their submission will be circulated separately to Elected Members.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Assessment against the design principles Site area Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Minimum site area per dwelling

Min 260m2 Lot 1: 173m2 (33.5% variation) Lot 2: 187.83m2 (27.8% variation)

Average 300m2 359m2

COMPLIES Design principle: The WAPC may approve the creation of a lot, survey strata lot or strata lot of a lesser minimum and/or average site area than that specified in Table 1, and the WAPC in consultation with the local government may approve the creation of a survey strata lot or strata lot for a single house or a grouped dwelling of a lesser minimum site area than that specified in Table 1 provided that the proposed variation would be no more than five per cent less in area than that specified in Table 1; and • facilitate the protection of an environmental or heritage feature; • facilitate the retention of a significant element that contributes toward an existing

streetscape worthy of retention; • facilitate the development of lots with separate and sufficient frontage to more than one

public street; • overcome a special or unusual limitation on the development of the land imposed by its

size, shape or other feature; • allow land to be developed with housing of the same type and form as land in the vicinity

and which would not otherwise be able to be developed; or • achieve specific objectives of the local planning framework.

The applicant is proposing to declare the existing dwelling at the subject site a conservation place (Clause 25 of TPS 1) and therefore be able to achieve an increase of up to 50% from the specified maximum dwelling density under Clause 27 Variations of Standards of TPS 1. Clauses 25 and 27 of TPS 1 state: 25 DECLARATION OF A CONSERVATION PLACE

(1) The Council may, following the procedures set out in this clause, declare a place to

be a conservation place where, in its opinion, the place:-

(a) is of cultural heritage significance or possesses special interest related to or associated with cultural heritage; and

(b) should be conserved or enhanced. (2) In considering a proposal to declare a place to be a conservation place, the

Council:–

(a) is to give written notice to each owner of land affected by the proposal, and the notice is to include an invitation for submissions about the proposal to be made to the Council within a specified period of 28 days;

(b) is to have regard to any written submissions lodged with the Council under this clause; and

(c) may, by resolution, declare the place to be a conservation place.



(3) Where the Council declares a place to be a conservation place it is to:-

(a) give notice of each declaration to the Heritage Council of Western Australia and the Western Australian Planning Commission; and

(b) give notice of each declaration to any person or body who made a submission in respect of the conservation place.

(4) The Council may amend or cancel a conservation place by following the procedures

set out in sub-clause (2). (5) Places declared under this clause shall be listed in a Planning Policy which may

include objectives and guidelines for the conservation of the place.

27 VARIATIONS TO STANDARDS Where a development is proposed which would:- (a) conserve or enhance the whole or part of a conservation area or a conservation

place which has been declared by the Council to be significant and worthy of conservation; and

(b) would not adversely affect the cultural heritage significance of the conservation area or place,

the Council may, by way of planning approval and subject to the requirements of clause 39 of the Scheme, grant modifications to any development requirement specified in this Scheme or in Planning Policies, or the Residential Design Codes including: - (c) in respect of a residential development - an increase of up to 50% from the

specified maximum dwelling density; and (d) in respect of a non-residential development - an increase of up to 10% from the

specified maximum plot ratio; and as long as the increase or variation would not adversely affect the cultural heritage significance of that, or any other, conservation area or place including the streetscape or precinct in which it is located.

With regard to Clause 25 Declaration of a Conservation Place, the preliminary review of the place considered by the Heritage Council states that the existing dwelling at No. 101 Northwood Street is a well-designed residence in the Federation Queen Anne style, built c. 1914, maintained and in good condition, and may have some cultural heritage significance. Elected Members and the community are of the opinion that the place should be conserved. The owner of the land is aware of Council’s decision from its meeting held on 28 October 2014, to explore development options that retain the existing dwelling and protect its heritage. The owner has been pro-active in preparing revised plans showing the retention of the existing dwelling and proposing a notification on the title that the dwelling is a conservation place. Clause 27 Variations to Standards allows an increase of up to 50% from the specified maximum dwelling density if the proposed development would conserve, enhance and not adversely affect the cultural heritage significance of, a conservation place. This is a significant variation, and reduces the minimum allowable lot area by 87m2, to 173m2 (a reduction of one-third). The plans show the proposed Lots 1 and 2 being 173m2 and 187.83m2

respectively. Lot 1 is a rectangular shape, albeit with a narrow 7.5 metre frontage, but Lot 2 is more irregular; a narrower rectangle than Lot 1 with additional area adjacent to Ruislip Street for a double carport.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The proposed dwellings face Ruislip Street and are attached, presenting the bulk and scale comparable to one large dwelling. The carport and enclosed store and ensuite of proposed Unit 2 will, however, obstruct the view of the rear of the existing dwelling (porch and building) from Ruislip Street, and there is only 1.0 metre separating the rear of the existing dwelling (porch) and the two storey boundary wall of Unit 2. The proposed development is not ideal, and it is evident that one dwelling situated between the rear of the existing dwelling and the west boundary, on a rectangular lot with a generous setback from the existing dwelling would have been more appropriate in conserving the setting of the existing dwelling. The setting of a place is a feature that contributes to the cultural heritage significance of a place. Nevertheless, without any local heritage listing and the place unlikely to meet the threshold for entry onto the State Register of Heritage Places, and the owner’s requirement for a total of three dwellings on the site, the proposed variation to site area up to the full 50%, to allow the retention of the existing dwelling is supported. Conditions are included to ensure that a Conservation Plan for the existing dwelling is prepared, and a notification is placed on the Certificate of Title that the dwelling is a conservation place. The Town will be a party to this notification so it will not be able to be removed without consent from the Town. Lot boundary setback (west) Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Unit 1 ground floor

Min 1.5m to store, laundry, kitchen wall Min 1.5m to rest of wall entry and verandah

Nil 1.355m

Unit 1 upper floor

Min 1.9m to 2.1m to rest of wall retreat to corridor (no major openings) Min 2.5m to front balcony (assuming unscreened)

1.8m 1.355m

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.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Due to the narrowness of Lot 1, Unit 1 is proposed to be boundary to boundary on the ground floor and have reduced setbacks on the upper floor. There is a boundary wall for a garage on the adjoining property to the west that the proposed boundary wall will abut. The proposed boundary wall on the west boundary will, however, extend further to the front (approximately 1.0 metre) and to the rear (approximately 1.5 metres) than the west neighbour’s boundary wall. Due to the slope of the land, the proposed boundary wall ranges in height from 3.0 metres at the front to 3.8 metres at the rear. With regard to the design principles, the applicant has stated that the positioning of boundary walls makes effective use of space, enhances privacy, and due to the favourable orientation, no overshadowing will occur and access to direct sunlight will be maintained. In addition, the western boundary wall predominantly abuts a boundary wall and, as such, the impact to this neighbouring property will be minimal. It is also noted that the boundary wall is set back 5.6 metres from Ruislip Street so will not have a significant detrimental impact on the streetscape. Considering the above comments, the proposed boundary wall on the west boundary satisfies the design principles and can be supported. There are also other walls of Unit 1 that are closer to the west boundary than the minimum setback requirements. With regard to the unscreened front balcony, if it was screened, there would be no variation, however, it is preferable from a streetscape perspective that it is unscreened, to provide an open structure in the street setback area and improve street surveillance. There are no privacy issues as overlooking is towards front gardens that are visible from the street. The remaining setback variations are considered minor and unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the west. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of Unit 1 from the west boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the boundary wall abuts the neighbour’s boundary wall and makes effective use of space

without resulting in significant detrimental impacts on the amenity of the adjoining property to the west in relation to bulk and access to direct sunlight and ventilation; and

• the proposed setback of the ground and upper floors from the west boundary provides

adequate direct sun and ventilation to the subject site and adjoining property to the west, and minimises the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on the adjoining property.

Wall height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Wall height

Max 6.0 metres West elevation: 5.3 metres to 6.45 metres East elevation: 6.0 metres to 6.6 metres North elevation: 6.45 metres to 6.6 metres South (front) elevation: 5.3 metres to 6.0 metres


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Design principles: 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.

The site slopes down from west to east (Northwood Street) and south (Ruislip Street) to north. Both Units 1 and 2 have a split level ground floor, reflecting the south to north downwards slope, however, the upper floor is at one level. The wall height is therefore greater than the maximum acceptable development requirements as the land slopes down to the north, and is particularly notable on the northern elevation where the natural ground level is lowest. It is noted that the owner of the adjoining property to the north has no objection to the proposed height of the dwellings. With regard to the design principles, it is considered that the proposed building height creates no adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. The streetscape is not affected as the building height is lowest adjacent to Ruislip Street. West Facing the western neighbour, the wall height ranges from 5.3 to 6.45 metres, with the majority of the elevation under the 6.0 metre requirement. Access to direct sun from the north for the adjoining property to the west is not affected by the development. The main outdoor living area, including pool, of the adjoining property to the west is adjacent to the boundaries of No. 107 Northwood Street rather than the boundaries of the subject site. In addition, Unit 1’s upper floor is set back 3.75 metres from the rear boundary so there is no bulk or overshadowing impact over the main outdoor living area. It is noted that the north facing upper floor retreat window of Unit 1 will have views of the west neighbour’s yard, and a condition is included requiring the window to be obscure glazed (see comments below). North Access to direct sun from the north for the adjoining property to the north is not affected by the proposed development. The upper floors are set well back from the northern boundary, therefore bulk is not an issue. The setbacks of the dwellings from this northern boundary are significantly greater than the minimum acceptable development requirements. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the proposed height creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or

the streetscape.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Visual privacy Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Bedrooms and studies

Min 4.5 metres from the lot boundary

Min 4.0 metres at a 45 degree angle from Unit 1’s upper floor retreat (or a study or a bedroom) window to west boundary 3.8m from Unit 1’s upper floor retreat window to north boundary 3.8 metres from Unit 2’s upper floor bedroom 3 window to north boundary

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

Min 7.5 metres from the lot boundary

5.1 metres from Unit 1’s upper floor rear balcony to north boundary 6.8 metres from Unit 2’s upper floor rear balcony to north boundary 1.355 m from Unit 1’s upper floor front balcony to west boundary

Design principles: 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).

Unit 1’s upper floor retreat awning windows and Unit 2’s upper floor bedroom 3 awning windows facing north are large and directly overlook the backyard of the adjoining property to the north. Whilst the owner of the adjoining property to the north has not objected, it is considered that the windows could be obscured to a height of 1.6 metres and the awning be limited to a 300mm opening, to reduce direct overlooking. Unit 1 and 2’s balconies facing north, are, however, tucked away, with the walls of the dwellings restricting their extent of overlooking. The balconies are unlikely to be used as main outdoor living areas as they are small and accessed from a retreat or a bedroom. It is considered that these balconies do not require screening.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 As previously stated, Unit 1’s front balcony has views over Ruislip Street and the neighbouring front garden that is visible from the street. It is preferable that this balcony is unscreened to maintain the openness of the streetscape and improve passive surveillance of the street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the locations of the proposed balconies satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • due to the small size of the north facing balconies and their positioning, there will be

minimal direct overlooking of the adjacent property to the north; and • open balustrade for the front balcony maintains the openness of the streetscape and

improves passive surveillance of the street. The large retreat and bedroom windows facing north are, however, directly overlooking the private outdoor living area of the adjoining property to the north and require some screening. A condition is included in this regard.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. 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:

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

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retention of existing dwelling and two new grouped dwellings submitted by Longroad Holdings Pty Ltd at Lots 4 and 231 (Street No. 101) Northwood Street, corner Ruislip Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 4 December 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the amalgamation of the subject lots (Lot 4 and Lot 231) prior to the occupation of the

new dwellings;



(ii) a Conservation Plan for the existing dwelling (Trenoweth) at Lots 4 and Lots 231 (No.

101) Northwood Street, West Leederville to be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the occupation of the new dwellings. The Conservation Plan should explain the heritage significance of the place, provide a clear statement of conservation policy, and include detailed proposals for the care, use, interpretation, management and security of the building;

(iii) notification being placed on the current and future certificates of titles of the lot(s)

containing the existing dwelling (Trenoweth) at No. 101 Northwood Street, West Leederville under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 to classify the existing dwelling (Trenoweth) at No. 101 Northwood Street, West Leederville as a conservation place. The Town shall be a party to this notification and the notification shall be prepared by the Town’s solicitors at the applicant’s expense;

(iv) no fencing is permitted within the secondary street (Ruislip Street) setback area;

(v) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;

(vi) the Unit 1 upper floor retreat awning windows facing north and the Unit 2 upper floor

bedroom 3 awning windows facing north to be obscure glazed to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level and have a maximum opening of 300 millimetres;

(vii) the surface finish of the Unit 1 boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west and

the Unit 2 boundary wall facing east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(viii) the trees located on the verges directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. Committee Meeting 9 December 2014 During discussion, the Administration was requested to discuss with the applicant the possibility of removing the solid component of the balcony to Unit 2 east facing, prior to the next meeting of Council. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (ix) the provision on one mature tree (45L bag) to be provided in the front setback of each of

the new dwellings; (x) the double carport to Unit 2 being modified to a less dominant structure to the satisfaction

of the Town. Details to be provided prior to the submission of a building permit. Footnote: The applicant be reminded of the obligations under the Building Code of Australia for stormwater retention, in particular with regard to the boundary wall of Unit 1. Amendment carried 3/1 For: Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for retention of existing dwelling and two new grouped dwellings submitted by Longroad Holdings Pty Ltd at Lots 4 and 231 (Street No. 101) Northwood Street, corner Ruislip Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 4 December 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the amalgamation of the subject lots (Lot 4 and Lot 231) prior to the occupation of

the new dwellings;

(ii) a Conservation Plan for the existing dwelling (Trenoweth) at Lots 4 and Lots 231 (No. 101) Northwood Street, West Leederville to be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the occupation of the new dwellings. The Conservation Plan should explain the heritage significance of the place, provide a clear statement of conservation policy, and include detailed proposals for the care, use, interpretation, management and security of the building;

(iii) notification being placed on the current and future certificates of titles of the lot(s)

containing the existing dwelling (Trenoweth) at No. 101 Northwood Street, West Leederville under Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 to classify the existing dwelling (Trenoweth) at No. 101 Northwood Street, West Leederville as a conservation place. The Town shall be a party to this notification and the notification shall be prepared by the Town’s solicitors at the applicant’s expense;

(iv) no fencing is permitted within the secondary street (Ruislip Street) setback area;

(v) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed;

(vi) the Unit 1 upper floor retreat awning windows facing north and the Unit 2 upper

floor bedroom 3 awning windows facing north to be obscure glazed to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level and have a maximum opening of 300 millimetres;

(vii) the surface finish of the Unit 1 boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the

west and the Unit 2 boundary wall facing east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(viii) the trees located on the verges directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (ix) the provision on one mature tree (45L bag) to be provided in the front setback of

each of the new dwellings; (x) the double carport to Unit 2 being modified to a less dominant structure to the

satisfaction of the Town. Details to be provided prior to the submission of a building permit.

Footnote: The applicant be reminded of the obligations under the Building Code of Australia for stormwater retention, in particular with regard to the boundary wall of Unit 1. Carried 9/0



DV14.160 LOT 1 (NO. 170) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED EXTENSION OF TRADING DAYS FROM 5 TO 7 DAYS PER WEEK - ALIMENT CAFE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application from Aliment Cafe located at No. 170 Railway Parade, West Leederville (Qube and WALGA building) to operate seven rather than five days per week. The operating hours of the cafe were limited to 7am and 6pm weekdays by Council when the development at No. 170 Railway Parade was considered at its meeting held on 20 December 2011. The applicant has obtained confirmation that the owners of the building are agreeable to ensuring that the basement visitor parking will be open during the proposed weekend trading hours. The proposed seven day trading for Aliment Cafe is therefore considered acceptable and is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 454DA-2014 Owner: Qube Railway Parade Pty Ltd and Western Australian Local Government

Association Applicant: Aliment (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Commercial Use class: Restaurant - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 4007 m² At the meeting held on 20 December 2011 Council considered an application for a proposed five storey office building (WALGA Headquarters) with a ground floor cafe tenancy at the subject site and decided inter alia:- That:- (i) further to Council's approval under Clause 45 'Approval subject to later planning approval

of details' of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, granted at its meeting on 24 May 2011, Council APPROVES the application for approval of further details for a multi level office building with basement car parking and a ground floor café tenancy submitted by HASSELL at Lots 50 and 500 (Nos. 168-170) Railway Parade, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 1 December 2011, subject to the following conditions:

(m) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays. Hours of

operation outside these times will require the approval of the Town; The 20 December 2011 report to Council stated:

In regards to operating hours of the café, the applicant advises that the café initially will only operate during business hours (7am - 6pm) on weekdays and will predominantly service the office and possibly surrounding neighbours and businesses in the vicinity. Should the hours of operation change, further approval would be sought and information provided regarding the availability of basement parking for customers.



Development description • Aliment Cafe is located on the ground floor of the office building at No. 170 Railway

Parade. • Approved trading hours are 7am to 6pm weekdays. • Proposed trading hours are 7am to 6pm weekdays and 7am to 5pm Saturdays and

Sundays. Applicant's submission The applicant has provided the following information with the application:

We are seeking approval for an amendment to our planning permit, to extend our opening days from 5 to 7 days per week. We have agreed with the building owners that upon extending our trading days that they would organise for the security gate leading to the undercover basement parking on Level B1 be opened for the extended hours of operation. This effectively allows for an extra 18 parking bays under the building. We will ask the owners to formalise this agreement and forward you a copy of the document. There is access from the basement car park to the ground floor via the lifts, the foyer is secured for public use during operating hours. The current parking available without the underground allocation is approximately 20 bays within 50 metres of the cafe frontage. There is also the possibility of reaching an agreement with the other building tenants to utilise the 10 car bays at the rear of the building on street level – just off Nicholson Street.

Neighbour submission When the building was considered in December 2011, Council was made aware of three submissions were received from residents of Nicholson Street which outlined concerns including opening hours for the restaurant - is there likely to be early opening or late closing that would generate noise? No further public consultation has been undertaken in relation to this proposal to trade on Saturdays and Sundays. Comment The subject site is located in the Southport Street Node shown in the West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy. The overall objective of the Node is to allow for appropriate transit oriented development which contributes to enhanced pedestrian movements and shared parking facilities, whilst limiting impact on adjacent residential communities. The cafe use is an important component of the development as it activates the street frontage of the office building. Weekend openings will enhance pedestrian movements in the area and basement parking facilities can be shared. The cafe faces Railway Parade and the basement parking is accessed from Railway Parade. There are no existing residential communities in close proximity that may be impacted by the weekend trading.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The 18 basement visitor parking bays that will be available for the cafe during weekend trading is more than adequate for the cafe use. When the building was assessed in 2011, the parking requirement for the cafe was based on the ratio for office uses (1 bay per 30m2 NFA) rather than for cafe/restaurant uses (1 bay per 5m2 seating area). This is consistent with the Town’s current Policy 5.1 Parking, to encourage active ground floor uses in a predominantly office development. Overall considering the above comments, the proposed weekend trading for Aliment cafe at No. 170 Railway Parade is considered acceptable and can be supported.


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual, and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.







Nil

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for an extension of trading days from 5 to 7 days per week for the café at Lot 1 (Street No. 170) Railway Parade, West Leederville, submitted by Aliment (WA) Pty Ltd on 17 October 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the café to only operate between the hours 7am to 6pm on weekdays and 7am to

5pm on weekends; (ii) the basement visitor parking area to be available to cafe patrons during weekend

trading hours;


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 (iii) the applicant to provide a letter of support from the owners of the building allowing

the use of onsite parking bays (basement visitor parking) during weekend trading hours for the café.

Carried 9/0



DV14.161 LOT 2 (UNIT 2, NO. 357) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - BEAUTY SALON AND THERAPEUTIC MASSAGE

SUMMARY:

On 6 May 2013, planning approval was granted under delegated authority for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage business at Unit 2, No. 357 Cambridge Street, Wembley. Approval of the therapeutic massage was limited to 12 months. At its meeting held on 29 April 2014, Council granted an extension of the planning approval for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage for a further 12 months, but placed additional conditions to the original approval, namely opening hours to be from 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday and no obscuring of the windows to the front façade to the satisfaction of the Town. The applicant has since expressed disappointment with the conditions imposed and has met with the Town’s officers to discuss what can be done to address her concerns. The Town’s advice was to appeal the decision to the State Administrative Tribunal. Otherwise, submit a fresh application that addresses the concerns raised by Elected Members in relation to the hours of operation and window obscuring. The latter has been chosen by the applicant to avoid the lengthy mediation process that is likely to result from a review by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Furthermore in relation to the Town’s situation, a SAT mediation process is likely to result in a subsequent Council reconsideration under section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), and possible planning consultant fees. The Administration’s recommendation is to allow hours of operation of 9:00am to 7:00pm Monday to Saturday and 11:00am to 5:00pm on Sundays. The front facade windows have been modified to the satisfaction of the Town.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 68DA-2014 Owner: S H Pang & B L Tan Applicant: H Chen Zoning: Local Centre Use class: Shop - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 53 m² The original application for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage at the subject site was granted planning approval under delegated authority on 6 May 2013, subject to the following conditions: 1. Approval of the therapeutic massage is limited to a period of twelve (12) months. Any

extension will require a new planning application. 2. The predominant use of the site to be a beauty salon rather than therapeutic massage. 3. Person(s) undertaking therapeutic massage to be appropriately qualified. 4. A separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from

requiring planning approval. 5. A maximum of two (2) employees to operate from the premises at any one time.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 At its meeting held on 29 April 2014, Council approved the extension of the planning approval for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage subject to the following conditions: (i) approval of the therapeutic massage is limited to a period of one year. Any extension will

require a new planning application; (ii) the predominant use of the site to be a beauty salon rather than therapeutic massage; (iii) person(s) undertaking therapeutic massage to be appropriately qualified; (iv) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from

requiring planning approval; (v) a maximum of two (2) employees to operate from the premises at any one time; (vi) opening hours to be from 8am to 6pm Monday to Saturday; (vii) no obscuring of the windows in the front façade to the satisfaction of the Town. In making the decision, Elected Members expressed some concern regarding the nature of the use of the premises.

DETAILS:

Development description • The business is in a group of seven tenancies with a common car parking area. The

previous use was a beauty salon. Approval was granted under delegated authority for a period of 12 months (and extended by Council for another 12 months) for the additional therapeutic massage use. The conditions of approval require that predominant use of the site is the beauty salon rather than therapeutic massage.

• The tenancy has a front reception and waiting area (also used for manicures), two

treatment rooms and a small rear amenities area. Applicant’s submission On 16 July 2014, 24 September 2014, and 30 September 2014 the Town received correspondence from the applicant (which has been summarised below) raising concern that the conditions limiting approval for a period of one year only and hours of operation to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday, and requiring no obscuring of the front windows were onerous: • One year approval is unreasonable and seems to me to be without any just cause. There

have been no complaints (of any nature) and I can only assume that it has been put based upon erroneous and prejudiced views. A term of one year does not provide me with the security of being able to make strategic planning decisions for the business and seems to me to be unfair. I feel that as a minimum, a term of two years is appropriate and also in line with my lease of the premises.

• Opening hours: the Town is allowing opening for ten hours of business being 8am to

6pm. Many of my customers are working people who are simply unable to attend during these times. I only require nine hours opening – 10am to 7pm. Other businesses in the centre and nearby are operating longer hours and later than 7pm. The prohibition of Sunday trading will have a significant detrimental effect on the viability of my business. Other businesses are open on Sundays in the centre. I would like Sunday trading hours of 10am to 6pm.

• Obscuring of windows: the signage in the windows in the front façade has not changed

since the last application was approved. Other shops in the Centre have much more window signage than my shop. The signage is also required for sun protection. The front of the shop is where we undertake manicures. I can assure you that sitting there for an



hour either as a customer receiving or as a beautician providing a manicure is most uncomfortable and inhibits customer growth. If my intention was to obscure the premises I would have installed reflective tinting or blinds/curtains.

• 30 September 2014 correspondence: I have given this further consideration and as a sign

of goodwill and a gesture of compromise, I will reduce the size of the signage in both side windows by half. And will keep the main window sign for sun protection like before we talked that it is very hot in summer. I think by doing this, there will be no obscuring issues of concern.

After repeated reminders to comply with the conditions of planning approval granted on 29 April 2014, the applicant has since reduced the obscure film on the side panes of the window in the front façade. Comment Time limit of planning approval The Town’s Environmental Health and Planning officers have no major issues with a time limit of two years and the Administration’s recommendation in the Development Committee report for 15 April 2014 was to extend the approval for a further two years. This was on the basis that the Town had not received any complaints against the business and Council officers had undertaken routine inspections and were satisfied that the business was being conducted in accordance with the approval granted in May 2013. The Council’s decision from its meeting held on 29 April 2014 limits approval to one year only as Elected Members raised concern regarding the nature of the use of the premises. Given the recent compliance issues with meeting the hours of operation and window conditions imposed by Council in April 2014, it is reasonable to retain the one year time limit on the approval. If in the future there are no issues with compliance with conditions, then the time limit could be reviewed and possibly increased. Opening hours The original approval of the business in May 2013 had no conditions on hours of operation. Council subsequently imposed a condition in April 2014 limiting hours of operation to 8:00am to 6:00pm Monday to Saturday. The applicant has advised that many of her customers are working people who are simply unable to attend during these times. She believes the hours are highly restrictive and will have a severe financial impact on her business, and highlights that other businesses at No. 357 Cambridge Street are open after 6pm. She proposes opening times between 10:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Saturday and 10:00am to 6:00pm Sundays. It is acknowledged that beauty salon and therapeutic massage businesses are unlikely to have significant trade at 8:00am. Such businesses would most likely open at 9:00am at the earliest. It is also acknowledged that Sunday trading is allowed and many businesses, including ones in the immediate vicinity, have taken up the option of trading on Sundays. To allow a compromise, hours of operation of 9:00am to 7:00pm Monday to Saturday, and 11:00am to 5:00pm Sundays are proposed. Obscuring of front windows The Council’s condition requires no obscuring of the front windows to the satisfaction of the Town.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The front window previously had obscure film on all three panes (one central large pane and two smaller angled, panes, one on each side of the large pane). A large advertisement (with obscure film) comprised the central pane. The obscure film did not fully cover the window and passers-by could see through to the front room, through the window, above and below the film. The applicant advises that the previous beauty salon had a similar area of the window obscured and other businesses at No. 357 Cambridge Street have similar signage. She advises that one of the reasons the sign is located where it is, is to help in shielding customers and staff from the radiant heat caused by the sun which is quite strong, even through winter. The front of the shop is where manicures are undertaken and sitting there for an hour as a customer or beautician without the shade would be uncomfortable and inhibit customer growth. The Town’s officers have undertaken inspections of the premises and agree that the sign does provide some shading to the front room. As a compromise, the applicant has removed slightly more than one-third of the obscure film on both side angled panes which addresses the Council’s concern about the lack of vision into the premises without significantly reducing sun protection. The previous condition requiring no obscuring of the windows in the front façade has therefore been removed.


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R Codes), Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.




Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan 2009-2020 for the priority area 'Planning for our Community'.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the extension of the planning approval for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage submitted by H Chen at Lot 2 of Strata Plan 9535 of Lot 100 (Unit 2, No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 31 October 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) approval of the therapeutic massage is limited to a period of one year. Any extension will

require a new planning application;



(ii) the predominant use of the site to be a beauty salon rather than therapeutic massage;

(iii) person(s) undertaking therapeutic massage to be appropriately qualified;

(iv) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from

requiring planning approval;

(v) a maximum of two (2) employees to operate from the premises at any one time;

(vi) opening hours to be from 9:00am to 7:00pm Monday to Saturday and 11:00am to 5:00pm on Sundays.

Committee Meeting 9 December 2014 During discussion, Members were not prepared to support an extension of the planning approval for the beauty salon and therapeutic massage. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 1/3. For: Cr Bradley Against: Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the extension of the planning approval for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage submitted by H Chen at Lot 2 of Strata Plan 9535 of Lot 100 (Unit 2, No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 31 October 2014. Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (i) the applicant has not been compliant in particular with respect to trading hours

and front window facades not meeting the Council conditions approved on 29 April 2014.

Amendment Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, O'Connor and

Walker Against: Cr Bradley


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the extension of the planning approval for a beauty salon and therapeutic massage submitted by H Chen at Lot 2 of Strata Plan 9535 of Lot 100 (Unit 2, No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 31 October 2014. (i) the applicant has not been compliant in particular with respect to trading hours

and front window facades not meeting the Council conditions approved on 29 April 2014.

Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Carr, Grinceri, King, Langer, MacRae, O'Connor and

Walker Against: Cr Bradley



DV14.162 LOT 1397 (NO. 5) ROSCOMMON ROAD, FLOREAT - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 5 Roscommon Road, Floreat. The proposed dwelling features a flat roof that exceeds the relevant deemed-to-comply height provision for Floreat, as well as reduced side setbacks to the ground and upper floor. Additionally, a rear pool house is proposed within the 6 metre rear setback area applicable to the Residential R12.5 zone. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback and building height design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes), and objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the staggered setbacks to the ground and upper floors will ensure a reduced visual bulk

impact upon adjoining properties; • the significance of the pool house rear setback is lessened due to a reduced 2.5 metre

wall height, whilst the position of the structure is adjacent to existing outbuildings and away from primary outdoor living areas on adjoining properties;

• excellent provision of landscaping and open space is proposed, beyond the front setback area on the subject site, which ensures the proposal meets the current and future development aspirations of the Floreat precinct; and

• the over-height section of roof is positioned centrally to the lot and its impact is further minimised through the high quality design of the dwelling and the fact that the proposal is predominantly single storey.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0427DA-2014 Owner: Ms LM Johnson Applicant: Neil Robert Cownie Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1012 m² This application was originally submitted 1 October 2014. These plans showed a two storey section containing a skillion roof with a maximum height of 9.143 metres (i.e. over 2 metres higher than the deemed-to-comply provision of 7 metres). To address concerns raised by neighbours and the Town's officers, the applicant submitted a series of amended plans, most recently dated 28 November 2014, reducing the maximum overall height to 7.3 metres. In addition to other minor changes, the wall height of the rear pool house was also reduced to 2.5 metres (previously 2.8 metres). These plans are the subject of the following report.



Development description • Subject site is generally flat, with no significant topographical features to note. The site is

rectangular aside from the angled south-western boundary (refer site feature survey). • The majority of the proposed dwelling is single storey, and will present as such when

viewed from Roscommon Road. The two storey section is positioned towards the rear of the dwelling and primarily comprises of the master bedroom, ensuite and dressing room as well as the access staircase and passageway.

• An open 'sky garden' is also proposed, which is to contain raised landscaped planters and trees. The width of the planters ensures that this garden complies with the relevant R-Code provisions for visual privacy.

• A slight landscaping shortfall was identified in the assessment due to the wider driveway width proposed. This has been appropriately addressed by the applicant through the inclusion of lawn 'strips' within the driveway as well as the provision of landscaped climbers/vines along the side of the driveway adjacent to the undercroft garage.

• No street fencing is proposed aside from a letter box. Conditions regarding the landscaping, letterbox and other fencing are included with the recommendation.

• On the original drawings, a small section of fill above 500mm was indicated on the south-western side boundary (drying court). This variation was advertised to the relevant neighbour, who objected to this proposed fill. This issue was addressed in the 28 November revision of the proposal, and a condition is included with the recommendation in respect to site works.

• An advice note is also provided to remind the applicant and property owner of their obligations in respect to any new dividing fencing that may be required as a result of the site works proposed, as this matter was the subject of neighbour queries.

• The rear two storey section of the proposal contains two noteworthy variations; that being the ground and upper floor side setbacks to the side/south-western boundary and the overall height. These issues are the subject of neighbour concerns and are discussed in further detail in the following section.

• Furthermore, a pool house is also proposed within the 6 metre rear setback area. This structure is separate from the main dwelling and abuts the rear/southern boundary. The height of the boundary wall is 2.5 metres. Neighbour comments objecting to this structure were also received (southern property owner only).

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the side and rear boundary setbacks, and the overall height of the proposal. In the submission, the applicant highlights the high-quality design of the proposal that is inspired by some of the modernist architectural characteristics that typify the Floreat precinct. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties directly adjoining the subject site, being Nos. 24 and 26 Clanmel Road to the right/west, Nos. 25 and 27 Ulster Road to the rear/south and No. 3 Roscommon Road to the left/east. Objections from the owners of No. 3 Roscommon Road, No. 24 Clanmel Road and No. 25 Ulster Road were received for the original set of plans, with concerns raised in respect to site works, side and rear boundary setbacks as well as the overall height of the proposal. After amended plans were submitted 28 November 2014, these three neighbours were immediately notified of the amended plans. The neighbour at No. 24 Clanmel Road viewed the


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 amended plans and withdrew objections to height and site works, however still expressed concerns regarding the reduced side setbacks of the proposal. Further, the neighbour at No. 3 Roscommon has also withdrawn their objection to the height issue. No additional comments were received from the neighbour at No. 25 Ulster Road, however their original objection is still applicable. A summary of the relevant neighbour submissions is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback (south-western boundary)

Min 1.5 metres (ground floor) Min 2.2 metres (upper floor)

Min 1.2 metres

Rear setback R12.5

Min 6 metres Nil (to pool house only)




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

In terms of the ground and upper floor side setbacks to the side/south-western boundary, it is recognised that as this boundary is angled, the building is staggered accordingly to follow the boundary line. This results in portions of wall which fall within the deemed-to-comply setback distance, whilst other sections of wall greatly exceed the required setback. The applicant has provided a drawing which illustrates this point where it can be seen that, on balance, the majority of the wall sections along the right/western side of the dwelling exceed deemed-to-comply requirements. The fact that there are stepped portions of wall assists in breaking up some of the bulk of the façade, which could be seen as a more desirable outcome in respect to neighbours' amenity when compared with a blank, unarticulated two storey wall set back at the compliant distance. Varied exterior materials and finishes are proposed which will further assist in this regard. It is also noted that direct sun overshadowing of adjoining properties is well under the relevant deemed-to-comply provision, assisted in part due to the stepped portions of wall. The dwelling on the property to the west is located approximately 11 metres (minimum) from the right/south-western boundary of the subject site. It is considered that the small side boundary setback encroachment proposed on the subject site will have minimal impact upon the amenity of the adjoining property currently or into the future. Whilst neighbour concerns were raised regarding overlooking from the upper floor passage window, this is not classified as a major opening under the R-Codes and therefore is not required to be screened.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 In regard to the rear setback of the pool house, whilst the Town does encourage compliance in this area, it is considered that in this instance a concession can be applied to this particular example. As discussed, it is highlighted that the wall height of the pool house has been reduced to 2.5 metres by the applicant (previously 2.8 metres), which is no higher than the maximum permissible dividing fence height under the Town's Policy 2.1: Minor Use and Development Exempt from Planning Approval. Because of this, it could be considered that the impact upon this neighbour would be no different to a theoretically compliant dividing fence, which does not require planning approval under Policy 2.1. Further, and most importantly, the property to the rear also contains outbuilding structures with nil setbacks to the rear boundary. These two points in particular will ensure that the impact of the new pool house on all neighbouring properties is lessened, particularly from a 'visual' standpoint. In addition, due to the non-typical angled lot boundaries of surrounding properties, the pool house will not be positioned directly adjacent to any significant outdoor living areas or active habitable spaces on adjoining sites. Whilst the Town places a high emphasis upon the protection of rear yard spaces in Floreat, it is considered that the excellent provision of private and landscaped active open spaces proposed on site more than adequately meets the current and future intended development outcomes for the 'garden suburb'. The location of the pool house is an appropriate use of space given the tapered lot boundaries. It is also noted that the main dwelling is set back a minimum of 6.2 metres from the rear boundary, therefore complying with the rear setback provision. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side/south-western and rear boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the staggered setbacks to the ground and upper floors will ensure a reduced visual bulk

impact upon adjoining properties; • the significance of the pool house rear setback is lessened due to a reduced 2.5 metre

wall height, whilst the position of the structure is adjacent to existing outbuildings and away from primary outdoor living areas on adjoining properties; and

• excellent provision of landscaping and open space is proposed, beyond the front setback area on the subject site, which ensures the proposal meets the current and future development aspirations of the Floreat precinct.

Building height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Roof height (Flat/Skillion)

Max 7 metres Max 7.3 metres (top of flat roof)

Design principles: 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.

As mentioned, the first iteration of this design comprised a skillion roof to 9.143 metres. This was subsequently revised through lowering the floor level, reducing the height of the highlight window and a simplification of the roof design from a skillion to a flat roof. The current proposal


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 is now 300 millimetres higher than the relevant deemed-to-comply provision, with the over height section being constrained to the flat roof component. When viewed on the site plan, it can be seen that the over height section of skillion roof falls more towards the centre of the site, whilst also serving to highlight the relatively small portion of over height roof. The amened roof style indicated on the amended plans is also considerably less dominant than on the original proposal, which further aids with minimising any impact that might be attributed to the increased height being sought. In any case, a 300 millimetre variance to building height is not considered to be significant in this instance, given the small area of roof applicable (approximately 36m2), and taking into account the fact that the majority of the dwelling is single storey and will present as such from Roscommon Road. As discussed, overshadowing and visual privacy deemed-to-comply criteria have been met, and the location of the site ensures there are no 'views of significance' in need of protecting. As mentioned, the proposed dwelling is considered to be of a high architectural standard, with varied forms, colours, materials and finishes present within the design. This plays a part in further reducing the significance of the overall height variation, as well as alleviating some of the impact attributed to the abovementioned side/south-western setback issue. It is also noted that, upon viewing the amended plans, two of the three objecting neighbours withdrew their concerns in respect to the building height. As viewed from the street, the dwelling will contribute to the established amenity of the Roscommon Road streetscape as the design acknowledges traditional 'Floreat' design attributes. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the over-height section of roof is positioned centrally to the lot and its impact is further

minimised through the high quality design of the dwelling and the fact that the proposal is predominantly single storey.


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. 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.









COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Committee Meeting 9 December 2014 Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor That the pool house be set back 2 metres from the boundary. Amendment lapsed for want of a seconder. During discussion, the Administration was requested to speak with the applicant and neighbour regarding the rear fence. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Neil Robert Cownie at Lot 1397 (No. 5) Roscommon Road, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 28 November 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the landscaping areas, including proposed driveway treatments, between the

dwelling and the street as shown on the approved plans, to be installed and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) no retaining walls to be constructed higher than 500mm above natural ground level

on any side boundary; (iii) the visual privacy screens for the ground floor 'covered terrace' to be designed to

restrict views to the neighbouring property to the east in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling;

(iv) the letter box wall to not exceed 750 mm in height;

(v) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vi) the driveway crossover not to exceed 6 metres in width (excluding splays); and

(vii) any proposed fencing within the front setback area to be visually permeable in accordance with clause 3.1.7 of the Town’s Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. All proposals are to be subject to a prior approval by the Town.

Footnote: In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries, the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences Act.

Carried 9/0



DV14.163 LOT 675 (NO. 64) HOLLAND STREET, WEMBLEY - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 64 Holland Street, Wembley. The plans show a two storey dwelling with a garage with access off Holland Street. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the vehicular access design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the street tree proposed to be removed is one of two established street trees and can be

replaced with a tree having greater growth potential which will enhance the streetscape in the future.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 388DA-2014 Owner: M Brennan Applicant: Wilson and Hart Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 653 m² DETAILS:

Development description • The applicant is seeking approval for a two storey dwelling. The dwelling includes a

double garage located behind the building line, and an upper storey balcony projecting over it.

• The site slopes upwards approximately 2.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear boundary.

• The garage is located on the northern side of the proposed dwelling with a nil setback to the boundary. The wall abuts the garage parapet wall of the adjoining property albeit, protruding forward of it. The wall is 6.89metres in length and 2.8 metres in height. The location of the wall on the boundary is considered to satisfy the design principles.

• The location of the crossover, will result in the removal of one of the two existing street trees.

• The application proposes 67% landscaping within the front setback area, with the only paved area being to the driveway. A 4.8 metre wide crossover proposed.

• There is a ROW to the rear of the property (Edeson Lane) which is currently unsealed and is not scheduled for upgrade until the 2018/2019 financial year.

• No front fencing is proposed.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the removal of the street tree. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 62 and 66 Holland Street, Wembley with regard to side setback variations. One submission was received from the owners of No. 62 Holland Street concerned with overshadowing due to an upper storey setback variation. The applicant subsequently submitted amended plans to increase the setback so that it meets deemed to comply criteria. Assessment against the design principles Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback crossover from existing street tree

Driveways to be located to avoid street trees, or where this is unavoidable, the street trees replaced at the applicant's expense or re-planting arrangements to be approved by the decision maker Driveway to be setback 1.5 metres from the street tree

One Street tree to be removed (one remaining)

Design principles: Vehicular access provided for each development site to provide: • vehicle access safety; • reduced impact of access points on the streetscape; • legible access; • pedestrian safety; • minimal crossovers; and • high quality landscaping features.

The Town's Infrastructure Services has inspected the existing street trees, which are Bottlebrush trees approximately 6.0 metres tall, and consider that both trees are in a reasonable condition with no safety of health concerns which would require their removal. It is noted that the Town's Treescape Plan identifies Native WA Weeping Peppermint trees as being the preferred street tree for Holland Street. The proposed garage location makes effective use of the space. It is unlikely that a crossover could be placed between the two street trees without requiring extensive pruning of the tree canopies and the crossover being to close to the edge of the tree trunks. As there are two street trees on the verge, one can be removed without significant impact to the streetscape as one will still be at the front of the subject property. The Town could consider


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 the addition of a new street tree on the front of the property, in line with the Treescape Plan, in the place of the redundant crossover, if considered necessary. Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed vehicular access to the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the street tree proposed to be removed is one of two established street trees and can be

replaced with a tree having greater growth potential which will enhance the streetscape in the future.









1. Summary of applicant's justification.


That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wilson and Hart at Lot 675 (No. 64) Holland Street, Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 17 November 2014 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) a separate approval is required for any fencing in the primary street setback area; and (iii) the crossover being a maximum width of 4.5 metres (including splays).


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Committee Meeting 9 December 2014

During discussion, Members agreed that a street tree should be provided that was in accordance with the Town's Treescape plan for Holland Street and that the existing crossover should be closed and reinstated. Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and verge reinstated at the applicants expense; (v) a street tree (min 45L bag) being provided on the verge in accordance with the Town's

Treescape plan. Amendment carried 4/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wilson and Hart at Lot 675 (No. 64) Holland Street, Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 17 November 2014 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) a separate approval is required for any fencing in the primary street setback area;

and (iii) the crossover being a maximum width of 4.5 metres (including splays); (iv) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being closed, and the kerb and verge reinstated at the applicants expense;

(v) a street tree (min 45L bag) being provided on the verge in accordance with the

Town's Treescape plan. Council Meeting 16 December 2014 In accordance with clause 9.11 of the Standing Orders, Cr King with the consent of the seconder, altered the wording of clause (iv) of the motion by deleting 'closed' and inserting 'removed'.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Wilson and Hart at Lot 675 (No. 64) Holland Street, Wembley, as shown on the amended plans dated 17 November 2014 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) a separate approval is required for any fencing in the primary street setback area;

and (iii) the crossover being a maximum width of 4.5 metres (including splays); (iv) any existing crossovers not included as part of the proposed development on the

approved plan being removed, and the kerb and verge reinstated at the applicants expense;

(v) a street tree (min 45L bag) being provided on the verge in accordance with the

Town's Treescape plan. Carried 9/0



DV14.164 LOT 100 (NO. 71) WOOLWICH STREET WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 71 Woolwich Street, West Leederville. The plans show a two storey dwelling with an upper floor balcony setback 4.49 metres from the front boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the street setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the balcony adds building bulk to the dwelling and therefore has a negative impact on the

established streetscape. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0387DA-2014 Owner: Mrs J E Prince Applicant: Residential Building WA Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 293 m² DETAILS:

Development description • The property currently contains a single storey dwelling with a porch set back 1.2 metres

from the boundary, and the building setback 3.0 metres from the front boundary. • The applicant seeks approval for a two storey dwelling set back 4.49 metres from the

front boundary. The upper floor balcony has a solid balustrade, screen to the western side and is under the main roof. The balcony is also set back 4.49 metres from the front boundary.

• There is a 0.9 metre slop upwards from the northeast corner (front right) to the southwest corner (rear left). The finished floor level of the house will be approximately 0.8 metres above the lowest natural ground level.

• The applicant proposes one uncovered car bay to the front of the dwelling. • The building is a maximum height of 5.88 metres above natural ground level. • Variations have been sought regarding retaining walls and side setbacks, however, these

were minor and advertised to the adjoining property owners and there were no objections. The variations were deemed to meet the relevant design principles.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to street setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Street setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Setback upper floor balcony from primary street (Woolwich Street) boundary

Minimum 6.0 metres 4.49 metres

Design principles: Buildings set back from street boundaries an appropriate distance to ensure they: • contribute to, and are consistent with, an established streetscape; • provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; • accommodate site planning requirements such as parking, landscape and utilities; and • allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors. Buildings mass and form that: • uses design features to affect the size and scale of the building; • uses appropriate minor projections that do not detract from the character of the streetscape; • minimises the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by building services, vehicle

entries and parking supply, blank walls, servicing infrastructure access and meters and the like; and

• positively contributes to the prevailing development context and streetscape.

The proposed balcony is located under the main roof with a 0.4 metre eave overhang. The balcony balustrade is a continuation of the ground floor wall to 0.6 metres above the floor level, with an open style balustrade to 1.0 metre. A privacy screen is also constructed to the western side to prevent overlooking to the adjoining dwelling. The Town's Street Setbacks Policy (3.1.1) permits balconies to be set back 4.0 metres from the front boundary where they are without a roof, and where balustrades are no higher than 1.2 metres and no less than 4:1 open to solid ratio in any position. The proposed balcony is a substantial structure which will create building bulk towards the street. It is noted that there are dwellings similar to that proposed in the immediate area, however, it is because of this undesirable outlook that the policy was amended. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the front boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the balcony adds building bulk to the dwelling and therefore has a negative impact on the

established streetscape.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:










That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Residential Building WA at Lot 100 (No. 71) Woolwich Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 8 September 2014, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Policy 3.1.1

Street Setbacks and the design principles of part 5.1.2 Street Setback of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the balcony adds building bulk to the dwelling and therefore has a negative impact on the

established streetscape. Committee Meeting 9 December 2014 During discussion, Cr MacRae expressed concern with regard to the location of the front door. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr King That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the entrance to the front door does not provide good visual connection between the

house and the street as it is recessed. Amendment carried 4/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Residential Building WA at Lot 100 (No. 71) Woolwich Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 8 September 2014, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.1.1 Street Setbacks and the design principles of part 5.1.2 Street Setback of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the balcony adds building bulk to the dwelling and therefore has a negative impact

on the established streetscape; (iii) the entrance to the front door does not provide good visual connection between

the house and the street as it is recessed. Carried 9/0



DV14.165 LOT 284 (NO. 17) CALLINGTON AVENUE, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for upper storey additions and alterations to the ground and first floors of the existing dwelling at No. 17 Callington Avenue, City Beach. The plans show a new master bedroom, study and terrace on a new upper storey with modifications to the configuration of rooms at the two existing floor levels. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building height and visual privacy setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the addition has a low pitched roof and the portion that is overheight is central to the site

and does not significantly impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to light and ventilation or views.

• subject to modification to the upper floor terrace with a privacy screen to its eastern face, the proposal does not directly overlook the active habitable spaces of adjoining properties.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 417DA-2014 Owner: B & F Adolph Applicant: B & F Adolph Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 809 m² DETAILS:

Development description • Existing two storey dwelling with garages and two bedrooms at ground floor level and

further bedrooms and living areas at first floor level. • The site slopes up from Callington Avenue approximately 10 metres to the rear southern

boundary. The existing dwelling sits towards the rear of the site with a curved driveway and retaining walls within the first fifteen metres of the lot.

• Proposed modifications to the existing levels of the dwelling with internal changes to the layout of rooms and entry points.

• Proposed new upper storey level including a master bedroom, study and terrace. • A modification to the terrace to prevent overlooking towards the rear property is

proposed.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the wall height and privacy variations. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 15 and 19 Callington Avenue and Nos. 16 and 18 Boscastle Avenue, City Beach. One submission was received from the owners of No. 18 Boscastle Avenue objecting to the wall height variation and overlooking. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Building height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Overall height

Max 7.5 metres to top of skillion roof

7.84 metres to 8.74 metres

Design principles: 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.

As previously stated, the site has a steep slope from the front to rear boundary. The existing dwelling sits towards the rear of the site and has been cut into the side of the hill so that the garage level is partially underground. The new upper storey bedroom level sits above this cut in garage level and the height variation occurs where calculations are taken from the 'pre existing natural ground level' being the cut in garage level. The height variation reaches a maximum of 8.74 metres from the pre-cut garage level. If the natural topography levels were utilised (for example as shown on Water Corporation contour plans) the height is approximately 7.72 metres in lieu of 7.5 metres. It is noted that at the rear of the dwelling where the lot continues to slope up, the dwelling falls under height limits, even taking into account the cut level at this point. The overheight section of roof is at the section of roof that slopes down and is at the front of the upper storey addition so that it is not visible from the adjoining property to the south and cannot impact on its access to views. The low pitch of the roof to the addition and the short lengths of wall proposed mean that it does not impact on adjoining properties' access to direct sun and ventilation.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the addition has a low pitched roof and the portion that is overheight is central to the site

and does not impact on adjoining properties in terms of access to light and ventilation or views.

Visual privacy Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

Min 7.5 metres from the terrace to rear/southern and side/eastern boundaries.

6.225 metres to southern/rear boundary 6.37 metres to eastern side boundary

Design principles: 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 applicant proposes to construct a terrace adjacent to the upper floor bedroom/study addition which will include a built in barbeque area on the southern face of the terrace. Whilst the visual privacy setback is calculated from the external face of terrace at 6.225 metres, in reality someone standing on the terrace behind the barbeque bench would be a minimum distance of 6.8 metres from the rear boundary. It could also be argued, however, that the position of the barbecue space will actually encourage people on the balcony to face the southern boundary for reasonable periods of time and there is potential for overlooking in this direction. It is therefore recommended that a 1.6 metre high privacy screen be required along the southern face of the terrace. It is noted that the terrace also does not meet the deemed to comply visual privacy setback to the eastern side boundary. In this direction, the adjoining property is heavily vegetated and there are no habitable rooms or outdoor living areas that will be overlooked. The adjoining landowner has viewed the plans and has no objection to the proposed terrace and considered the level of overlooking to be 'minimal'.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the proposed terrace from the rear boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the layout of the terrace will encourage its occupants to face towards the rear boundary

and overlook the active habitable spaces of the adjoining property. It is therefore recommended the southern face of the terrace be provided with a 1.6 metre privacy screen.









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

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for upper storey additions and alterations to the existing dwelling as submitted by B and F Adolph at Lot 284 (No. 17) Callington Avenue, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 26 September 2014, subject to the following condition:- (i) a privacy screen to be provided to the southern side of the balcony (where

indicated in red on the approved plans) to restrict views into the adjoining property to the south in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

Carried 9/0



DV14.166 LOT 243 (NO. 52) MCKENZIE STREET, WEMBLEY - SECOND STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING DWELLING IN FRONT SETBACK AREA

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at No. 52 McKenzie Street, Wembley. The plans show a second storey addition to the existing dwelling on the site as well as a new double carport within the front setback area. The application requires a Council determination as the proposed location of the carport requires the widening of an existing crossover and the resultant requirement for the removal of a street tree and its relocation. It is considered that the proposed vehicular access to the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the existing ROW at the rear of the property is not likely to be paved for a number of

years and, with the relocation of the existing street tree and crossover, the proposal allows for the retention of high quality landscaping features and provides legible access to the site.

The proposal is supported with a condition requiring that the existing street tree be relocated to an alternative position on the Council verge to the Town's satisfaction.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 358DA-2014 Owner: A Marslane and E Wise Applicant: Dale Alcock Home Improvement Zoning: Residential R20 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 653 m² DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey brick and tile dwelling with a two storey garage/studio structure at

the rear with access from the ROW (Waddington Lane) which is currently unsealed. This ROW is scheduled for upgrade works in the 2019/2020 financial year.

• The site slopes down approximately 2.0 metres from the front boundary to the rear boundary.

• A second storey addition comprising a master bedroom, ensuite and retreat is proposed. The second storey addition has a wall height variation but meets the design principles requirements of the R Codes. The adjoining neighbours did not have any objection to the wall height variation.

• A double carport is proposed with a 0.45 metre setback from the front boundary. The location of the carport and widened crossover results in the proposed removal of a street tree.

• Street tree is to be relocated on the verge.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the removal and proposed relocation of the street tree. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The adjoining neighbours on either side of the subject site (No. 50 and No. 54 Mckenzie Street) were advised of the wall height variation for the proposed second storey. No submissions were received and the wall height variation was deemed to meet design principles and is not discussed further in this report. Assessment against the design principles Vehicular access Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Driveways Driveways to be located to avoid street trees, or where this is unavoidable, the street trees replaced at the applicant's expense or re-planting arrangements to be approved by the decision maker Driveway to be setback 1.5 metres from the street tree

Street tree is to be removed.

Design principles: Vehicular access provided for each development site to provide: • vehicle access safety; • reduced impact of access points on the streetscape; • legible access; • pedestrian safety; • minimal crossovers; and • high quality landscaping features.

The existing dwelling has a single crossover and a concrete drive to a garage on the southern side of the existing dwelling. The applicant proposes to provide a double carport within the front setback of the subject property which requires the widening of the existing driveway and crossover. The widened crossover results in the removal of a street tree. It is noted that the dwelling has an existing double garage at the rear off the property accessible off the rear ROW (although it is noted that this ROW is unpaved and likely to remain that way for a few years with the upgrading programme showing it scheduled for the 2019/2020 financial year). The existing street tree is a Coral tree and is approximately 3.5 metres tall and not under power lines. The street tree has been assessed to be healthy and in an appropriate location as it is equally spaced between two street trees of the same specifies located on verges either side of this location. As this tree matures it will contribute to the character of the streetscape.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Relocating the carport further towards the side boundary in order to avoid the street tree is not desirable as it will result in the removal of significant existing landscaping along the property line. In addition, as the street tree matures it is likely that a crossover in close proximity to it may be affected by root spread at surface level. The carport is considered to be additional parking, and not the only place where parking for the site can be placed so it is not considered that the removal of the street tree is 'unavoidable', however there is some argument to allow it to be relocated. It is noted that the applicant has gone to some trouble and expense to determine whether the street tree is able to survive relocation and it is considered that as this can be done and the tree relocated the carport can be supported. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed vehicular access to the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the existing ROW at the rear of the property is not likely to be paved for a number of

years and, with the relocation of the existing street tree and crossover, the carport allows for the retention of high quality landscaping features and provides legible access to the site.











COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling submitted by Dale Alcock Home Improvements at Lot 423 (No. 52) McKenzie Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 28 August 2014 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the existing street tree being relocated on the verge to be a minimum distance of 1.5

metres from the proposed crossover with all costs associated with the removal and relocation of the street tree to be at the applicant's cost;

(ii) the crossover not exceeding 4.5 metres in width (including splays).

Committee Meeting 9 December 2014 Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) should the street tree not survive being relocated, the applicant will be required to provide

a replacement mature tree (minimum 45L bag) in accordance with the Town's Treescape policy at the applicant's cost;

(iv) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed. Amendment carried 4/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling submitted by Dale Alcock Home Improvements at Lot 423 (No. 52) McKenzie Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 28 August 2014 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the existing street tree being relocated on the verge to be a minimum distance of

1.5 metres from the proposed crossover with all costs associated with the removal and relocation of the street tree to be at the applicant's cost;

(ii) the crossover not exceeding 4.5 metres in width (including splays); (iii) should the street tree not survive being relocated, the applicant will be required to

provide a replacement mature tree (minimum 45L bag) in accordance with the Town's Treescape policy at the applicant's cost;

(iv) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed. Carried 9/0



DV14.167 LOT 114 (NO. 5) SELLENGER COURT, CITY BEACH - ANCILLARY DWELLING AND ADDITIONS TO DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at No. 5 Sellenger Court, City Beach. The plans show alterations to the front of the dwelling to include a new garage and ancillary accommodation to the rear of the dwelling. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the primary street setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and the Town's Planning Policies. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed location of the garage detracts from the streetscape, diminishes the

appearance of the dwelling and limits opportunities for passive surveillance between the dwelling and the street.

• results in a front setback area which is predominantly hard surface instead of garden and planted areas.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 448DA-2014 Owner: A & M Del Borrello Applicant: A & M Del Borrello Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 870 m² DETAILS:

Development description

• Existing single storey brick and tile dwelling with double garage incorporated under the main roof the dwelling.

• The site slopes down from the right/western side to the left/eastern side boundary. The Holy Spirit Primary School and church are to the rear of the subject lot.

• Proposed modifications to the front of the dwelling to increase the size of the study and main bedroom and to extend the line of the existing garage forward to provide a new garage with side access so that cars park parallel to the street.

• The new curved driveway into the proposed side access garage reduces the amount of landscaping in the front setback area.

• A single storey ancillary accommodation dwelling is proposed at the rear of the dwelling with a nil setback to the rear boundary. This boundary abuts Holy Spirit Primary School and therefore the nil setback has no impact on the amenity of the adjoining property and is not discussed further in this report.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the primary street setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The applicant provided signatures from the owners of No. 1 and 7 Sellenger Court (the two side neighbours) as well No. 16 and 18 Sellenger Court, City Beach (across the street) stating no objection to the proposed development. Town notified the owner of the property directly adjoining the rear/southern boundary of the subject site regarding the rear setback variation, being No. 2 Keaney Place, City Beach. No submission was received. Assessment against the design principles Setback of garages and carports Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front setback

Min 7.0 metres 3.0 metres

Design principle: 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 dwellings from the street and vice versa.

The existing house has a double garage integrated with the dwelling and set back 7.5 metres from the front boundary. The Town's recently adopted Streetscape policy requires garages to be set back a further 1.0 metre from the setback specified for the precinct, which in City Beach is 6.0 metres, so that a 7.0 metre setback to double garages is required. The proposal is to extend the garage forward of the existing garage and with side access and a minimum setback of 3.0 metres. This is contrary to the intent of the policy which considers that double garages should not dominate the appearance of the house, either by extending across a large part of the front or protruding forward, or both. It is considered that this leads to streetscapes with large blank surfaces facing the street and diminishes the appearance of the dwelling and limits opportunities for passive surveillance onto and from the street. The proposed garage with a 3.0 metre setback does all of these things. In addition, the provision of a side access to the proposed garage increases the amount of hard paving in the front setback area such that the landscaping requirement of the Town's Streetscape policy is not satisfied. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the garage from the primary street boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principle for the following reason:- • the proposed location of the garage detracts from the streetscape, diminishes the



COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Landscaping in the front setback area Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Landscaping in the front setback area

Min 60% of the front setback area

50%

Design principles: Landscaping in the primary street setback area which:- • enhances the presentation of homes and gardens as viewed from the street ; and • is predominantly garden, substantial plantings and/or the retention of existing vegetation;

and • minimises the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area.

The proposed garage within the front setback and with a side access driveway means that the front setback area predominantly becomes hard surface instead of predominantly garden and plantings. The design means that the only location for providing additional mature landscaping to bring the landscaping requirement down to 50% and close to complying with the policy would be in front of the proposed double garage which would further limit surveillance between the dwelling and the street. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping provision in the front setback area does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • results in a front setback area which is predominantly hard surface instead of garden and

planted areas.








This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. The requirements for consultation have been satisfied under the statutory provisions of the Town Planning Scheme.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 ATTACHMENTS:

Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling including a garage in the front setback area as submitted by A and M Del Borrello at Lot 114 (No. 5) Sellenger Court, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 15 October 2014, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposed garage does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the

Town's Street Setbacks Policy 3.1.1 and the Street Setback design principles of part 5.1.2 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

(ii) the proposed location of the garage detracts from the streetscape, diminishes the


(iii) results in a front setback area which is predominantly hard surface instead of

garden and planted areas. Carried 9/0



DV14.168 LOT 805 (NO. 19) PEARSON PLACE, FLOREAT - PROPOSED ANCILLARY ACCOMMODATION

SUMMARY:

Council's decision to refuse the application for ancillary accommodation (i.e. a 'granny flat') at No.19 Pearson Place, Floreat, has been appealed (Item DV14.127). Following a directions hearing at the State Administrative Tribunal and a subsequent on-site mediation, the Town is encouraged to reconsider its decision to refuse the application, pursuant to section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The applicant has submitted amended plans showing a redesign of the ancillary accommodation that reduces the significance of the rear setback encroachment. It is considered that the proposal satisfies the relevant design principles of the Residential Design Codes for 'lot boundary setback' for the following reason:- • the revised footprint of the proposal, combined with decreased roof pitch and floor level,

facilitates a more practical rear yard space within the subject property and ensures greater separation between neighbouring buildings with a reduced visual impact on adjoining properties.

The amended plans are therefore recommended for approval, subject to a condition regarding proposed paving in the front setback area.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 292DA-2014 Owner: Yuen P Wong & Laddawan Wong Applicant: Davley Building Company T/A Granny Flats WA Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 832 m² On 23 September 2014 Council decided:- That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for ancillary accommodation submitted by Davley Building Pty at Lot 805 (No. 19) Pearson Place, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 16 July 2014 for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions and design principles of

part 5.1.3 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia; (ii) the significant rear setback encroachment proposed is inconsistent with the prevailing

and future development context of the immediate surrounding area and the Floreat precinct more broadly.

Carried 9/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The applicant subsequently submitted a request to the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) for a reconsideration of this decision. To date, a directions hearing and an on-site mediation have occurred in which some design solutions were discussed in respect lessening the significance of the rear setback encroachment. Following the first on-site mediation, the SAT issued orders to the effect of:- 1. By 12 November 2014 the applicants must provide to the respondent any amended floor

plan, plan of the siting of the ancillary accommodation and plan of levels relative to the rear neighbour together with any other supporting information the applicants would want the respondent to consider.

2. Pursuant to s 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA) the respondent is

invited to reconsider its decision at its meeting on 16 December 2014, having regard to the amended plans and further information provided by the applicants.

3. The matter is adjourned to a direction hearing at 10am Friday 19 December 2014. Amended plans were subsequently submitted to the Town on6 November 2014 reflecting the changes discussed at mediation. Development description • The proposed ancillary accommodation (i.e. 'granny flay') is independent from the main

dwelling, with a separation of between 1 and 2.5 metres. A plot ratio area of 72m2 is proposed, which is as per the previous iteration of the proposal.

• The internal layout has been readjusted to a more 'square' footprint, and is now aligned towards the right/north-western side of the site with the structure pushed further towards the existing dwelling.

• The roof pitch has been reduced to 10 degrees (previously 20 degrees), whilst the finished floor level has also been dropped by 100 millimetres.

• A 6.89 metre length of wall is set back 1.5 metres from the rear/south-western boundary, compared with 9.89 metres on the previous plan.

• An additional paved area and crossover within the front setback area is also proposed to cater for additional vehicle parking (this was also indicated on the previous proposal). This new hardstand will impact landscaping provision. It is considered that there is adequate vehicle parking within the existing driveway and garage on the subject site, and as such a condition is included with the recommendation to ensure that this area is maintained as landscaping. No additional car bay is required under the R-Codes given that the property is located within close proximity to a bus route.

Applicant's justification No additional applicant justification has been provided. Please refer to applicant comments submitted for the original proposal as these remarks are still applicable (DV 14.127).


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Rear setback

Min 6 metres 1.5 - 2.7 metres




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

This revised proposal is an improvement upon the original design in all regards. Despite no neighbour objections to the previous proposal, the modifications that have been made (which include reducing the floor level and roof pitch) will ensure a reduced visual impact on neighbouring properties. To illustrate this, the applicant has provided a cross section showing the separation between the neighbouring property to the rear/south-west and the proposed granny flat. This plan shows that the granny flat will project approximately 1.45 metres above the existing dividing fence (measured to the top of the roof), when viewed from the neighbouring property. This is assisted by the fact that the adjoining property to the rear is sited higher than the subject property. In addition, the proportion of wall set back a minimum of 1.5 metres from the rear boundary has been decreased as a result of the re-adjustment to the internal floor plan of the granny flat. This results in the proposal extending for less than half the length of the rear boundary, ensuring that a sizeable outdoor yard space is preserved to the left/south-east. The revised footprint and position of the granny flat ensures that space is utilised more effectively within the site, particularly within the 6 metre rear setback area. The floor level of the granny flat is at natural ground level, and therefore a visual privacy assessment is not required, and there are also no overshadowing issues to note. They key reason for refusal pertinent to the previous proposal related to the inconsistency of the rear setback encroachment with the prevailing and future development context within Floreat. It is considered that the amended plans provided have addressed this concern appropriately, allowing for a more practical rear yard space and greater separation between buildings on neighbouring properties. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the rear/south-western boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:-



• the revised footprint of the proposal, combined with decreased roof pitch and floor level, facilitates a more practical rear yard space within the subject property and ensures greater separation between neighbouring buildings with a reduced visual impact on adjoining properties.


There are no policy or statutory implications related to this report. The proposal was assessed against the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), Town Planning Scheme No.1, and the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual.







1. Summary of applicant's justification COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, the State Administrative Tribunal be advised that Council is prepared to APPROVE the proposed ancillary accommodation on the plans dated 6 November 2014 at Lot 805 (No. 19) Pearson Place, Floreat, put forward for reconsideration pursuant to section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in

red as shown on the approved plan. Specifically, the new paved car bay and crossover within the front setback area does not form part of this approval;

(ii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond. Carried 9/0



DV14.169 LOT 697 (NO. 123) GRANTHAM STREET, FLOREAT - PROPOSED CARPORT AND DECK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a carport and new driveway at No. 123 Grantham Street. The plans show the construction of an open style double carport within the front setback area of the subject property. Most notably the proposal includes a concrete driveway that occupies approximately 80 percent of the primary street setback area. As such, the application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the landscaping design principles contained in Policy 3.1: Streetscape. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • extensive landscaping is to be provided beyond the primary street setback area and in

front of the dwelling, as well as the retention of two mature trees; and combined with the relatively open nature of the proposed new structures, the impact of the proposed landscaping shortfall will be effectively offset that will assist in offsetting the significance of the landscaping shortfall.

• Grantham Street is a District Distributor (A) road (as classified under the Town's Road Hierarchy) vehicular access in a forward gear onto this road is encouraged and therefore an area for a turning bay is supported.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to conditions.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0379DA-2014 Owner: Emma Smetana Applicant: Tuck Construction Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 883 m²

DETAILS:

Development description • The existing single storey dwelling on the site is set back between 9 and 20 metres from

the street. • Proposal comprises a new 5.2 metre wide crossover, 6 metre wide driveway, new

landscaping areas and a side-loading double carport with a bin store attached that abuts the western boundary, the owner of the subject property consulted these neighbours on the Town's behalf. A deck is also proposed in front of the dwelling, with a FFL to match that of the dwelling, this was the subject of a separate application approved under delegated authority.

• The carport and adjoining bin store are mostly unenclosed and contain water-permeable roofs, similar to a pergola.



• Landscaping is proposed along the front of the new driveway and in front of the main dwelling. In addition, two existing mature trees between the street and the dwelling are proposed to be retained.

• Landscaping provision within the 6 metre primary street setback area equates to approximately 20 percent.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the primary street setback area landscaping requirement. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The owner of the subject property consulted the adjoining western neighbour in respect to the bin store nil side boundary setback. The adjoining property owners have signed the plans with no objections to the proposal. Assessment against the design principles Landscaping in the front setback area Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Landscaping in the front setback area

Min 60% of the front setback area

Approximately 20%

Design principles: Landscaping in the primary street setback area which:- • enhances the presentation of homes and gardens as viewed from the street ; and • is predominantly garden, substantial plantings and/or the retention of existing vegetation;

and • minimises the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area.

It is acknowledged that the landscaping provided is very low compared to the deemed to comply provision. It is considered that the significant area of landscaping beyond the primary street setback area, combined with the 20 percent landscaping within the setback area itself, will ensure a presentation that is 'predominantly garden'. The applicant has justified that over 50 percent of the area between the front boundary and the dwelling is to be landscaped, in addition to the retention of two mature trees. The proposed carport and adjoining bin store are highly permeable and unenclosed structures with a design more in keeping with a pergola than a traditional carport. This fact serves to lessen the impact of these structures as viewed from the street, allowing for clear views to and from the main dwelling. It could also be said that the proposal will enhance the presentation of the property, as viewed from the street, due to the proposed removal of the existing concrete driveway behind the primary front setback area which is to be replaced with landscaping. Importantly, the area behind the setback area is highly visible from the streetscape given open nature of the front boundary fence and the large setback of the dwelling from the street. Given that an existing low solid wall exists along the front boundary that effectively obscures the front setback area, the majority of the new driveway will not be clearly perceptible when viewed from Grantham Street.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Furthermore, the proposal also includes the retention of two mature established trees that will assist with further softening the carport structure as well as ensuring that an established 'green' presentation to the property is maintained. A condition will be included to ensure that this outcome is achieved. It is also acknowledged that as Grantham Street is classified as a District Distributor (A) road under the Town's Road Hierarchy, forward vehicle access onto this road is ensouraged under the Residential Design Codes. A such, it is recognised that it would be almost impossible to comply with the 60 percent landscaping provision whilst also providing for a compliant vehicle turning area, particularly given the Town's recent reduction of the primary street setback in the Floreat R12.5 zone to 6 metres. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed landscaping within the primary street setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • extensive landscaping is to be provided beyond the primary street setback area and in

front of the dwelling, as well as the retention of two mature trees; and combined with the relatively open nature of the proposed new structures, the impact of the proposed landscaping shortfall will be effectively offset.











COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport and deck submitted by Tuck Construction at Lot 697 (No. 123) Grantham Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 4 September 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the roof material of the carport and bin store to remain water-permeable; (ii) three mature trees, as indicated in red on the Site Plan, are to be retained to the

satisfaction of the Town; (iii) the carport and bin store to remain unenclosed, no solid door to be installed. Carried 9/0



DV14.170 LOT 8 (NO. 65) KIMBERLEY STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CARPORT OFF REAR RIGHT OF WAY

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a carport at No. 65 Kimberley Street, West Leederville. The plans show a carport with a skillion roof in the rear corner of the site accessed off the rear ROW (Kneebone Lane). The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the carport will primarily overshadow the rear corner of the adjoining site and not outdoor

living areas and will not significantly impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the south.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 457DA-2014 Owner: A Hasluck Applicant: Landstyle Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 405 m² DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey dwelling with existing uncovered carbay at rear (accessed from

Kneebone Lane). • The dwellings along this section of Kimberley Street are approximately half a metre

higher than street level and predominantly have carparking at the rear of the site. • The applicant proposes to construct a carport over the existing carbay and with a 0.2

metre setback to the southern side boundary. The eaves of the carport will have a nil setback to the boundary.

• The carport has a skillion roof so that it ranges in height from 3.2 metres on the southern boundary to 4.3 metres on its northern side.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the proposed setback variation to the carport. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Neighbour submission The Town notified the owner of the property directly adjoining the southern boundary of the subject site, being Nos. 63 Kimberley Street. A submission was received from the owners of adjoining property objecting to the carport location on the basis of overshadowing together with issues as to the closeness of the driveway to the boundary line. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre to carport piers from southern side boundary

0.2 metres





The dwelling has an existing carbay at the rear of the dwelling. There is no other location on the site available for carparking with the remainder of the rear garden having a large tree and garden area. Parking off Kimberley Street is not possible due to level differences nor is it encouraged where a ROW is available. The carport has been designed with a skillion roof with the lowest point of the roof being adjcant to the southern boundary. The carport is open to the southern side boundary and no parapet wall is proposed. The eaves line is within the property and all stormwater will be retained o site. The adjoining property to the south also has an outbuilding at the rear of the site and it appears that their outdoor living areas are further forward on the lot so that the carpaort is unlikely to affect light to habitable rooms our outdoor living areas. The open carport with a skillion roof angling away from the adjoining property also assists in reducing building bulk.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Overall, in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the carport will primarily overshadow the rear corner of the adjoining site and not outdoor

living areas and will not significantly impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the south.









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

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport as submitted by Landstyle at Lot 8 (No. 65) Kimberley Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 21 October 2014, subject to the following condition:- (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.

Carried 9/0



DV14.171 LOT 44 STRATA LOT 2 (NO. 65B) EVANDALE STREET, FLOREAT - POOL PUMP HOUSE ROOF

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a roof over the pool pump structure at No. 65B Evandale Street, Floreat. The plans show a new roof above the existing pool pump. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the height of the roof is marginally higher than the existing boundary fence and will not

result in any undue impact on neighbouring properties. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0459DA-2014 Owner: Mr J R Male and Mrs N A Male Applicant: Mr J R Male and Mrs N A Male Zoning: Residential R15 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 518 m² DETAILS:

Development description • There is no change to the location of the pool pump. The proposal is for a new roof which

runs downwards from the south to north to prevent runoff to adjoining properties. • The roof will be in line with the boundary fence to the west, and will be approximately 0.2

metres higher than the boundary fence to the rear. • The current pool pump area is approximately 0.7 metres below the subject property's

deck, and from that lower level will have a height of 2.15 metres. The roof will be 1.75 metres from the subject property's deck.

• The roof will cover an area of 1.5 metres (western boundary) by 3.475 metres (southern boundary).

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to lot boundary setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the southern and western boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 66A Alderbury Street and 67 Evandale Street. One submission was received from the owners of No. 67 Evandale Street objecting to the roof. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre Nil.





The roof to the pool pump house will be in marginally higher (<0.1 metres) than the existing boundary fence to the west, therefore having no impact on sunlight or ventilation to the adjoining property to the west. The roof will run to the rear of the adjoining property to the west, and will be approximately 1.5 metres in length. It will not affect any habitable room windows or outdoor living areas. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed nil setback of the roof of the pool pump structure satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the height of the roof is marginally higher than the existing boundary fence and will not

result in any undue impact on neighbouring properties.











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

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a pool pump house roof submitted by Mr J R Male and Mrs N A Male at Lot 44 Strata Lot 2 (No. 65B) Evandale Street, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 21 October 2014.

Carried 9/0



DV14.172 LOT 46 (NO. 19) JUKES WAY, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED GROUPED DWELLING DEVELOPMENT (NEW REAR SINGLE STOREY DWELLING) - STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL RECONSIDERATION

This report has been prepared by the planning consultant representing the Council. SUMMARY: The Council’s decision to approve the application for a new single storey grouped dwelling at No. 19 Jukes Way, Wembley, subject to a condition requiring that the bedroom 3 and bathroom wall and roof being set back 1 metre from the western side boundary, has been appealed. Upon receipt of the Application for Review and following a directions hearing and mediation at the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT), the Council reconsidered amended plans at the Council meeting in October 2014. Those amended plans were approved with conditions similar to the original decision of July 2014 requiring the western elevation to be set back from the western lot boundary. The Applicant then sought further reconsideration based upon further revision to the plans. Those revised sketch plans were presented in the mediation attended by Allerding and Associates (representing the Council) and one Councillor. Plans have now been received incorporating those changes as presented and these final plans are now presented to Council for reconsideration. The Council is encouraged to reconsider its decision to impose a condition requiring a 0.75 metre setback of the bedroom 3 robe from the western lot boundary, pursuant to section 31(1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004. The amended plans show a 0.75 metres setback of bedroom 3 from the western lot boundary and an internal relocation of the robe to the eastern side of bedroom 3. The setback of the southern portion of the bedroom 3 wall is reduced from 1.05 metres to 0.75 metres to align with the revised setback. The plans retain the setback of between 1.07 metres and 1.55 metres for the remainder of the western elevation as shown on the previously amended plans to improve the building bulk impacts on the western boundary. As a result of the plan amendments, variations to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) are proposed in relation to lot boundary setbacks and outdoor living area requirements (as a result of the previously amended plans). An assessment against the design principles has been undertaken and the proposal is considered to be acceptable. The amended plans are recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 183DA-2014 Owner: C Heath Applicant: Ventura ID Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (grouped) ‘AA’ – requires planning approval Land area 728 m²


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 At the meeting held on 22 July 2014, Council considered an application for a grouped dwelling development comprising a new single storey dwelling to the rear of an existing dwelling at the subject site. There was a neighbour objection to these plans, particularly in relation to the lot boundary setback variation resulting in overshadowing and loss of ventilation to the east facing habitable room of the dwelling at No. 17B Jukes Way. The officer’s recommendation included a condition requiring a 0.5 metre setback from the western side boundary to remove some of the bulk and shadow impact to the adjoining property. The grouped dwelling was subsequently approved by Council with a condition requiring a minimum 1.0 metre setback to the western side boundary. The condition required as follows:- (i) the minimum setback of the bedroom 3 and bathroom wall and roof from the western side

boundary to be 1 metre. The Applicant lodged an Application for Review to the SAT in response to condition (i) of Council’s approval. As an outcome of the Directions Hearing held on 3 September 2014, the matter was listed for a site viewing and mediation. As the application was supported by officers with a minimum setback to the western side boundary of 0.5 metre, the mediation was conducted by planning consultants (Allerding & Associates). At the mediation, various modifications to the grouped dwelling were discussed with respect to reducing the impact of the building on the outlook from the property at No. 17B Jukes Way. At the mediation, SAT orders were given that the applicant was to prepare an amendment to the plans and submit to the Council for its consideration. SAT Orders were also given for Council to reconsider its decision, with respect to condition (i), in light of the revised plans. The amended plans which were then reconsidered by Council, at its October 2014 meeting:- • Reduced the overall length of the western boundary wall from 5.29 metres to 1.87 metres

and aligned the southern end of the western boundary wall with the southern end of the eastern boundary wall of the adjoining property at No. 17B Jukes Way;

• Reduced the impact on the neighbouring property to the west at 17B Jukes Way with respect to building bulk, as well as access to sun, light and ventilation; and

• Achieved the acceptable development standards of Policy 3.2: Buildings on the Boundary as the wall was built up to a boundary behind the front setback line abutting a simultaneously constructed wall of greater dimension.

Council at its October 2014 meeting decided to approve the amended proposal with an additional condition requiring as follows:- (ii) the built in robes of bedroom 3 be set back from the western boundary 750mm. A mediation was held following the Council decision of October 2014 and was attended by Allerding & Associates (representing the Council) and one Councillor. Revised plans were presented at the mediation which were discussed. The applicant has now submitted revised plans in response to the mediation and these revised plans are now presented to Council for reconsideration. As detailed in the summary earlier in this report, the revised plans now subject of reconsideration:- • Modify the design such that rather than having a boundary wall adjacent to the bedroom

3 robe, the western elevation is set back 0.75 metres from the western boundary and internally the robe is relocated to the eastern side of the room;

• Reduce the setback of the southern portion of the bedroom 3 wall from 1.05 metres to 0.75 metres to align with the revised setback of the northern portion of the bedroom 3 wall; and



• Retain the setback of between 1.07 metres and 1.55 metres for the remainder of the western elevation as shown on the previously amended plans to improve the building bulk impacts on the western boundary.

If Council does not approve the plans, a further directions hearing is scheduled for 22 December 2014, whereby the matter may be programmed for a hearing. If Council approves the plans, a full hearing may not be required. In the event that the Council approve the application and the conditions are acceptable to the applicant, the application for review can then be withdrawn.

DETAILS:

Development description • There is an existing brick and tile dwelling facing the street. This dwelling is proposed to

be retained and upgraded. Currently the front yard has been cleared and the owner would like to construct a carport and landscape at a later stage. The applicant is aware of the Town's landscaping in the front setback requirements and a condition is proposed in this regard.

• The site is flat. To the west is a grouped dwelling development containing two dwellings, to the north and east are single dwellings.

• The plans for the new rear dwelling show three bedrooms, two bathrooms and a central main living/meals/kitchen area. There is an alfresco and courtyard in the north-western corner of the property. A double garage is proposed against the new internal (south) boundary between the front and rear dwelling.

• The plans show two boundary walls, on the east side for the ensuite and WIR and the south side for the double garage.

• The owner of the adjoining property to the west at No. 17B Jukes Way previously objected to the third boundary wall adjacent to bedroom 3 and bathroom.

• The modifications to the plans considered by Council at its July 2014 meeting as shown on the amended plans are:- • increase in the western boundary setback to the bedroom 3 wall from nil setback to

0.75 metres; • increase in the western boundary setback to the bathroom wall from nil setback to

1.07 metres; • relocation of the bathroom and laundry; • reduction of the western boundary setback to the laundry and northern portion of

bedroom 2 from 1.56 metres to 1.07 metres; • reduction of the western boundary setback to the southern portion of bedroom 2

from 1.56 metres to 1.55 metres; and, • reduction of the northern boundary setback of bedroom 3 from 5.60 metres to

5.24 metres, resulting in a reduction of the outdoor living area from 24m² to 22.5m². • While the proposed bedroom 3 setback does not meet the deemed-to-comply

requirements of the R-Codes relating to lot boundary setbacks, the proposal satisfies the design principles as the bedroom 3 wall will not result in a negative bulk or overshadowing impact on the neighbouring property.

Applicant's justification No additional justification has been provided in relation to the proposed plan amendments.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Neighbour Consultation In regard to the original application considered by Council in July 2014, the owners of the neighbouring property to the west at No. 17B Jukes Way objected to the plans for the proposed grouped dwelling. The objection related to concerns that the proposed western boundary wall would significantly block sun, light and ventilation to the front of their house and create overshadowing and a dark, damp environment. Furthermore, the neighbour raised concern that the building of this wall in such close proximity to the front of their home would lead to damage to their property. On invitation by SAT, the owners of No. 17B Jukes Way attended the first mediation. Their concerns, which were presented and discussed at that mediation, have been addressed in the revised plans provided by the Applicant. The owners of No. 17B Jukes Way have not been contacted with respect to the latest amended plans given that the latest plans reflect the modifications which were discussed in the initial mediation and are therefore considered to address the neighbour’s concerns. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Minimum of 1.0 metre for a wall height of 3.5m or less and a length of 9.0m or less for walls with no major openings.

0.75m for bedroom 3 wall from western side boundary (wall height of 2.43m and wall length of 3.09m).


adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. The plans considered by Council at its July 2014 meeting included three boundary walls for the proposed grouped dwelling. As part of the neighbour consultation undertaken as part of Council’s assessment, one objection was received from the owners of No. 17B Jukes Way in response to the proposed western boundary wall. The two remaining boundary walls were considered by Council to meet the design principles and no other objections were received from neighbours during the neighbour consultation process. With regard to the concerns of the neighbour at No. 17B Jukes Way and the potential for the dwelling to restrict sun, light and ventilation to the front of their house and create overshadowing and a dark, damp environment, the proposed grouped dwelling is located directly adjacent to the driveway, entry and porch areas of this neighbouring property. The walk-in-robe and ensuite of the dwelling at No. 17B Jukes Way is constructed to the boundary and the windows from bedroom 1 and the walk-in-robe are orientated to the south. A window from the lounge/dining room of this neighbouring dwelling is orientated to the east, but is set back from the boundary and separated by the driveway. Therefore, whilst there may be some loss of morning sun into these windows, access to direct sun from the north is not impacted by the proposed dwelling throughout the day.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 With respect to the design principles, the main consideration is therefore whether the proposed grouped dwelling would result in impacts of building bulk on the neighbouring property at No. 17B Jukes Way. As demonstrated above, the design of the proposed dwelling has been modified to set the entire 3.09 metre length of the bedroom 3 wall off the western boundary by 0.75 metres to introduce separation between the proposed dwelling and the eastern parapet wall at No. 17B Jukes Way and further reduce building bulk. Along the remainder of the western boundary, to the south of bedroom 3, the dwelling has been set back by 1.07 metres in accordance with the lot boundary setback requirements adjacent to the laundry, bathroom and bedroom 2 robe. A 1.55 metre minimum lot boundary setback from the bedroom 2 habitable room window has been maintained in accordance with the lot boundary setback requirements. The cumulative result of modifications, which includes the removal of the boundary wall element, represents an overall reduction in building bulk from the western boundary which will achieve a reduced impact on the neighbouring dwelling at No. 17B Jukes Way. In summary, the removal of the western boundary wall and introduction of a 0.75 metres lot boundary setback to the bedroom 3 wall meets the design principles for lot boundary setbacks under the R-Codes and is therefore supported and recommended for approval. Outdoor living areas Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

• 24m² minimum outdoor living area; • behind the street setback area; • directly accessible from a habitable room

of the dwelling; • with a minimum length and width

dimension of 4 metres; and • to have at least two-thirds of the required

area without permanent roof cover.

• 22.5m² minimum outdoor living area with a minimum dimension of 4.29 metres.

• Located behind the street setback area; • Directly accessible from the living and

meals area; • Allows for at least two-thirds of the

required area without permanent roof cover.

Design principles: Outdoor living areas which provide spaces: • capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling; • open to winter sun and ventilation; and • optimise use of the northern aspect of the site. As a result of the proposed modifications to the western lot boundary setbacks of the proposed grouped dwelling, the outdoor living area has been reduced. In order to retain the overall floor area of bedroom 3, the Applicant proposes to reduce the setback of bedroom 3 to the northern boundary from 5.60 metres to 5.24 metres, resulting in a reduction of the outdoor living area from 24m² to 22.5m². The outdoor living area is positioned to the north of the dwelling and is accessible from the primary living space (living/meals area). The outdoor living area is also located adjacent to the narrow area of open space between the dwelling and the northern property boundary, which will form a natural extension to the primary outdoor living space. The amended plans have also removed the roof structure which previously covered the entire alfresco area. The alfresco area will now be afforded unconstrained northern sunlight and ventilation.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Overall in view of the above comments and the revised plan which addresses the building bulk impacts on the western lot boundary, it is considered that the proposed reduction of outdoor living area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • a minimum outdoor living area dimension of 4.29 metres is maintained in accordance with

the deemed-to-comply requirements; • the alfresco area is directly accessible from the living/meals area; and • the removal of the permanent roof cover meets the deemed-to-comply requirement as it

allows for at least two-thirds of the area to be uncovered. This also allows for additional winter sun and ventilation to this area.




Some costs may be incurred if this appeal requires a full hearing. These costs are charged against the Planning & Compliance operating budgets.





Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, pursuant to section 31 (1) of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), the State Administrative Tribunal be advised that Council is prepared to reconsider its decision to APPROVE the amended proposal for the grouped dwelling development (new rear single storey dwelling) as submitted by Ms. Candice Heath at Lot 46 (No. 19) Jukes Way, Wembley as shown on the revised plans dated 7 November 2014, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the ensuite and WIR boundary wall facing the adjoining

property to the east and the bedroom 2 and garage boundary wall facing south to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 (ii) an updated landscape plan is to be prepared and submitted to reflect the amended

plans to the satisfaction of the Town; and (iii) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved landscape plan, to be installed

and reticulated prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 9/0



DV14.173 LOTS 165 AND 166 (NO 210) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED SCHEME AMENDMENT FOR ADDITIONAL USE 'CONSULTING ROOMS' (GROUP)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application to initiate a Scheme Amendment for an Additional Use 'Consulting Rooms (group)' at Lots 165 and 166 (No. 210) Cambridge Street, Wembley. The application is required to be initiated by Council for the purposes of commencing public advertising. Planning approval on the subject lots was most recently issued on 15 September 1997 for two (2) consulting rooms with an ancillary office space. The development has continued to operate in accordance with the planning approval and the approved use currently has valid non-conforming use rights. The owner of the site has expressed the interest to operate four (4) consulting rooms at any one time and changing the use of the site to 'Consulting Rooms (group)', which is an 'X' use within the 'Residential' zone and not permitted. Consequently, the owner has submitted an application for an additional use 'Consulting Rooms (group)' to allow future discretion for approving the development. The proposed land use is considered suitable for the location due to its longstanding operational status without any known complaints received from neighbouring properties. The locality is also in close proximity to the Commercial zone and Medical zone and the business is a small scale commercial use and in nature operates by appointment only. Therefore, the proposal is not considered to adversely affect the amenity of the properties in the abutting Residential zone. The additional use would also be accompanied by appropriate development standards to limit the intensity of operations and maintain the quality of the streetscape.

Accordingly, it is recommended that the Town initiate the scheme amendment for an additional use to be included on the subject site for the use of 'Consulting Rooms (group)'.

BACKGROUND:

Owner: Barry White & Graham Guest Applicant: Peter D Webb and Associates Zoning: Residential R60 Use class: Consulting Rooms (group) - 'X' Use Land area: 849m² The City of Perth resolved to issue an original planning approval for two (2) consulting rooms on the subject properties in February 1992. More recently, the Town of Cambridge resolved to refuse modifications to the original planning approval, which included an additional consulting room and ancillary office space. The determination was subsequently appealed and upheld by the Minister, dated 19 August 1997. Further to the Minister's decision, planning approval for the abovementioned modifications was issued by the Council on 15 September 1997. The approval was conditioned so that a maximum of two consulting rooms are to operate at any one time.



Development description • Existing approval is for three (3) consulting rooms (although only two rooms are to

operate at any one time) and an ancillary office space with a total of ten (10) car parking spaces and access provided from Creech Lane. An application has been received to amend the Scheme and include consulting rooms (group) as an additional land use applicable to the subject site only to allow for the discretion to approve additional consulting rooms, which is currently not permitted.

• The adjoining site to the east includes a single house (single storey) and is zoned 'Residential' with a density coding of R60; the property to the west includes a commercial building with retail and food outlet uses located in the 'Commercial' zone. To the north of the subject site includes single houses in the 'Residential' zone with a density of R30.

• The existing building is single storey and residential in nature composed of predominantly red brick and various other colours and materials. The building is setback approximately 9m from the Cambridge Street road reserve and incorporates mature landscaping forward of the building line and a 1.8m solid red brick boundary wall. It is considered the existing building is of high quality design, which contributes positively to the street.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the proposed additional use. A copy of the submission is provided in Attachment 1. Comment An additional use does not change the zoning of the subject properties but provides a specific land use that the Town has discretion to approve and allows for a greater level of development control via specific planning conditions relating to the operations and built form of that use. Land use The site is zoned 'Residential' with a density coding of R60 under Town Planning Scheme No 1. The use of 'Consulting Rooms (Group)' is an 'X' use in the 'Residential' zone, which means it is a use that is not permitted by the Scheme. The non-conforming use right for 'consulting rooms' applicable to the site is subject to Clause 15(11) of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The proposed additional use is considered suitable due to its location directly abutting the commercial zone and also its close proximity to the Medical zone. Further, consulting rooms have continued to operate on the subject site since 1994 and no known complaints have been received regarding noise, car parking or any other matters that may adversely affect the amenity of the abutting 'Residential' zone. The consulting rooms also operate on an appointment only basis only, which allows for a greater control of car parking. The introduction of an additional use could be viewed to set a new precedent for the introduction of other additional uses for properties along Cambridge Street also in close proximity to the Medical zone. However, it is noted that individual assessment would still be required of any future proposals for additional uses. The proposal formalises the existing approved development which is only a low-intensity use along Cambridge Street. Building design and Development Standards The introduction of development standards will aim to maintain a generally residential appearance for development and minimise any adverse amenity impacts along the abutting the residential zoned properties. The existing building contributes to the streetscape and should be retained. Any future alteration to the dwelling or proposal for a new residential dwelling is to be


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 generally designed in accordance with the Residential Design Codes and the Town's Residential Planning Policies. In order to limit the intensity of the proposed use, the consulting rooms will be limited to a maximum of four (4) practitioners operating at any one time. Any future application to alter or construct a new building is also to comply with all commercial provisions relating to car parking and signage. On this basis, the submission to include an additional use of 'consulting rooms (group)' on the subject site is considered suitable due its appropriateness with surrounding land uses and the control of building design by means of the proposed development standards.


The introduction of an additional use will involve an amendment to Schedule 2 of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1 to include the additional use and associated development standards and conditions.






Subject to Council support the Scheme Amendment will be advertised to all effected neighbouring land owners and occupiers in accordance with Town Planning regulations. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of applicant's submission. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) pursuant to Part 5 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, Council resolves to

initiate an Amendment to the Town of Cambridge Planning Scheme No. 1 to introduce an additional use for 'consulting rooms (group)' to Lots 165 and 166 (No. 210) Cambridge Street, Wembley to the existing 'Residential' R60 zone;

(ii) Schedule 2 in Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be amended to include the following

Development Standards and Conditions for the additional use "Consulting Rooms (Group)" at Lots 165 and 166 (No. 210) Cambridge Street, Wembley:- • development standards as applicable to the Residential zone shall apply

except where specified otherwise below;



• lots 165 and 166 Cambridge Street, Wembley to be amalgamated; • the existing building is to be retained except for any minor modifications,

alterations or additions deemed appropriate by the Town subject to future planning approval;

• access and car parking standards are to be provided in accordance with Scheme requirements;

• any future signage to be in accordance with the Council's Advertising Sign Policy;

• a maximum of four (4) consulting rooms are to operate at any one time; and • operational hours are to be determined by the Town and all client visits are to

be by appointment only.

Carried 9/0



DV14.174 FORMER NURSERY SITE - OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN - OUTCOMES OF ADVERTISING AND COUNCIL ADOPTION

SUMMARY:

An Outline Development Plan (ODP) has been prepared by Landcorp for the Former Nursery Site Lot 520 (No. 189) Salvado Road, Jolimont which has been publicly advertised and is presented to Council for final adoption. The ODP is a statutory document which sets out the residential density and dwelling targets, public open space and local road and access network for the site and is based on various studies including environmental assessment, landscape planning and traffic analysis. The plan is based on a minimum housing target of 200 dwellings and maximum housing target of 350 dwellings which is considered to be achievable based on the building envelopes deemed suitable for the area. A total of 25 single terrace-style dwellings are proposed, which will be located in the southern portion of the site. Apartment buildings, ranging between three and six storeys in height are proposed in the northern portion of the site and in the south-east corner towards Mabel Talbot Reserve. The Town received 23 submissions through public consultation, with nine (9) from service agencies and government bodies. The concerns from residents and landowners in the area mostly related to the impact of building bulk on the surrounding residential area and parkland, traffic concerns, loss of vegetation and potential for impact on local fauna. Consideration of the interface of the development area and the impact of the design on the local area, have formed key elements in the preparation of the plan. Public open space, which is proposed along the eastern boundary and an improved pedestrian access way to the south, will assist with presenting a buffer against the adjoining parkland and residential areas, and building height will be tapered to address the street and adjoining reserves. Another important consideration has been the impact of traffic volumes on Salvado Road and it is considered that, subject to more detailed design work at subdivision stage, that the impact on this road will be satisfactory. With regard to fauna issues which have been raised, a fauna management plan is to be prepared to address the possible impacts on fauna during the construction phase. Overall the ODP presents a plan with balanced consideration of impacts on environmental values and the surrounding residential area, which responds to the Town's housing targets under Directions 2031 and requirements as per Scheme Amendment 26. Following Council's consideration of the ODP, it will be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission, for endorsement which is required for it to take effect. Design guidelines will also be prepared and advertised to control the design of single and multiple dwellings proposed in the area.

BACKGROUND:

LANDOWNERS: Town of Cambridge APPLICANT: Landcorp ZONING: MRS: Urban TPS No.1: Residential with Special Control Area The former City of Perth Plant Nursery at part Lot 520 (No. 189) Salvado Road ceased operations prior to the establishment of the Town of Cambridge in 1994. Since then the 3.9 hectare (39,000m²) site has been used from time to time by the Council's Works and Parks Department for storage purposes.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 In 2002, the site was rezoned "Urban" from "Reserve" in the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Since that time it has remained unzoned under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 while land sale arrangements were being determined between the Town and the State Government. More recently, it was resolved that Landcorp will assume ownership of the majority of the site (3.7 hectares) for the purposes of developing the site, and the remaining 2,000 m² of the site would be used for an access road to Wembley Sports Park. At its meeting held on 15 October 2013 (DV13.127), Council adopted Scheme Amendment 26 to Town Planning Scheme No.1, which was subsequently gazetted on 2 August 2014. The Scheme Amendment zoned the former Nursery Site from no zone to "Residential" with a Special Control Area (SCA2) to allow for the future preparation of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) to progress development on the site and to set out the residential density over the site. The ODP is required to be adopted prior to subdivision or residential development being approved. The objectives for development and planning decision making within SCA No. 2 are:- • to facilitate orderly development and subdivision of the land for residential purposes, in

accordance with the use permissibility designations applicable to the Residential Zone in the Zoning Table;

• to facilitate a vibrant inner city community with a minimum of 200 dwellings; • to encourage a high standard of built form design outcomes; • to encourage connectivity, permeability and enhanced pedestrian and cycle movements;

and • to ensure that development of the site produces a diverse range of residential built form

and lot types by requiring the preparation and approval of an Outline Development Plan and Design Guidelines prior to the Council considering recommending subdivision or approving development in the area.

SCA No.2 also includes the following provisions for the Residential Zoned Area: • The principles and provisions of the Commission’s “Liveable Neighbourhoods” guidelines

are to apply to the area, and particular consideration is to be given to matters of permeability and connectivity and lot orientation.

• The Outline Development Plan is to incorporate design guidelines to guide residential development in the area. The design guidelines are to indicate the extent to which variations from the Codes may be approved by the Council.

• Residential density will be as set out in the Outline Development Plan. • No vehicle access will be taken from Halesworth Road or Peel Street, which connect with

the southern boundary of the site. • Permissible use classes are to be as per the ‘Residential’ zone requirements outlined in

the Scheme unless varied within the Outline Development Plan. During public consultation of Scheme Amendment 26, many comments were received which required further consideration as part of the detailed design stage. The main concerns included:- • Traffic and access problems, particularly along Salvado Road and parking shortages,

adding to existing concerns relating to parking and access at the adjoining Wembley Sports Park;

• The density of development and built form relative to the surrounding residential areas and how the development integrates with the surrounding area; and

• The potential for loss of trees and environmental impacts upon development of the site.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Council resolved that the matters raised through consultation regarding public open space, vehicular access to the site and building height and density would be considered as part of the ODP. In addition, the City of Subiaco indicated that any future ODP should incorporate green public open space linkages between the site and the surrounding public open spaces and facilitate the creation of a 'green buffer' between the site and its southern boundary. This ODP submitted by Landcorp has been advertised for public comment. The outcomes of advertising are presented to Council in the following report, which submits the ODP to Council for final adoption. The ODP (Part 1 and 2) is included in Attachment 1. A copy of the full document including all technical report attachments is available online at www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/jolimont and will be available for viewing at the meeting.

DETAILS:

The ODP is a statutory document to guide future land use and development for the former Nursery site. Its purpose is to facilitate medium and high density residential development, meeting the Town of Cambridge’s housing target of a minimum of 200 dwellings for the subject site. The development will contribute to the Town of Cambridge’s housing diversity and infill targets identified under the Town’s Local Housing Strategy and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Directions 2031. The preparation of this ODP has been informed by a community engagement strategy undertaken by Landcorp comprising six (6) community open days and an online community forum undertaken from August 2013 through to June 2014. Key Statistics Item Data Total area covered by the Structure Plan 3.91 hectares

Area of each land use proposed: Residential Public Open Space Drainage Roads

2.33 hectares 0.43 hectares 0.05 hectares 1.1 hectares

Estimated lot yield (lots) 32 lots Estimated Dwelling Target 200 - 350 Estimated population (people) 340 - 595

Land Use The following ODP map outlines land use, zones and reserves applicable within the ODP area. The zones and reserves designated under this ODP apply to the land as if the zones and reserves were incorporated directly into Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The ODP includes an area for single terrace style dwellings with rear laneway access to be developed to Residential R50 standards. This area is located towards the south of the site and will feature lots ranging from approximately 270 m² to 300 m². Ancillary dwellings will also be permitted on these sites. Meanwhile, multiple dwelling sites are located on the northern half of the site and on the south-east corner of the site abutting Mabel Talbot Park/Henderson Park. These sites will be


http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/jolimont

COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 developed to Residential R80 standards. The apartments will provide a mix of one (1) to three (3) bedroom units. While the predominant land use in the area will be residential, a restaurant/cafe will be a discretionary use, which will allow for a small scale restaurant/cafe in the area, subject to the Town's approval. A local shop could also be considered in the area as per existing Scheme provisions.

Outline Development Plan - Land Use and Density Plan

Dwelling Targets The ODP sets dwelling target ranges for different areas over the site to ensure that a minimum dwelling target of 200 dwellings, as specified in Town Planning Scheme No.1, is met, whilst also recognising the opportunity for higher dwelling yields over the site. It is considered the built form provisions will adequately provide for up to 350 dwellings (325 apartments and 25 single dwellings) which was tested through the preparation of the Indicative Development Plan. Accordingly, the ODP is considered to have sufficiently tested a ‘maximum development scenario’ in relation to its impact upon the existing area. Originally, seven multiple dwelling sites were each given a dwelling target range. Since advertising, the potential for amalgamation of multiple dwelling sites and/or realignment of multiple dwelling site boundaries has been given further consideration given recent market research advice has indicated a preference for larger development sites. In response, increased flexibility has been built within the ODP to allow for reconfiguration and/or increase in site area of multiple dwelling sites. Dwelling targets are proposed to be met per ‘precinct’ rather than per site and the allocation of dwellings will be given further consideration at the subdivision stage through the preparation of a "Target Dwelling Yield Allocation Plan". These plans will allow for multiple dwelling sites to be reconfigured following the adoption of the ODP should this


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 be desired, but will ensure that the minimum and maximum dwelling targets are still accounted for and that dwellings are distributed over the site in accordance with the overall plan.

Multiple Dwelling Precinct Reference Dwelling Target Range

Northern Precinct 50 - 137

Central Precinct 103 - 142

Mabel Talbot Precinct 22 - 46

Outline Development Plan - Multiple Dwelling Precinct Reference Plan Building Bulk and Height A base building height of three (3) storeys is applicable to all development within the subject area. Additional building height will be supported at three (3) locations within the subject area as follows and as illustrated in the following map:- • Centrally to the site – abutting the sewer easement and within the area north of the

internal access road; • The western boundary of the site – north of the internal access road; and • Along the eastern boundary of the site as it abuts Henderson Park. The majority of the multiple dwelling sites include a maximum building height of six (6) storeys (three (3) storeys at the street frontage and an additional three (3) storeys setback on the upper level). The variation in building height is to ensure development is appropriately set back from street level, to reduce the impact on the street. Along the Salvado Road and the Mabel Talbot Park frontages, building heights are, however, restricted to three (3) storeys overall, which is one (1) storey higher than the surrounding existing housing form, which is proposed to provide transition to the adjacent residential areas.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The following table provides an overview of the proposed building heights for each Multiple Dwelling Precinct. The height standards will be formalised through the Design Guidelines prepared subsequent to the ODP (refer to map in previous section of Report for a diagram of the Multiple Dwelling Precincts). Multiple Dwelling Precinct Building Height Northern Precinct 3 storeys adjacent to Salvado Road

Up to 6 storeys for the balance of the site Central Precinct 3 storeys at street frontage

6 storeys overall Mabel Talbot Precinct 3 storeys adjacent to Mabel Talbot Park

6 storeys for the balance of the site

In general terms, the location of single and multiple dwellings over the ODP area aims to keep developments to a scale that will fit in with adjoining residential areas, such that the single dwellings are generally located towards the south of the site and apartment sites are generally to the north of the site, while the impact of building bulk on the northern boundary has also been minimised. Development Controls and Design Guidelines Design Guidelines are to be prepared by Landcorp to the satisfaction of the Town prior to any further subdivision on the site. These will be adopted by Council as a Local Planning Policy in accordance with Part 5 of the Scheme. It is anticipated that these will be advertised early in 2015. The Design Guidelines shall provide deemed-to-comply provisions for the following elements.

R50 Density Code (single dwellings):-

• Building height, street setbacks and minor incursions and boundary setbacks;



• Parking, including visitor parking, carports, garages, vehicle access and crossovers;

• Street surveillance (street and laneway), landscaping, fencing and street walls;

• Open space and outdoor living areas;

• Visual privacy; and

• Solar access (percentage minimum for outdoor area and living area).

R80 Density Code (multiple dwellings):-

• Building height, depth, building separation;

• Visual privacy;

• Street and public realm surveillance;

• Street setbacks (Comply with R-Codes), lot boundary setbacks (these will be varied due to overshadowing control);

• Vehicle access and parking;

• Open Space;

• Solar Access (percentage minimum for outdoor area and living area);

• Waste Management; and

• Stormwater control

In addition, the following R-Code variations proposed in the ODP:- • Open Space for Residential R50 area from 40% to 30%; • To allow ancillary dwellings on lots which are at least 250m² as opposed to the

standard requirement of 450m² so as to increase the opportunity for housing diversity; and

• Maximum Plot ratio for R80 Density coding increased from 1.0 to 2.0. It is proposed that Contract of Sale Guidelines will also be prepared which will cover matters such as building design, environmental performance and landscaping for both single dwelling and apartment sites. Movement and Pedestrian Networks The ODP sets out the following road configuration and intersection treatments, dual use path network and pedestrian footpath network which is based on "Liveable Neighbourhoods" - WAPC Policy for infill development and overall provides for a permeable grid street network. Scheme Amendment 26 restricted access to the site from Halesworth Road and Peel Street, given concerns raised by residents regarding traffic movements through the area. As such vehicle movements are restricted to Salvado Road and the Wembley Sports Park access road (proposed to be named Matthews Avenue) which is located to the west of the site. The ODP has been prepared around two internal access roads with on-street parking. Laneways also transverse the southern portion of the site to provide rear access for terrace lots. The internal access roads connect to the Wembley Sports Park access way which is created as a public road. However, right hand turn access into the development from the south is to be prohibited from the Wembley Sports Park access way to restrict 'rat-running' through the development site.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 It is of note that as the developer Landcorp will propose street names for the area which will be forward to the Geographic Names Committee for their approval. The access road to the Sports Park is proposed to be named Matthews Avenue. Access arrangements to each of the multiple dwelling sites will be formalised through the Design Guidelines. In terms of the pedestrian network, key elements include:-

• The central linear link creating a strong east west linkage through the site; and

• Proposed integration and upgrade to the southern pedestrian access way to strengthen existing movements and provide a more safe and secure environment; whilst providing a green buffer to the site through its interface treatments.

Local Traffic

Management A transport assessment has been provided based on a total dwelling yield of 350 dwellings to test a ‘maximum development scenario’ in relation to the impact of the ODP upon the existing road network. Based on this analysis, the site could generate up to 1,776 vehicle movements per day. The transport assessment concluded that Salvado Road in its current form is able to accommodate the forecast increase in traffic; that increases to Marlow Street traffic volumes would be unlikely to impact the current function of the street and that while some extra delays could be experienced on Jersey Street north, traffic signals should automatically re-time to accommodate increased traffic. It is noted, however, that improvements to Salvado Road and Marlow Street may also be required. It is also of note that until recently, all access to Wembley Sports Park has been limited to Salvado Road, however, a new signalised entry into the grounds has recently been completed to provide direct access from Selby Street, thereby redirecting some traffic away from Salvado Road and providing for improved distribution of traffic and alternative access.

Proposed on-street parking


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The location of the Salvado Road/eastern access road intersection accounted for the requirement for a minimum 60 metre separation distance from the Marlow Street intersection. The location of driveways on the northern side of Salvado Road were also considered, yet given the multitude of driveways, total avoidance was not achievable. As part of detailed subdivision design by Landcorp, the intersection design and treatment will be given further consideration in terms of appropriate traffic islands/ treatments and potentially, protected turning/ reversing bays should these be required. It should be noted that two of the driveways opposite the intersection of the site provide access to grouped housing sites, therefore the vehicle movements from these lots will be in forward gear minimising any movement conflicts. Parking On-street parking will also be provided within the road reserves. It is estimated there will be 50 to 55 on street bays. It is also considered that the space between the proposed parking bays on the western side of Henderson Park could be used for additional parallel parking bays which could be used by oval users in addition to visitor and residents. Public Open Space 11 per cent of the total site area has been allocated as public open space which exceeds the minimum of 10 per cent required under WAPC’s "Liveable Neighbourhoods". Public open space is to be provided generally in accordance with the Public Open Space Plan below, with an updated public open space schedule to be provided at the time of subdivision.

Public Open Space Plan

The Perth Section 2 Main Sewer traverses the site diagonally, from the north eastern corner of the site to the centre of the western boundary and is required to be retained in the public realm. As such, the 0.3 hectare area has been identified for public open space, creating a central focal point to the area and public open space spine to the apartment sites which will have views onto the area. This area will also facilitate greater east west movements through the site, linking Wembley Sports Park to Henderson Park and the Wembley Town Centre.



The pedestrian access way located along the southern boundary of the site has been considered within the Landscape Master Plan and overall design response. Whilst the pedestrian access way does not form part of the site, the opportunity exists to include the upgrade of this area as part of the landscape works, to deliver a high quality green buffer to the adjacent residential area and shared path through Mabel Talbot Reserve linking Jersey Street to Wembley Sports Park.

Flora and Fauna

The ODP area has been subject to an Environmental Assessment Report which concluded the following:-

• The site is predominantly cleared of remnant native understorey species; • No declared rare flora species have been identified within the site based on site specific

surveys; • It is unlikely that species of State conservation significance have the potential to occur on

site; • Native vegetation has been largely cleared and severely altered; and • Many of the trees within the site have also died or display poor structural condition due to

the lack of tree management practices and competition for sunlight.

A comprehensive tree survey of the site and its direct surrounds was undertaken by Paperbark Technology in 2012. Those trees identified as being suitable for retention predominantly fall outside of the site boundary whilst most vegetation on the site itself was not considered to be viable for retention. The native vegetation on site is generally self-seeded and relatively young. A significant proportion of the vegetation on the site is considered to be invasive species, and whilst aesthetically pleasing, particularly on the boundaries, is not considered significant from an environmental perspective. Development layout options that sought to retain trees in their present position and levels were investigated and considered, however, the impact on the amount of developable land, disruption to required road alignments combined with the potential root zone impacts, have resulted in retention of peripheral trees and relocation of those in the heart of the development. Three trees have been potentially identified for relocation under the ODP and as illustrated in the Landscape Master Plan (below). Of note, the Moreton Bay Fig trees on Henderson Park will be retained and protected through a ten metre open space strip (Tree Preservation Zone). Vegetation along the eastern and southern boundary of the site will be retained where possible subject to further investigation considering earthworks and will be accommodated in public open space strips and widened road reserves.



Proposed Landscape Masterplan

The following information has been provided by the City of Subiaco regarding the adjoining Mabel Talbot Park:- Lake Mabel Talbot is classified as a conservation category wetland under the Environmental Protection Policy 1992 and provides an important habitat and a food source for a variety of fauna, including long neck turtles, terrestrial and aquatic birds, frogs and macro-invertebrates. Mabel Talbot Reserve is also located within a local greenway, identified for conservation and vegetation enhancement to avoid fragmentation and maintain ecological processes. Rainbow Bee Eaters nested at Mabel Talbot Reserve along Peel Street over the 2012/13 and 2013/14 summer. Since 2011, Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoos and Carnaby’s Cockatoos have also been observed foraging in the reserve each year. Birdlife Australia considers the lake an important water source for the cockatoos. It is likely the fauna species present at Mabel Talbot Reserve utilise the Former Nursery Site, and it is recommended the ODP includes measures to minimise impacts on these species. The Environmental Assessment Report also states that the Rainbow Bee-Eater has been recorded at Mabel Talbot Park but this is not reflected in the ODP, which states that no migratory bird species have been recorded in Mabel Talbot Park. The ODP states that the City of Subiaco artificially maintains water levels in the lake over summer. In May 2005, the city ceased supplementation of the lake water levels over summer, and the wetland reverted back to its natural seasonal cycle of drying over summer. The ODP references waterbird surveys between 1996 and 2002, when the wetland was a permanent water body. Seasonal wetlands are known to support higher waterbird species richness than permanent wetlands. Accordingly, current information on waterbird species should be included in the ODP, and an impact assessment of the planned development on these species is completed if deemed necessary.

Budda tree to be relocated here

Two rare exotic trees to be relocated here potentially


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The long-neck turtle (also known as the oblong turtle) is protected under the WA Wildlife Conservation Act 1950. The turtle population of the Lake Mabel Talbot is estimated to be between 34 and 55 individuals according to the University of Western Australia. The turtles are known to travel as far as one kilometre from the wetland during nesting season to lay eggs. There is anecdotal evidence from residents surrounding Mabel Talbot Reserve of turtles utilising nearby properties for nesting, including the former nursery site. The ODP should acknowledge the wetland as an important area for long-neck turtles and includes measures to minimise impacts on the population. Of the 134 mature trees identified as suitable to retain within the site, only three have been identified for retention or relocation on the Landscape Master Plan. As a key strategy to minimise impacts on Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act listed species, the city recommends retention of at least some mature trees identified as suitable forage and roost trees. The city also recommends cockatoo food species are included in the new plants to be established in the landscaped areas. In response to the matters above, it is recommended that a Fauna Management Plan is prepared to manage the impact that construction may present to fauna in and around the site, in particular on the long-neck turtle inhabits the area. It is also noted that Landcorp undertook an assessment of Commonwealth Fauna matters which assessed development of the site as having limited impact. The ODP document will, where necessary, be revised to include updated information and it is suggested that inclusion of vegetation for food for the Carnaby and Forest Red-tailed Cockatoo be considered. Environmental Assessment

In terms of environmental assessment, an Environmental Protection Authority accredited auditor (Golder) has been contracted to review site investigations. The Environmental Protection Authority has examined the site twice now, once at the rezoning stage when the Town referred the proposal, and then again at the super-lot subdivision application stage. To date, no concerns or conditions have been raised. Advertising Process Schedule 7 of Town Planning Scheme No.1 stipulates advertising procedures for Outline Development Plans. The Town is to advertise, or require the owner who submitted the proposed ODP to advertise, the ODP for public inspection by way of:- • either a notice in a newspaper circulating in the Scheme Area or sign(s) displaying notice

of proposed ODP on site; and • giving notice in writing to all owners whose land is included in the Proposed Outline

Development Plan and all owners and occupiers who, in the opinion of the local government, are likely to be affected by the adoption of the proposed ODP and public authorities the Town nominates.

The ODP was made available for public comment from 10 November 2014 until 1 December 2014. Public advertising involved:- • An advertisement in The West Australian 8 November edition and on the Cambridge

noticeboard; • A notice and copy of the ODP on the Town's website under 'Have Your Say'; • Three advertising signs were erected on the site, one along Salvado Road and one at the

ends of Peel Street and Halesworth Road;



• Letters were sent to 660 residential landowners in the area bound by Selby Street, Cambridge Street, Jersey Street and Hay Street (and in the case of Jersey Street and Selby Street, the opposite sides of the street as well);

• A Cambridge News feature in the Cambridge Post on 14 November; • A dedicated page on the Town's website to advertise the proposal including an online

comment form; • An invitation to comment sent to all parties who previously made submissions on Scheme

Amendment 26. As per requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, the ODP was also forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and service agencies. Comments from the City of Subiaco The City of Subiaco reported to its Council on the matter at its Meeting on Tuesday 2 December 2014. The Council resolved the following:- That council with regard to the proposed Outline Development Plan for the portion of Lot 520 Salvado Road, Jolimont (the Former Nursery Site): 1. Acknowledges the Town of Cambridge for the invitation to comment on the proposal

and expresses its appreciation for this opportunity; 2. Advise the Town of Cambridge of its in principle support for the proposal, while noting

that green linkages to surrounding public open space could be enhanced by locating an area of public open space along the entire perimeter of Henderson Park, and along the perimeter of Mabel Talbot Reserve to the intersection with Peel Street;

3. Given the proximity of the site to the City, it is appropriate that the City of Subiaco is

consulted further regarding the development of Design Guidelines for the site; 4. Provides the following comments in relation to the environmental implications of the

proposal:

(a) Rainbow Bee Eaters, Forest Red-tailed Black Cockatoos and Carnaby’s Cockatoos have been observed in Mabel Talbot Reserve. As it is likely the fauna species present at Mabel Talbot Reserve utilise the Former Nursery Site it is recommended that the Outline Development Plan (ODP) includes measures to minimise impacts on these species;

(b) The City has not artificially maintained the water levels of Mabel Talbot Lake

over summer since 2005 and the Lake is now considered to be a seasonal wetland. As the ODP references waterbird surveys between 1996 and 2002, when the wetland was a permanent water body, it is recommended that current information on waterbird species richness is included in the ODP as seasonal wetlands are known to support a higher waterbird species richness than permanent wetlands;

(c) More existing vegetation could be retained on site given the significance of the

site's location within a local greenway; (d) Support is offered for the proposed planting within the public access way along

the southern boundary of the site; (e) Support is offered for the on-site local infiltration proposed as the primary

means of stormwater management;



(f) The ODP should reflect the observation of the Environmental Assessment

Report which notes that the Rainbow Bee-eater has been recorded at Mabel Talbot Park;

(g) It is recommended that the ODP acknowledges the nearby Mabel Talbot Lake wetland as an important area for long-neck turtles and includes measures to minimise impacts on the population;

(h) It is recommended that some mature trees identified as suitable forage and roost trees for Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act listed species be retained and that cockatoo food species are included in the new plants to be established in the landscaped areas; and

5. Supports a collaborative approach between adjoining local governments to identify and

address traffic and access issues in this locality arising from the redevelopment of the site.

The points made in the resolution of the City of Subiaco Council have been commented on under the relevant sections of this report. Comments from the Western Australian Planning Commission The Department of Planning has advised that comments would be provided to the Town by Friday 5 December which will be circulated as late information to this Report. This information may determine if modifications will need to be made to the ODP. Written submissions At the close of advertising, 23 written submissions were received from landowners and residents. • 15 submissions from residents (3 in support, 10 objections, 2 general comment); • 8 submissions from service providers/government departments (mostly general

comments which relate to the subdivision stage).

Full details of each submission and the Administration response are provided in Attachment 2 to this Report (Schedule of Submissions). Of those submissions in support of the proposal, there was acknowledgement that the subject land is currently underutilised and future development will provide vibrancy and improved community and economic value. Of those submissions citing objections to the proposal the main concerns included:- • Impact of development on surrounding area, particularly on Mabel Talbot Reserve

(mentioned in 4 submissions); • Increased density and impact on capacity of local roads, particularly Salvado Road (3

submissions); • Inadequate public open space (3 submissions); and • Loss of significant vegetation/environmental impacts (3 submissions). Impact on surrounding development and concerns over increased density A number of submissions indicated concerns with the proposed level of development although some submissions indicated support for the proposed density and one submission suggested the site could be developed at a higher density, subject to further consideration of environmental matters.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 The ODP design and dwelling targets are considered suitable for the site's context and to help the Town deliver on its housing targets under Directions 2031 and to deliver on the housing target included in Scheme Amendment 26. There were also a number of objections which raised concerns over the six (6) storey building heights being excessive adjacent to Henderson Oval, Mabel Talbot Reserve and residential properties. In particular, it was suggested that a maximum of three (3) storeys would be more appropriate for the multiple dwelling sites in the south east corner of the site to blend in with the proposed single residential lots and the existing housing stock. It was also commented that buildings would overshadow Henderson Park and be too dominant and detract from the reserve's natural features. The six (6) storey building height is not permitted for all multiple dwelling sites and the maximum height at all street frontages and the interface to reserves is limited to three (3) storeys and the additional three (3) storey height limit is set back to limit the impact of building bulk. Planting and landscaping upgrades are also proposed along the pedestrian access way located along the southern edge of the site. Trees along this boundary, although not classified as environmentally significant, will be retained where possible. Traffic Impact Concerns were also raised in relation to access, vehicle movements and traffic safety along Salvado Road and potential for an additional 350 dwellings to further exacerbate the issue. The traffic assessment report, based on the maximum development scenario, concluded that Salvado Road has the capacity to accommodate the forecast traffic increases. Also, given the location of a high frequency bus route along Cambridge Street, there is an expectation that the volume of traffic may be reduced. Future road upgrades to be given further consideration at subdivision stage are also proposed to address traffic flow along Salvado Road. In addition, the recent completion of the new access road (Matthews Avenue) into Wembley Sports Park from Selby Street will serve to improve the distribution of traffic and will divert traffic from Salvado Road. The traffic impacts experienced in relation to Wembley Sports Park are temporary and upon completion of works in the area next year, the impact on the surrounding road network should lessen. Of note, vehicles travelling northwards towards Salvado Road along the access road will be unable to enter the ODP area as right hand turns will be restricted and it will only be vehicles exiting from the ODP area which will be able to use the Selby Street signalised intersection. This will serve to further control traffic movements through the area. Inadequate public open space Three objections stated that the amount of public open space areas proposed is insufficient. The ODP includes 0.43 hectares or 11% of the total area of public open space, including two local parks and meets the required area provisions of "Liveable Neighbourhoods". Furthermore, in the immediate vicinity, additional public open space areas are provided including Wembley Sports Park (16.3ha), Henderson Park (4.1ha) and Mabel Talbot Park, which are linked to the subject site. Taking into account the existing 24 hectares of public reserves surrounding the subject area, which is very high relative to other parts of the Perth Metropolitan area and includes a mix of passive and active recreational space, as well as the additional areas being provided which are currently unavailable to the community as the site is fenced off, it is considered the availability and provision of open space is adequate.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Loss of significant vegetation and environmental implications There were concerns raised in reference to the loss of vegetation and the development being located too close to Mabel Talbot Lake, which may cause adverse environmental effects on fauna and flora. Ultimately the design has aimed to maximise tree retention, however, the impact on the amount of developable land, disruption to required road alignments combined with the potential root zone impacts, have resulted in retention of peripheral trees and relocation of those in the centre of the development. As shown on the proposed landscaping plan, the majority of the significant trees located along the periphery of the subject area are to be retained including the Moreton Bay Figs along the western boundary of the site which will be protected and the health of which will be improved. The 'Buddha' tree located along the southern boundary and other rare exotic species are to be relocated to more suitable areas, generally within public access ways. Further opportunities for the retention of vegetation will also be examined at the subdivision stage subject to earthworks and engineering. The arborcultural report indicated, however, that other flora was unable to be retained or are invasive species and that the site is predominantly cleared of remnant native understorey species and has no evidence of rare flora species. Overall, it is deemed that appropriate consideration has been provided to retaining as much of the existing vegetation as possible in the most suitable areas to maximise the natural amenity of the subject area while enabling redevelopment of the site. The environmental reports also indicate future development will not adversely impact surrounding parks and reserves, including Mabel Talbot Lake. The proposed building envelopes will also be set back from the Mabel Talbot Lake buffer. In response to some concerns over the health of native fauna, in particular the nesting habits of the long-neck turtle in the area, Landcorp has indicated it will prepare a Fauna Management Plan to manage the impact on fauna from construction. In addition, an assessment of Commonwealth Fauna matters was obtained which assessed development of the site as having limited impact. In particular, the City of Subiaco commented that green linkages to surrounding public open space could be enhanced by locating an area of public open space along the entire perimeter of Henderson Park and perimeter of Mabel Talbot Reserve to the intersection of Peel Street. While this is noted, Landcorp and the Town have given careful consideration to the ecological matters related to developing the site and as much vegetation as possible is proposed to be retained along the southern boundary of the site. POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Upon receipt of the ODP, the Town was required to forward the Plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission to determine if it is prepared to endorse the Proposed Outline Development Plan with or without modifications. Following advertising and referral to the Commission, the Council is to consider all submissions received and within 60 days of the latest date specified in the notice or advertisement for the making of submissions is to either adopt (with or without modifications) or refuse to adopt the proposed ODP. In making its determination, the Town is to have due regard to the comments and advice received from the Commission and consult with the Commission prior to making a


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 determination and may readvertise the ODP. At the time of preparing this report, the Town was yet to receive comment from the WAPC. The Town is to receive comments from the WAPC on Friday 5 December. Should this require modification to the ODP, this will need to be considered as a late amendment to the document. In the case of an ODP which proposes subdivision of land, such is the case with the proposed ODP, it is to be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission for final approval. The ODP must be endorsed by the WAPC prior to subdivision or development occurring on the site. Upon the final endorsement of the ODP by the Western Australian Planning Commission, the ODP has the same force and effect as if it were a provision, standard or requirement of Town Planning Scheme No.1. Although, if a provision of an ODP is inconsistent with a provision of the Scheme, then the provision of the Scheme prevails to the extent of the inconsistency.


The cost of advertising the ODP was covered in the Town's budget.


Consideration of the ODP is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 4.1 - Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs - Promote a range of housing types in existing suburbs - Plan for more dwellings in appropriate locations. Strategy 4.2 - Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place - Revise the Town Planning Scheme to align to the land use strategies of the Town. Strategy 9.2 - Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them - Deliver an ongoing program of community engagement.


The ODP has been prepared with input from extensive consultation undertaken by Landcorp with assistance from the Town. The proposed ODP was advertised in accordance with provisions of Schedule 7 of the Town Planning Scheme and at the close of advertising 23 submissions were received. In accordance with the provisions of Schedule 7 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, upon the end of the advertising period:-

The local government is to consider all submissions received and within 60 days of the latest date specified in the notice or advertisement for the making of submissions is to:-

(a) adopt the proposed ODP, with or without modifications; or (b) refuse to adopt the proposed ODP and, where the Proposed ODP was submitted by an

owner, give reasons for this to the owner.

There will be further community consultation as in preparing design guidelines to control the design and construction of individual single and multiple dwellings.



ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment 1: ODP Documentation (Part 1 and 2) Attachment 2: Schedule of Submissions


That:- (i) the submissions in relation to the proposed Outline Development Plan be noted; (ii) pursuant to Schedule 7 - Provisions for Outline Development Plans, the proposed Outline

Development Plan for Lot 520 (No. 189) Salvado Road Jolimont, as amended and attached to this Agenda, be adopted, subject to the following modifications:-

(a) amendments to the ODP to further comment on environmental matters; and (b) additional parallel parking bays to be provided along the eastern access road

adjacent to Henderson Park. (ii) the Town seek the Western Australian Planning Commission's endorsement of the

Outline Development Plan; (iii) an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of Council's adoption of the

Outline Development Plan; (iv) those who made a submission be advised of Council's decision; (v) design guidelines for the ODP area to be prepared and advertised for public comment;

and (vi) a Fauna Management Plan is to be prepared prior to subdivision to manage the impact

that construction may present to fauna in and around the site, in particular the long-neck turtle.

Committee Meeting 9 December 2014 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the type of trees to be planted in the subdivision and suggested that the trees should be large enough to provide suitable shading. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vii) the landscape Master Plan be amended to provide details of the type of trees and

planting and it is the Town's preference to have mature canopy trees in most landscaped areas.

Amendment carried 4/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 8 December 2014) As outlined in the Development Committee Report relating to the above matter, the Town has been awaiting advice from the Western Australian Planning Commission as to whether or not modifications to the Outline Development Plan (ODP) would be required prior to Council adoption. In accordance with Schedule 7 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, in making a determination on an ODP, the local government is to have due regard to the comments and advice received from the Commission in relation to the proposed ODP and if the Commission requires modifications to the proposed ODP, the local government is to consult with the Commission prior to making a determination. The Town has since received comments from the DoP on behalf of the WAPC. The comments relate to the format and level of explanation contained in the document but do not alter the content of the ODP (and there is no significant concern with the matters raised). Please refer attached copy of the DoP letter. Accordingly, it is appropriate to amend the recommendat ion to note and incorporate the modifications required by the WAPC in the final ODP. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That:- (i) the submissions in relation to the proposed Outline Development Plan be noted; (ii) pursuant to Schedule 7 - Provisions for Outline Development Plans, the proposed

Outline Development Plan for Lot 520 (No. 189) Salvado Road Jolimont, as amended and attached to this Agenda, be adopted, subject to the following modifications:-

(a) amendments to the ODP to further comment on environmental matters; and (b) additional parallel parking bays to be provided along the eastern access road

adjacent to Henderson Park. (ii) the Town seek the Western Australian Planning Commission's endorsement of the

Outline Development Plan; (iii) an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of Council's adoption

of the Outline Development Plan; (iv) those who made a submission be advised of Council's decision; (v) design guidelines for the ODP area to be prepared and advertised for public

comment; and (vi) a Fauna Management Plan is to be prepared prior to subdivision to manage the

impact that construction may present to fauna in and around the site, in particular the long-neck turtle;

(vii) the landscape Master Plan be amended to provide details of the type of trees and



COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 Amendment Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (c) modifications to the ODP as required by the Western Australian Planning

Commission in its correspondence dated 10 December 2014. Amendment Carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the submissions in relation to the proposed Outline Development Plan be noted; (ii) pursuant to Schedule 7 - Provisions for Outline Development Plans, the proposed

Outline Development Plan for Lot 520 (No. 189) Salvado Road Jolimont, as amended and attached to this Agenda, be adopted, subject to the following modifications:-

(a) amendments to the ODP to further comment on environmental matters; (b) additional parallel parking bays to be provided along the eastern access road

adjacent to Henderson Park; (c) modifications to the ODP as required by the Western Australian Planning

Commission in its correspondence dated 10 December 2014; (ii) the Town seek the Western Australian Planning Commission's endorsement of the

Outline Development Plan; (iii) an advertisement be placed in the local newspaper notifying of Council's adoption

of the Outline Development Plan; (iv) those who made a submission be advised of Council's decision; (v) design guidelines for the ODP area to be prepared and advertised for public

comment; and (vi) a Fauna Management Plan is to be prepared prior to subdivision to manage the

impact that construction may present to fauna in and around the site, in particular the long-neck turtle;

(vii) the landscape Master Plan be amended to provide details of the type of trees and


Carried 9/0



DV14.175 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR NOVEMBER 2014

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To report on matters which have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Sustainability matters.

DETAILS:

The following items (for the month of November 2014) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s Planning Policy 2.6 Delegation of Authority:- • 16 Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 2 Keaney Place, City Beach - Niche wall for Holy Spirit Church and Primary School • 17 Truro Place, City Beach - Three storey dwelling with swimming pool • 12 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 49 Dampier Avenue, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 17 Maloney Way, City Beach - Retaining wall • 16 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 12 Palana Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (first floor

living room and balcony, second storey master bedroom, office and balcony area) • 4 Alkoomie Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 4 Kinta Street, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 123 Grantham Street, Floreat - Decking • 3 Athlone Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (rumpus room) • 316 Salvado Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling • 125 Grantham Street, Floreat - Patio and decking • 4 Glenties Road, Floreat - Gazebo, shed, sun deck, BBQ area and powder room. • 11 Cromarty Road, Floreat - Shed • 104 Glengariff Drive, Floreat - Front and rear retaining walls and landscaping • 5 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (new verandah

and internal renovations to existing sun room and ensuite) • 39 Kenmore Crescent, Floreat - Two storey dwelling • 15 Hornsey Road, Floreat - Two storey dwelling • 71 The Boulevard, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (garage/store,

kitchen, pantry, dining and new ensuite to master bedroom) • 123 Lissadell Street, Floreat - Converting garage to study • 7 Dunblane Road, Floreat - Fencing and landscaping • 258 Salvado Road, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 70 Reserve Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (games

room, bar, two bedrooms, bathroom and patio extension) • 29 Pangbourne Street, Wembley - Front fence • 6/2 Essex Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (bedroom,

bathroom and living room) • 242b Selby Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling (bedroom,

laundry, toilet, kitchen, entry and porch) • 42 Gregory Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling • 32 Nanson Street, Wembley - Shed • 49 McCourt Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling

(ensuite,and WIR to main bedroom and new garage)



No subdivisions were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission during November 2014. The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received No applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during November 2014. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during November 2014. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 30 November 2014 be received. Carried 9/0



DV14.176 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY - OCTOBER 2014 AND NOVEMBER 2014

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in October 2014 and November 2014.

BACKGROUND: Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of October 2014 and November 2014. 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. October

2014 October

2013 Financial Year

to Date 2014/2015

Corresponding Financial Year

to Date 2013/2014

Building Permits (Certified) 47 48 154 126 Building Permits (Uncertified)

21 34 86 104

Demolition Permits 9 10 29 31 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 1 4 6

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 0 4

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

2 1 7 7

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 1 1 1

Special Licences 0 0 0 0 Total

80

95

281

279

Value of Construction $36,520,060 $27,820,715 $93,659,955 $69,532,644 Note: The total value of construction for October 2014 period was influenced by the approval for the Multiple Residential Sole Occupancy Unit Building with Basement Carpark situated at 2 Dynevor Rise, Floreat.


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECEMBER 2014 November

2014 November

2013 Financial Year to Date 2014/2015

Corresponding Financial Year

to Date 2013/2014

Building Permits (Certified) 32 30 186 156 Building Permits (Uncertified)

12 39 98 143

Demolition Permits 8 5 37 36 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

4 1 8 7

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 0 4

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

2 3 9 10

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 0 1 1

Special Licences 0 0 0 0 Total

58

95

339

357

Value of Construction $52,834,272 $30,012,489 $146,514,228 $99,545,133 Note: The total value of construction for November 2014 period was influenced by the approval for the Construction of a 1x Four Storey Building and 3x Three Storey Buildings comprising of 96 units plus Scoreboard Building situated at 1 Stadium Drive, Floreat. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr King, seconded by Cr O'Connor That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the months of October 2014 and November 2014 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 9/0



COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE The report of the Community and Resources Committee held on Monday 8 December 2014 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 Alan Langer (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 9.10 pm Mayor Simon Withers 6.00 pm 9.10 pm Cr Louis Carr 6.00 pm 9.10 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.00 pm 9.10 pm Cr Colin Walker 6.00 pm 9.10 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Cr Tracey King Cr Corinne MacRae Cr Pauline O'Connor JP Officers: Jason Buckley, Chief Executive Officer Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects John Giorgi, Director Local Government Reform Project Peter Maloney, Manager Infrastructure Assets & Design Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance and Property Frank Strever, Coordinator Infrastructure Assets & Design Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 9.10 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

H:\CEO\GOV\COUNCIL MINUTES\14 MINUTES\DECEMBER 2014\C CR.DOCX 105



Stephen Apedaile, 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach Re: Item CR14.188 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach Parking Proposal - Outcomes of Community Consultation Question 1 In conjunction with the suggestion in the Committee Report to add 132 parking bays to the South West corner of Fred Burton Car Park (Option G), will Council consider reducing the 60kph speed limit along the full extent of Challenger Parade to 50kph as a virtually no cost traffic calming measure? Question 2 In conjunction with the suggestion in the Committee Report to add 132 parking bays to the South West corner of Fred Burton Car Park (Option G), will Council consider making two Challenger Parade access points to Fred Burton Car Park 'Entry Only' to reduce vehicular and pedestrian traffic conflict on Challenger Parade? Question 3 In conjunction with the suggestion in the Committee Report to add 132 parking bays to the South West corner of Fred Burton Car Park (Option G), will Council consider installing significant signing:- (a) at the junction of Oceanic Drive and Fred Burton Drive, directing vehicles into the

Fred Burton Drive, directing vehicles into the Fred Burton Car Park? (b) at the eastern end of Fred Burton Car Park directing exiting vehicles, wishing to

travel to the South or to the East, to exit via the Oceanic Drive/West Coast Highway traffic lights and vehicles wishing to travel to the North to exit north via Fred Burton Drive onto West Coast Highway?

Question 4 Is Council aware that it could increase the parking spaces in Fred Burton Car Park by 47 additional bays by marking car bays on the northern side of Fred Burton Car Park, making the northern car bay section the same as the southern Fred Burton Car Park section. Both of these two sections currently provide the access points to Challenger Parade. Obviously, this proposal would be enhanced by making Fred Burton Car Park entry only from Challenger Parade. Response The Presiding Member advised that this matter will be discussed at tonight's meeting at Item CR14.188.

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Deputations Item CR14.183 Julie Romano, 73 Essex Street, Wembley Item CR14.188 Stephen Apedaile, 1 Jubilee Crescent, City Beach David Beattie, 16 Dartmouth Avenue, City Beach Peter Dawson, 2 Branksome Gardens, City Beach Item CR14.193 Paul Whitehead, Principal, Bold Park Community School



Petitions A petition containing 43 signatures was submitted by Stephen Apedaile opposing the Town of Cambridge's proposal for the construction of 90 degree street parking between Oceanic Drive and Jubilee Crescent (which will require cars to back out into the north and south bound traffic on Challenger Parade), and the partial road closure of Challenger Parade to facilitate this dangerous driving.


Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 17 November 2014 as contained in the November 2014 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

Nil

7. REPORTS



CR14.176 POLICY REVIEW - 5.2.19 - STREET VERGES - LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE

SUMMARY:

In order to assist with compliance management relating to Council Policy 5.2.19 - Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance, a review of the policy and guidelines is required and this is dependent on direction from Council. Specifically, the guidance required relates to verge landscape guidelines associated with verge crossovers, verge paving, applicability of "artificial grass" as a treatment and integration with the Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.1 - "Streetscape Policy" adopted by Council in August 2014. The "Streetscape Policy" indicates a maximum width of a vehicle crossover and requires crossovers not to interfere with established street trees and encompasses opportunity for on- street parking. Any landscaping in the front setback must be a minimum of 60% of vegetation in most cases. Consideration needs to be made to establishment of any paved verges adjacent to the property crossover and the impact on kerbside parking. The issues relating to current non-compliance matters are not addressed in this report. A strategy is currently being progressed concerning existing unauthorised street verges. This strategy will be in addition to the review of the current policy, current guidelines and the Local Law.

BACKGROUND:

The current Policy No. 5.2.19 is "Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance", which along with "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines" were adopted by Council in May 2012 (Item DV12.57). These guidelines were developed following an Elected Member Forum held in December 2011 and considered by the Development Committee. The revised documents were prepared to provide a more flexible and positive approach to compliance management within road verges. The revised documents also included consideration into establishment of a new "Verge Development Assistance Scheme," and consideration of $20,000 was recommended for inclusion in the Draft 2012/2013 Budget. This proposed assistance scheme has not been included in any subsequent budget. In April 2012, (Item CR12.43), a review of all Infrastructure policies, inclusive of Policy No. 5.2.19: Road Verges - Development and Maintenance was submitted to the Community and Resources Committee. No amendments were made and it was highlighted that a previous review in February 2011. (Item CR11.8) had made amendments to allow permeable materials such as artificial grass and fine aggregates to be used in excess of the 18.0m2

maximum area catered for in verge paving requirements. In August 2014, Council approved the revised Policy 3.1 "Streetscape" (Item DV14.118).Part of this decision required amendment of the Town's Policy No. 5.2.7 Vehicle Crossovers Specification in order to bring these requirements into line with the revised "Streetscape Policy". This amendment was considered and approved by Council in October 2014, (Item CR14.139).



In October 2014, a discussion paper relating to Verge Paving Compliance and Treatments was presented to a Councilor Forum. Following this presentation, it was clear the following reviews were required:- • Review and amend Policy No. 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscaping and

Maintenance,Review and amend Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines; and Review and amend the Town's "Local Government and Public Property Local Law".

DETAILS:

The following issues require direction prior to finalising Draft amendments to Policy No. 5.2.19: Street Verges Landscaping and Maintenance and the "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines":- 1. Under what criteria will verge paving be considered as landscaping?

2. Under what criteria will permeable artificial grass be considered a suitable verge treatment

and/or a replacement for grass.

3. Can impermeable artificial grass be used for verge paving associated with vehicle parking or landscaping?

4. Under what criteria will verge paving be considered for verge parking requirements?

5. Does Council wish to implement a "Verge Development Assistance Scheme" as discussed in report DV12.57 May 2012.

6. Are the requirements of the adopted Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.1 Streetscape from August 2014, associated with a minimum requirement of 60% vegetation landscape within the front property setback, to be applied to the verge area? If so, this 60% figure has an impact on approvals for property crossovers and verge paving assessments.

7. Should applicants disagree with a street verge assessment conducted by the administration for Landscaping and Maintenance paving for parking, the matter be referred to Council for consideration and decision.

COMMENT A review of existing documentation identifies inconsistencies which need to be addressed as highlighted below. Some areas provide vague assessment criteria. Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines Currently, Policy No. 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance has the following criteria:- • The Town has established "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines" which

provide detailed information about what is permitted on the street verge and the process to follow to seek approval for the various treatments;



• A formal application to the Town and subsequent approval is required prior to the

undertaking of any work or improvements to a verge for all paving and for any treatment that does not meet with these guidelines. The Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines have the following criteria:-

• Conversely, large amounts of paving or hardstand create heat sinks, affect the health of a

street tree by limiting how much water falls on the tree’s root zone and could potentially lead to flooding problems for other properties in the street and neighbourhood;

• Any paving work requires approval. A formal application to the Town by the owner or

occupier and subsequent approval is required prior to the undertaking of any paving; • Artificial grass is actively discouraged and requires approval; • 4.2 - Not Permitted: Non permeable artificial grass; • 4.6 - Artificial Grass: Permeable artificial grass is actively discouraged and will only be

considered where no other option is possible. Formal application to the Town and subsequent approval is required before permeable artificial grass can be installed. Verges have many underground services which require repair from time to time and contractors will need to cut the artificial grass to access them. If approved, the owner/occupier will be responsible for all repairs and/or reinstatements to the artificial grass;

• 4.6 - Artificial Grass: Non permeable artificial grass is not permitted; • 4.9 - Pedestrian Access From Kerb To Property Line Where pedestrian access from the kerb line to the property boundary is desirable (and not associated with the property vehicle crossover or verge paving works for parking) it should be 1.5 metres wide and constructed of a suitable trafficable material such as the following:- • paving (requires the Town’s approval prior to construction/installation); • conventional grass; • seasoned, organic, large particle mulch (such as woodchips); or • permeable, fine and compacted aggregate less than 5mm in size. • Mulch and aggregate are to be replenished as required and maintained in a safe

manner; • Paving must be flush with any existing footpath, kerb or verge level, and segmented

paving to have level grass or other suitable trafficable material between segments. 5 - Paving For Verge Parking All paving requires the Town’s approval prior to construction or installation. • The Town discourages parking of vehicles on street verges, however, it is

acknowledged that, in some precincts, adequate kerbside and off-street parking may not be available to owners/occupiers;

• Where there is a genuine requirement for verge parking and where there is no

reasonable alternative, property owners may apply to pave a portion of the verge



directly adjacent to their property if parking on verges is permitted in that area;

• The maximum permissible area of paving on any verge adjacent to a property zoned ”residential” is 18 square metres (sufficient for one standard motor car). Vehicles parked on verges must not overhang the road, footpath or intrude into a pedestrian clear zone;

• The verge paving must be of contrasting colour to that of any adjacent footpath,

preferably of ‘earthen’ colours, and must be to the satisfaction of the Town; • Small format pavers (for example cobblestones, brick sized pavers and pavers up to

300mm x 300mm) are preferred, as they allow a higher level of permeability than large format paving, allowing for better drainage and water permeation. Porous or open segmented pavers are strongly recommended. Large paving slabs are not allowed;

• Where a tree is located on a verge, paving is not permitted within 1 metre from the

centre of the tree. (Note: this is an error and should be 1.75 metres from the centre of the tree or 1.5 metres from the face of the tree);

• Where the installation of paving to the verge is likely to compromise the health of a

street tree, the application will not be supported; • Applications for hard paving of 100% of a verge will only be considered by the Town

where the width of the verge is less than 1.5 metres (not including the footpath) or the verge is adjacent to buildings in a commercial zone and will only be granted where it would unreasonable or impractical to require vegetation on that part of the verge;

• Where approval is sought from the Town for paving, stormwater catchment/run-off

needs to be carefully considered, as stormwater runoff from excessive paving is known to cause localised flooding.

Policy No. 5.2.7 Standard Vehicle Crossover Policy and Standard Vehicle Crossover Specification

In October 2014, the revised Policy No. 5.2.7 Standard Vehicle Crossover Policy and Standard Vehicle Crossover Specification provides guidance relating to crossover locations and allowable widths. In general terms the following applies:-

• West of Selby Street verge crossovers can be a maximum of 6.0 metres wide exclusive of

kerb line splays; • East of Selby Street crossovers are not permitted when acceptable garage access is

available from a rear Right of Way (Laneway). In these circumstances clarification is required into processing applications for verge paving when no vehicle crossing can be approved;

• East of Selby Street verge crossovers can be a maximum of 4.5 metres, inclusive of kerb

line splays when no rear Right of Way (Laneway) garage access is available. In these circumstances clarification is required for processing applications for verge paving by developing assessment criteria.

It is noted in the guidelines from the Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.1 Streetscape relating to front setbacks there is a requirement for a minimum of 60% to be landscaped



with vegetation although a reduction to 50% with mature tree planting. Driveways, paving and hard surfaces must not take up more than 40% of the front setback area. Artificial grass is not permitted as it is not classed as vegetation unless it is within the hard stand area.

Options for Review - Verge Paving

A review of adjacent Councils has provided specific details for comparison. 1. City of Subiaco

• No synthetic turf is permitted; • Soil reinforcing rings with natural grass are permitted; • All paving of verges requires a permit; • Verge paving not be assessed when properties can accommodate 2 cars parked on

site; • No permit is issued if verge obstructions result to footpaths and carriageways; • Where 2 cars cannot be accommodated on site, and there is no reasonable

alternative to verge parking, an application will be assessed; • Where there is no provision on site and no crossover to the property, the

maximum permitted area to be paved will be 70% of the verge area (excluding any footpath);

• Where 1 car can be parked on site, the maximum permitted area to be paved is no more than 30% excluding footpath and single crossover areas;

• Where a large verge tree has a shade canopy which reduces growth of healthy groundcovers, property owners may apply to have up to 70% of the verge paved;

• Where paving up to 70% of the verge is approved, the property owners must make provision for on-site drainage of storm water.

2. City of Nedlands

• All hard paved areas (inclusive of crossovers) shall not comprise more than 40% of the total verge area;

• Artificial grass is not recommended, however, it may be installed with conditions:-

• It takes up no more than 40% of verge hardstand area; • A separation between street tree trunk is 2.0 metres minimum; • It is acknowledged it is not a substitute of natural lawns.

3. City of Stirling

Paving or synthetic turf will be permitted when:-

• Its total area does not exceed one-third (1/3) of the total verge area excluding the crossover and path;

• It will not have a detrimental effect on existing street trees as assessed by

the City. Detrimental affect refers to impacts on existing tree roots, restrictions on sources of nourishment (drip zone) and proximity to the street tree trunk including being no closer than one metre;

• The shape of area of the verge makes it impractical to maintain a natural lawn or



garden. Verge areas less than 10 square metres and/or verge widths less than 1.5 metres would meet this criterion;

• It is finished in a manner that provides a visible contrast to existing paths,

crossovers and the road surface for public safety and parking control purposes (where appropriate);

• Synthetic turf is not proposed as a parking treatment;

• Extenuating circumstances exist such as severe disability of a sole resident of the

property. 4. General Criteria

The report attachments include:- • A matrix table demonstrating percentages of verge areas taken up by crossovers

and or verge paving proposals; • A copy of the Policy No. 5.2.19 as adopted in May 2012; • A copy of the Guidelines for Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance which

were prepared after the May 2012 Council decision; • A copy of the August 2014 "Streetscape Policy".

Proposed Policy

A position is presented for consideration based on a review of:- • Council's current and previous policy; • The new August 2014 Town Planning Scheme Policy No. 3.1 Streetscape; • The compliance management issues identified at the Councilor Forum in October 2014; • Current policies for verge development and paving of three Council's bordering with the

Town of Cambridge. The following requirements are proposed. 1. Paving with bricks or concrete as a landscape treatment on verges will not be permitted

as a general rule unless specified below. 2. Vehicle crossovers and pedestrian access from the kerb line to property line can be

permitted. Vehicle crossovers are assessed under Policy 5.2.7. 3. Permeable or impermeable artificial grass treatments will not be permitted on any verge

for parking or landscaping. 4. Verge paving for parking will only be permitted where a property cannot accommodate 2

vehicles on site.

Where one car can be accommodated on site, the maximum extra verge paving permissible in conjunction with a single vehicle crossover is 18.0 metres2 maximum.

No verge paving for parking will be considered if it has a detrimental impact on existing verge trees.



5. The proposal to adopt a "Verge Development Scheme" not be implemented. 6. The Town Planning Scheme Policy 3.1 "Streetscape Policy", as adopted in August 2014,

applies only to the property front setback. 7. Applicants for street verge paving requests for parking be advised that, in the event they

disagree with the assessment conducted by the Administration, they have a right of review by the Council (or a Committee of Council).


This report is relevant to a review of existing Policy No. 5.2.19 - Street Verges Landscaping and Maintenance.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


This policy review reflects the following goals and strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

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

retains a sense of place. Strategy: Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant.


This report has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11 as "Not Required". The report seeks Council direction in order to revise an existing policy. A community information process will be required when the policy is amended.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Matrix table of verge paving percentages. 2. Policy No. 5.2.19 Street Verges - Landscape and Maintenance (May 2012). 3. Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines (May 2012). 4. Guide to Streetscape Policy (August 2014).




That the following criteria be incorporated in an amendment of Policy No. 5.2.19 and associated guidelines and the policy and guidelines be presented back to Council for adoption:- (i) paving with bricks or concrete as a landscape treatment on verges will not be

permitted as a general rule unless specified below; (ii) vehicle crossovers and pedestrian access from the kerb line to property line can be

permitted. Vehicle crossovers are assessed under Policy 5.2.7; (iii) permeable or impermeable artificial grass treatments will not be permitted on any verge

for parking or landscaping;

(iv) verge paving for parking will only be permitted where a property cannot accommodate 2 cars on site;

Where one car can be accommodated on site, the maximum extra verge paving permissible in conjunction with a single vehicle crossover is 18.0 metres2 maximum;

No verge paving for parking will be considered if it has a detrimental impact on existing verge trees;

(v) the proposal to adopt a "Verge Development Scheme" not be implemented; (vi) the Town Planning Scheme Policy 3.1 - "Streetscape Policy", as adopted in August

2014, applies only to the property front setback; (vii) applicants for street verge paving requests for parking be advised that in the event they

disagree with the assessment conducted by the Administration, they have a right of review by the Council (or a Committee of Council).

Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 During discussion, Cr Grinceri considered that clause (vii) of the motion be deleted as it was not necessary to include it in the policy as it is a requirement of the Local Government Act 1995 to advise of the appeal process in any correspondence. Amendment Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr That clause (vii) of the motion be deleted. Amendment carried 5/0 Discussion ensued. The Mayor requested that the Administration review Item 3 of the Objectives of the Policy relating to 'waterwise' and whether that should be deleted. Also, it must be pointed out in the policy that where a property has a crossover, it is unlikely that the property will be able to accommodate at least one car and therefore it may not qualify for a hard stand. Where a property has a redundant crossover, the crossover is to be removed if a hard stand area is approved.



Amendment Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Carr That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (vii) where a property has a crossover, it is unlikely that the property will be able to

accommodate at least one car and therefore it may not qualify for a hard stand.

Where a property has a redundant crossover, the crossover is to be removed if a hard stand area is approved.

Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the following criteria be incorporated in an amendment of Policy No. 5.2.19 and associated guidelines and the policy and guidelines be presented back to Council for adoption:- (i) paving with bricks or concrete as a landscape treatment on verges will not be

permitted as a general rule unless specified below; (ii) vehicle crossovers and pedestrian access from the kerb line to property line can be

permitted. Vehicle crossovers are assessed under Policy 5.2.7; (iii) permeable or impermeable artificial grass treatments will not be permitted on any

verge for parking or landscaping;

(iv) verge paving for parking will only be permitted where a property cannot accommodate 2 cars on site;

Where one car can be accommodated on site, the maximum extra verge paving permissible in conjunction with a single vehicle crossover is 18.0 metres2

maximum;

No verge paving for parking will be considered if it has a detrimental impact on existing verge trees;

(v) the proposal to adopt a "Verge Development Scheme" not be implemented; (vi) the Town Planning Scheme Policy 3.1 - "Streetscape Policy", as adopted in August

2014, applies only to the property front setback; (vii) where a property has a crossover, it is unlikely that the property will be able to

accommodate at least one car and therefore it may not qualify for a hard stand.

Where a property has a redundant crossover, the crossover is to be removed if a hard stand area is approved.

Carried 9/0



CR14.177 NEW FOOTPATH WORKS 2014/15 BUDGET - PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON KAVANAGH STREET

SUMMARY:

The adopted budget for 2014/2015 includes five new footpath projects adjacent to residential properties, with one of these being a missing link in Kavanagh Street between Ruislip Street and a public access way leading to Lake Monger Drive and a pedestrian crossing over Lake Monger Drive. The residents and owners of the adjacent properties were notified of the proposed 2.0 metre wide kerbside path on the eastern verge by circulation of a letter and map, dated 23 September 2014. Responses were elicited via email, posted response form or via the Town's website by a closing date of 13 October 2014. The letter advised of the works proposed and of the intention to commence early 2015. Adjacent Kavanagh Street residents supported the path only if it was on the opposite verge to their property. Comments were made by adjacent residents in relation to existing pedestrians predominantly using the western side verge to access the public access way. Further comment was made in relation to the potential danger associated with crossing Kavanagh Street from the verge of No. 18 Kavanagh Street to the public access way. Both speed and poor sight lines associated with the 90 degree corner were issues raised. Based on a review of information provided, and in recognition of the strategic nature of the proposed paths, it is recommended that the proposed path on Kavanagh Street be constructed on the western verge rather than the eastern verge as originally proposed as this should create a safer footpath with less road crossings for pedestrians to navigate. It is proposed to re-survey Kavanagh Street to allow adjacent residents to make comment, prior to making a final decision on the footpath location.

BACKGROUND:

A new section of path funded in the current 2014/15 Budget is:- Road Section Description of Proposed Path Funding Kavanagh Street Ruislip Street to PAW 2.0 metre wide grey concrete footpath

adjacent to kerb on east side. $34,000

A letter and response form dated 23 September 2014 was posted to each property address adjacent to the proposed path to elicit comments from the residents directly affected by the construction of the path. Feedback was received via the returned response forms, emails and the response form on the Town's website. The advised closing date for response was 13 October 2014 and responses were accepted until 15 October 2014 to allow for delivery time. The standard response form asked whether the respondent supported the proposal, objected to the proposal or neither supported or objected. The respondent's address and additional comments were requested to support their answer.



In general, new footpaths address a number of objectives for the Town:- • Policy No. 5.2.5 "Footpaths - Upgrading Of" requires all roads to have at least one

footpath; • The Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 requires the Town to provide safe options for

travel and activity; • The new footpaths complete missing links in the Town's network of footpaths and shared

paths; • The footpaths encourage people to be active and use the Town's recreational facilities; • The Metropolitan RRG Local Roads Crash Report 2003 - 2012 advises that during the 10

year period on local roads within the Town of Cambridge, the total of Killed or Seriously Injured people was 262. Of these, 25 were pedestrians and 26 were cyclists;

• The minimum width of a footpath is 1.5 metres and the minimum width of a shared path is

2.0 metres. If the path is adjacent to the kerb, then the path width is increased by 0.5 metres to allow for the unusable area next to the kerb, accommodate signage and allow waste bins to be collected without impact on the footpath.

DETAILS:

The responses from residents for this new footpath are summarised in the table below. Specific response details are provided in the Attachment to the report. If more than one response was received from a property, then the responses were counted as one response. If the response was from a property not adjacent to the proposed path, then it was counted as an external response. 1. Kavanagh Street The proposed path will provide a connection between the footpaths on Ruislip Street and Connolly Street to the pedestrian access way to Lake Monger Reserve accessed from Kavanagh Street. The alternative pedestrian route is via St Vincents Avenue and The Grove and both of these streets currently have a footpath. The footpath can be constructed on either the west side or the east side. The west side has 15 crossovers, many street trees, 2 street lights to be relocated and vehicles parked in the crossover or the verge. The east side has 5 crossovers, 2 road crossings, 3 street lights to be relocated, 1 park verge with no parking allowed and 2 verges with a high boundary wall. It also requires pedestrians to cross Rosmunde Court and cross over Kavanagh Street at the public access way. On the east side of Kavanagh Street there are seven properties with a frontage to Kavanagh Street where the path was proposed. An objection to this path was made by 4 property owners. All made comment in regards to a better location on the west side as it would not cross over Rosmunde Court and would eliminate a dangerous road crossing to the public access way from the verge of 18 Kavanagh Street. Their observations noted pedestrians generally used the western verge. The owner of 18 Kavanagh Street has provided extensive commentary in relation to safety and amenity issues with the eastern side proposed path location. This information is provided within the report Attachment.



On the west side of Kavanagh Street, seven responses supporting the proposal were received. Only 2 submissions made comments. Kavanagh Street Number Summary of Comments Total properties surveyed

21

Object Responses 4 All objectors are located on east side of Kavanagh Street. They observe the majority of pedestrians who walk on the west side. Better crossing point at Ruislip Street on the western verge to eliminate the road crossing at the bend in Kavanagh Street. Footpath not required since have enough footpaths to Lake Monger. Waste of money. Will encourage more pedestrians who talk loudly in morning. Motorists should slow down for the pedestrians in the street. The west verge is safer. The 3 street lights should be relocated to other side of street to make room for path.

Support Responses 6 All supporters are located on west side of Kavanagh Street. Good proposal to improve safety for people with prams and small children. Kavanagh Street is busy and narrow with traffic coming around curve in road.

Neither Responses 1 Will object if footpath is on west side. External Response 1 Support

1 Object Both located in Kavanagh Street away from the proposed path.

Recommendation: Construct the path as it is acknowledged that there is an issue with traffic and pedestrians in the street. For increased safety, the path be constructed on the west verge of Kavanagh Street and on the kerbside. This will allow all properties to still park on their property crossover. This will also eliminate road crossings over Rosmunde Court and Kavanagh Street.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report. Relevant policies are:- • No. 5.2.5 Footpaths - Upgrading Of; • No. 5.4.9 Asset Management.


A budget allowance for this new path is included in the adopted 2014/15 budget, as follows:- • Kavanagh Street $34,000 An estimated additional $5,000 is required for the Kavanagh Street path to relocate each street lights further back into the eastern verge or to the west side of Kavanagh Street. The west verge has 2 street lights and the eastern verge has 3 street lights.




This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Strategy: Create and maintain safe environments. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Facilitate commercial development within the Town. Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Reduce car dependency.


This proposal has been assessed under the community Consultation policy 1.2.11. The assessment has been set at "CONSULT" in order to obtain feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives and/or decisions and to assist in decision making. This report has presented the written comments of adjacent owners following circulation of a letter and map, dated 23 September 2014, for each of the proposed footpaths.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Copy of the survey letter and map of proposed path sent to adjacent residents. 2. Detailed responses to the public consultation survey.


That the adjacent residents in Kavanagh Street be consulted in relation to construction of a new 2.0 metre wide grey concrete footpath being located on the kerb on the west side of Kavanagh Street, between Ruislip Street and the Public Access Way.



Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that the footpath should be 1.5 metres wide. Amendment Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr That the motion be amended by deleting "2.0 metre" and inserting "1.5 metre". Amendment lost 2/3 For: Crs Carr and Grinceri Against: Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and Walker Discussion ensued. Members agreed that the new footpath in Kavanagh Street had to be constructed on the western side for the following reasons:- • it provides the best connection to existing paths to Lake Monger; • Following consultation and further analysis, it is considered that it is the safest option

particularly with respect to the corner where pedestrians would need to cross if the path was placed on the east side.

Accordingly, it was agreed that the footpath be constructed without additional consultation. Amendment Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Walker That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That the adjacent residents in Kavanagh Street not be consulted in relation to construction of a new 2.0 metre wide grey concrete footpath being located on the kerb on the west side of Kavanagh Street, between Ruislip Street and the Public Access Way. Amendment carried 3/2 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Langer and Walker Against: Crs Carr and Grinceri COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the adjacent residents in Kavanagh Street not be consulted in relation to construction of a new 2.0 metre wide grey concrete footpath being located on the kerb on the west side of Kavanagh Street, between Ruislip Street and the Public Access Way. Carried 9/0



CR14.178 PROPOSED BLENCOWE ST PARKING RESTRICTIONS

SUMMARY:

Residents have bought to the attention of Council high levels of parking along Blencowe Street between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue. A parking survey during November 2014 supports a "No Parking Road or Verge with Residential Permit Parking Excepted" on both sides of the road.

BACKGROUND:

Blencowe Street residents between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue, over the past year have requested that parking along the section be reviewed. It is evident that over the past few years overflow parking from sporting events at Subiaco Oval has affected the amenity of some residents. A parking survey conducted during June 2014 by the Town's Rangers observed high levels of on-street parking. It is recognised that Blencowe Street south of this section between Woolwich Street to Ruislip Street has the following parking restrictions "No Parking Road or Verge, Residential Permit Parking Excepted". Similarly, St Leonards Avenue immediately west of Blencowe Street has the same parking restriction.

DETAILS:

It is considered that the current width of Blencowe Street does not support long sections of parking on both sides of the road between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue. The parking by the residents is generally effectively managed by the right angle verge parking where sufficient space exists to house a car. The proposed parking changes of "No Parking Road or Verge, Residential Permit Parking Excepted" on both sides of the road should address the high usage conflicts along the section of Blencowe Street, Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue. The Town sent out a letter and parking survey to the residents and owners of Blencowe Street with a comment period 30 October to 14 November 2014. The following parking options were detailed for consideration:- 1. Do you support "No Parking Road or Verge along Blencowe Street between Ruislip

Street and Clune Avenue on both sides of the road with Residential Permit Parking Excepted"?

2. Do you support maintaining Blencowe Street as unrestricted for parking? No changes. 3. Any other comments or suggestions? The parking survey yielded 17 responses up to the 14 November 2014. Twelve responses aligned with option 1 as the preferred outcome. "No Parking Road or Verge along Blencowe Street between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue on both sides of the road with Residential Permit Parking Excepted" be supported.



This proposal provides for a preservation of amenity, while also ensuring that reasonable access is provided to residents and emergency service vehicles. Observations along this section of Blencowe Street have demonstrated that the judicious use of verge parking alleviates potential conflicts in road access outside of peak usage times.


There are no statutory implications related to this report as the recommendation conforms with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". This report is guided by Council Policy No. 5.2.22 - "Parking Restrictions" and the following relevant 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.

• A community survey maybe carried out when a recommended parking restriction will be

adjacent the property owned or occupied by persons not making the request for reasons other than safety.

• In Residential Precincts, kerbside parking may be imposed to:- (a) protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of business/commercial/ medical/

recreational/commuter parking on local roads. It is highlighted in Policy 5.2.22, section 2(iii) - Residential Precincts - Kerbside Parking, restrictions may be imposed to:- (a) protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of business/commercial/medical/

recreational/commuter parking on local roads; (b) introduce a "No Parking on Road or Residential Parking Permit Exempt" in local

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


The estimated cost of the erection of the signage is $720. This amount can be sourced from Budget Item - "Road Name Signs and Parking Signs".




The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Develop a public parking strategy. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Implement initiatives for people to use public transport.


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "INFORM" with the objective "to obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making. In developing a position on a parking option, there is a requirement to "CONSULT" with directly affected residents of Blencowe Street.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Copies of letter and survey results to residents. 2. Plan E 261 06 01 Blencowe Street Parking. Council Meeting 16 December 2014 Prior to consideration of this item, Cr MacRae, in accordance with Section 5.65 of the Local Government Act 1995, declared a proximity interest in this matter and left the meeting at 7.01 pm. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) both sides of Blencowe Street between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue be

designated as "No Parking Road or Verge - Residential Permit Parking Excepted"; (ii) the affected residents along Blencowe Street be formally advised prior to the

installation of the Council decision. Carried 8/0 Cr MacRae returned to the meeting at 7.03 pm.



CR14.179 SCHOOL CROSSING - HERDSMAN PARADE AT ALEXANDER STREET

SUMMARY:

Approval has been given by the Children's Crossing Road Safety Committee to establish a Type "A" guarded school crossing over Herdsman Parade, just west of Alexander Street. This crossing to Alexander Street provides school access to the Wembley Primary School. Prior to commencement of use, the crossing needs to be constructed by the Council. A budget has not been allowed for in 2014/15 and $25,000 is required which can be funded from a re-allocation of funding.

BACKGROUND:

In order to ensure safe access to schools, there is a process managed by the WA Police and Main Roads WA where a School Principal or the President of a recognised school/parent organisation can make application to the Children's crossing and Road Safety Committee for a Guarded School Crossing. The Wembley Primary School has made an application. There are two classes of crossing points:- 1. Type "A". These crossings have a Traffic Warden appointed by the Commissioner of WA

Police and they are fully funded. The warrant requirement prior to approval is:-

• Primary School - minimum of 20 students and 200 vehicle movements within the hour immediately before and immediately after school. For a High School the traffic warrant is 700 vehicle movements.

2. Type "B". These crossings also have a Traffic Warden appointed by the commissioner of

Police, however all remuneration costs for the Warden are to be covered by the school. In December 2013, the Wembley Primary School applied for a crossing over Hersdman Parade at the intersection of Alexander Street. On 8 April 2014, a site inspection and assessment of traffic data was conducted and subsequently the Children's Crossing Road Safety Committee recommended establishment of a Type "A" children's crossing. Based on this the following summary of items to be actioned has been prepared:- • The Children’s Crossing Unit (CCU) to send installation request to Main Roads WA; • Town of Cambridge to submit drawings to Main Roads WA; • Main Roads WA to co-ordinate the installation of the Children’s Crossing; • Town of Cambridge to submit drawings to MRWA; • Town of Cambridge to close off ramps and median strip at old crossing location; • Wembley Primary School to advise parents via a school newsletter of the new children’s

crossing; • Main Roads WA to advise the Children’s Crossing Unit when crossing has been installed; • The Children’s Crossing Unit to advise the Traffic Warden State Management Unit of the

need for a Traffic Warden at this crossing once the crossing has been installed.



Herdsman Parade - Guarded School Crossing at Alexander Street

DETAILS:

It is estimated a $25,000 budget is required to provide the new Type "A" children crossing and to amend the existing crossing point located on Herdsman Parade, just west of Alexander Street. Council has not budgeted for this crossing, however, a re-allocation of funds totalling $31,500 could be used from an existing budget item:- • Traffic Signals - Disability Access. This budget was for the Salvado Road/Jersey Street

intersection and the proposed works are still subject to Main Roads WA design review. The budget for this project is likely to be insufficient to complete any proposed works.


There is no conflict with the Road Design policy 5.2.17. Main Roads WA are required to approve all signs and lines prior to construction commencing.


The preliminary estimated cost for the project is $25,000 exclusive GST. No budget has been included in 2014/15, however, a re-allocation of funds from Budget Item - Traffic Signals - Disability Access can allow the project to proceed.




The Town's Strategic Plan 2013-2023 has specific outcome areas to strive for, namely:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Work towards improving public transport. Strategy: Reduce car dependency. Our Community Life Goals: An active safe and inclusive community Strategy: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Strategy: Create and maintain safe environments.


This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "INFORM" with the objective "to provide the community with balance and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the installation of a Type "A" Guarded School Crossing over Herdsman Parade,

just west of Alexander Street be supported; (ii) an amount of $25,000 be re-allocated from Budget Item - Traffic Signals - Disability

Access for the works in (i) above. Carried 9/0



CR14.180 MINDARIE REGIONAL COUNCIL MEETINGS

SUMMARY:

To report on items considered at Mindarie Regional Council meetings:- • 4 September 2014; and • 30 October 2014.

BACKGROUND:

The purpose of the Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) is to provide waste disposal facilities at least for its members within the Mindarie region. The MRC generally meets on six occasions each year for Ordinary meetings and holds Special meetings when required to progress specific initiatives. Scheduled Meeting Dates for 2014 Ordinary Council meetings were adopted in October 2013 as follows:- All meetings commence at 5.30pm. • Thursday, 13 February 2014 - City of Joondalup; • Thursday, 24 April 2014 - City of Wanneroo; • Thursday, 3 July 2014 - City of Stirling; • Thursday, 4 September 2014 - City of Vincent; • Thursday, 30 October 2014 - City of Perth; and • Thursday, 11 December 2014 - Town of Victoria Park. Additional meetings may be endorsed to be held throughout the year to discuss strategic issues.

DETAILS:

Ordinary Meeting 4 September 2014 Item 1: Review of Council Policies and Delegations to the Chief Executive Officer In line with current practices a formal review of all policies was completed. In addition, the Audit Committee and MRC auditor had also recommended some amendments. Item 2: Appointment of Councillor to Municipal Waste Advisory Council Councillor Newton from City of Wannero has been appointed as a Mindarie Regional Councillor Representative on the Municipal Waste Advisory Council replacing Councillor Bissett (Town of Victoria Park). Item 3: Recommendations Arising from the Audit Committee This report presented the Audit Committee Recommendations arising from their meeting on 26 July 2014. The MRC endorsed the Chief Executive Officer's financial management review and the Risk Management Framework and Risk Register.



Item 4: Landfill Wall Liner Stage 2 Phase 3 Works This report reviewed works associated with an existing tender contract. The existing contract requires the landfill excavation to have a clay lining on walls to contain all waste materials. Operational issues have identified problems laying the clay liner and a revised solution incorporating use of a Geosynthetic Clay Liner has been approved. This solution is supported and has the potential to save $1.7 million dollars on clay lining works. Council has approved the revised Geosynthetic clay lining proposal and will call public tenders for execution of the revised design option. Ordinary Meeting 30 October 2014

Item 1: 10 Year Asset Management Plan As part of the requirement for Local Government and Regional Council authorities to develop an Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework, the MRC submitted the following Council approved plans to the Department of Local Government and Communities in June 2013:- • 20 year Strategic Community Plan; • 20 year Financial Plan; • 4 year Corporate Business Plan; • 4 year Asset Management Plan; • 4 year Workforce Plan. These plans met the requirement of the Department and the MRC recently received correspondence from the Department commending the quality of these documents. The 10 year Asset Management Plan (2013/14 to 2022/23 was adopted. Item 2: Proposed Merger of the Forum of Regional Councils and Municipal Waste

Advisory Council The need for Forum of Regional Councils (FORC) to continue in its current form is being questioned by some of its members as the advocacy it has taken up in the past is now being taken up by MWAC and WALGA. Given this, the resolution of FORC to consider merging with MNWAC is sound and as such it is recommended that FORC be encouraged to commence these discussions with WALGA as per its resolution as a matter of urgency. Failing this, the MRC, along with likeminded Regional Councils will enter into discussions with WALGA independently of FORC. Currently, to be a member of FORC requires an annual contribution of $25,000. WALGA have estimated that the new governance model for MWAC, including the Regional Councils CEO's Standing Committee, would cost $5,000 per annum resulting in a saving to the MRC. The MRC has resolved to advise the Forum of Regional Councils that it supports the position to consider merging with WALGA/MWAC.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.






The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Natural Environment Goal: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example. Strategy: Minimise waste to landfill and increase recycling.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, no community consultation is required as this report is purely administrative in providing information to Council.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the report relating to items considered by Mindarie Regional Council at the meetings held on 4 September 2014 and 30 October 2014 be received. Carried 9/0



CR14.181 DRAFT RUTTER PARK IMPROVEMENT CONCEPT PLAN

SUMMARY:

The Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan has been reviewed in terms of design and cost reduction. The improvements proposed in this new Draft Plan are consistent with the improvements identified by the Mayor and Councillors at a site meeting held on 13 October 2014 at Rutter Park. The total cost of improvements is now estimated at $282,425 (excl. GST). As a comparison, the original design was costed at $530,775. It is recommended that the Park Improvement Concept Plan for Rutter Park be received and circulated for public comment. Following public comment, the Rutter Park Plan be finalised and presented to Council for further consideration and endorsement.

BACKGROUND:

In October 2012, (Item CR12.154) a report on Park Trees Management Plan 2012-2022 (Draft) was considered and Council decided:- "That:- (i) the Administration is to prepare a short policy on the management of park trees for

adoption by Council. The policy should provide high level guidance only. The policy should contain policy measures that reflect the Town's aspirations for the creation of beautiful, shady and safe, useable parks;

(ii) for the current financial year, the Administration prepares Park Improvement Concept

Plans for 4 of the Town's larger parks utilising the services of a qualified landscape designer with the assistance of a greenspace planning organisation such as Playscape;

• each plan will showcase superior landscaping using an appropriate combination of

ornamental trees, native and non-native trees, and smaller plants that give the best outcome for the use and attractiveness of each park;

• each concept plan will identify additional recreational amenities and infrastructure

such as seating, shade, bbqs, tables, paths and lighting to make the park a people-friendly and safe place to visit;

• the elements of each concept plan will set the character of the park and efforts

should be made to give each park a different look and feel; • the concept plans are to be largely pictorial with an indication of the cost of the

proposed capital works; The Administration is also requested to provide advice on how this work is to be funded in the current budget."



In November 2012, (Item CR12.169), a report relating to production of Park Improvement Concept Plans was considered and Council decided:- "That:- (i) the Management of Park Trees Policy, as detailed in Attachment No 1, be endorsed

subject to clause (vi) being amended to read as follows:-

"(vi) Passive areas in parks should have a combination of large shade trees and ornamental trees that will provide colour and interest all year round. Shade trees should be planted near BBQs, seating and playgrounds in a manner that provides a shady character for the activity. Fruit and nut trees may also be appropriate in these areas."

(ii) the Design Brief, for developing the Park Improvement Concept Plans, as detailed in

attachment No 2 be endorsed with the following deliverables:-

• Inspect those parks listed with the Administration prior to commencement of preparing the plans;

• Undertake an analysis of existing amenity in each park; • Prepare proposed designs with the assistance of a green-space planning

organisation; • Produce a Park Improvement Concept plan for each park. Each plan should be

largely pictorial and include suitable details describing the proposed improvements to enable members of the public to understand what is proposed without having to read a separate report. Plans produced are to be in an electronic and hard copy format in a minimum A3 size;

• Prepare a breakdown of estimated costs of each component on the plan for

budgeting purposes; • Produce a short report to accompany each Park Improvement Concept Plan which

describes the methodology and reason for the proposed improvements; • Attend a future Council, Committee and/or Executive meeting to explain the

proposed improvements; • Undertake community consultation following Council endorsement of the draft Park

Improvement Concept Plans and produce a report analysing comments received; • Finalise plans based on comments received for submission to Council and

endorsement;

subject to a further clause being added to the Design Brief as follows:-

"Submissions 5. Provide a price to project manage the implementation of the plan;"

(iii) Park Improvement Concept Plans be initially produced for Rutter, Winmarley, Crosby and Tilton Parks;



(iv) the amount of $40,000 required to develop the Park Improvement Concept Plans in (iii)

above be reallocated from the City Beach Civic Centre project allocation - ($50,000); (v) when completed, the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans for the parks be presented

to Council for consideration prior to the conduct of a public consultation process." On 13 October 2014, Mayor Simon Withers, Councillors Corinne MacRae, Tracy King, Louis Carr and the Manager Infrastructure Parks met on site at Rutter Park to discuss the proposed design for Rutter Park and the extent of improvements proposed in terms of cost reduction. At the end of the meeting, all present agreed on the following changes to the Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan:- • Reduce the size of the hardstands proposed (paths etc); • Do not include Ecozoning or planting of shrubs as proposed; • Reduce the extend of the arbours proposed; • Retain the existing playground and do not install new one; • Install a Flying Fox and nature play items; • Retain proposed improvements to existing trees; and • Retain the proposed open grassed area. In October 2014, (Item CR14.142) a report relating to the completion of four Draft Park Improvement Concept Plans was considered and Council decided:- "That:- (i) the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plan for Rutter Park be reviewed in terms of design

and cost reduction and submitted to Council for further consideration prior to a community consultation process;

(ii) the community consultation process to include:-

• a four week public comment period to be advertised in the Town's community news page and website;

• the draft plan be made available for review/collection at the Town of Cambridge

Administration Centre, Cambridge Library and the Town's website; • the draft plan be delivered to immediate adjacent residents;

(iii) public comments received be assessed and the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plan for Rutter Park be finalised and presented to Council for consideration and endorsement;

(iv) receive other plans for Winmarley Park, Tilton Park and Crosby Park and no further

action at this time."



DETAILS:

The Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan has been reviewed in terms of design and cost reduction. A summary of the improvements identified include:- • A picnic facility including barbecues, table settings and drink fountain; • Installation of two arbours over the table settings; • Installation of paths to allow access to the Picnic and playground facilities from Alexander

Street, Jersey Street and the Wembley Community Centre path; • Flying Fox playground item; • Nature play timber or similar items; • Rubbish bins and bicycle racks; • Replacement of the Jersey St boundary fence; and • Retention of the 'Kick-about' area.

The above improvements are consistent with the improvements identified by the Mayor and Councillors at a site meeting held on 13 October 2014 at Rutter Park. Total cost of improvements is estimated at $282,425 (excl. GST). As a comparison, the original design was costed at $530,775 which relates to a cost reduction of $248,350 on the original proposed plan. Comment It is recommended that the Park Improvement Concept Plan for Rutter Park be received and circulated for public comment. Following public comment, the Plan be finalised and presented to Council for further consideration and endorsement.


Policy No.5.1.4 'Management of Park Trees' refers to the development of Park Improvement Concept Plans and provides guidance when planting trees in parks. This report is consistent with this Policy.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report. The budget requirement for the Draft Rutter Park Plan is $282,425. STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our community Life Goal Quality local parks and open spaces for community to enjoy Strategy Focus on activating our major public open spaces. Strategy Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds. Strategy Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves.



Goal An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and abilities. Strategy Create and maintain safe environments.


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 consultation process proposed, aimed at finalising the four draft improvement concept plans, will include:- • A four week public comment period to be advertised in the Town's community news page

and website; • The draft plan be made available for review/collection at the Town of Cambridge

Administration Centre, Cambridge Library and the Town's website;

• The draft plan be delivered to immediate adjacent residents;

• Public comments received will be collated and assessed and the Draft Park Improvement Concept Plan is finalised and presented to Council for consideration and endorsement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan. 2. Estimated Improvement Costs. 3. Pictures of proposed Flying Fox, Arbours and Nature Play Items.


That:- (i) the Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan be received and circulated for public

comment; (ii) the community consultation process to include:-


• the draft plan be made available for review/collection at the Town of Cambridge Administration Centre, Cambridge Library and the Town's website;

• the draft plan be delivered to immediate adjacent residents; (iii) public comments received be assessed and the Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept

Plan be finalised and presented to Council for consideration and endorsement.



Committee 8 December 2014 During discussion, Cr Grinceri suggested that additional park benches should be included in the Concept Plan for Rutter Park. Amendment Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Walker That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) the Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan, with the addition of three park benches,

be circulated for public comment. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Draft Rutter Park Improvement Concept Plan, with the addition of three park

benches, be circulated for public comment; (ii) the community consultation process to include:-


• the draft plan be made available for review/collection at the Town of Cambridge Administration Centre, Cambridge Library and the Town's website;

• the draft plan be delivered to immediate adjacent residents; (iii) public comments received be assessed and the Draft Rutter Park Improvement

Concept Plan be finalised and presented to Council for consideration and endorsement.

Carried 9/0



CR14.182 INFRASTRUCTURE PARKS BUDGET 2015/2016 PROPOSED BUDGET WORKS

SUMMARY:

Various asset management and works programs/plans are managed within the Infrastructure Parks service area. These programmes list every existing asset and proposed new assets within this service area which are prioritised and costed for budgeting purposes when they require upgrading or replacement. The proper management and funding of the above programs ensure that Council’s major assets are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis with the aim of maintaining and/or raising the quality standard of assets throughout the Town's parks, comply to appropriate safety and health standards, as well as meeting the needs of the community. Details of individual projects, as categorised into four budget programmes of the current budget format, are listed in this report and are recommended for inclusion in the 2015/2016 Draft Budget for Council consideration. Preparation of this report has been based on current Town of Cambridge programs and community requests. Further budget programs will be prepared to cover the areas of City of Stirling, City of Nedlands and City of Subiaco when information and data from these Councils is received. This information is relevant to the Local Government Reform process which commences on 1 July 2015.

BACKGROUND:

The Town's Infrastructure Parks service area currently manages 476 hectares of Public Open Space including Parks, Sportsgrounds, Landscaped Road Reserves, Remnant Bushland Areas and Coastal Dunes (excluding the Wembley Golf Course). To manage the various assets, facilities and landscaping components within these areas to appropriate safety and quality standards, individual asset management programmes/plans have been developed. These programmes list every asset within the service area which are prioritised (according to their condition) and are allocated a cost estimate for budgeting purposes when they need to be upgraded or replaced. In addition, there is the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018, the Perry Lakes Reserve Environmental Management Plan 2001, the Coastal Natural Areas Management Plan 2006-2010, the Treescape Plan 2010-2020, the Water Conservation Plan 2007, and associated implementation programmes which guide the management and improvement of these parks and road reserves. Council has previously endorsed all of these management and implementation programmes in previous Council reports. The Administration updates the programs annually to identify completed projects and proposed projects to be funded. The annual review of the programmes has been completed and a summarised version of these programmes is included in the report Attachment.



DETAILS:

Capital projects are listed in the Capital section of the budget within the “Infrastructure - Parks and Reserves” category. Non-Capital projects are listed in the Operating section of the budget within their designated “Grounds Maintenance” categories. Items including Capital and Non-Capital, proposed to be included in the 2015/2016 Draft Budget, have been individually identified and listed below under the various four categories in accordance with the current budget format:- 1. Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works

Project Budget

Schedule Budget

$ • Berkeley Park - Service Bore & Pump No.32 Capital 16,000 • Bent Park - Replace Irrigation System Capital 292,000 • City Beach Civic Centre - Repair Wall/Upgrade Garden Capital 40,000 • Contingency Emergency Irrigation Repairs Capital 10,000 • Donegal Park - Service Bore & Pump No.16 Capital 16,000 • Lake Monger Reserve - Rehabilitate Lake Edge (stage 3 of 6) Capital 100,000 • Lake Monger Reserve - Management of Rehabilitated Zones

(Includes $26,600 Combined Annual Contribution, City of Vincent & MRWA)

Operating

40,000

• Lake Monger Reserve - Decorate Christmas Tree Operating 16,000 • Lake Monger Reserve – Arboriculture Works Operating 15,000 • Lake Monger Reserve - Service Bore & Pump No.183 Capital 16,000 • Lake Monger Reserve - Service Bore & Pump No.164 Capital 16,000 • Lake Monger Reserve - Upgrade Path Southport St Link

(stage 9 of 9) Capital 110,000

Maloney Park - Replace Bore/Service Pump No.27 Capital 16,000 • Arboriculture Risk Management Tree Works Operating 30,000 • Repair Damaged Playground Shade Sails Operating 20,000 • Perry Lakes Reserve - Arboricultural / Tree Planting Works Operating 25,000 • Perry Lakes Reserve - Remove Lake Tree Weeds Operating 15,000 • Ground Water Monitoring (All Irrigation Bores) Operating 16,000 • Calibrate/Repair Water Meters of Irrigation Bores Operating 25,000 • Feral Animal Control Operating 5,000 • Various Parks - Install Seats & Drink Fountains Operating 15,000 • Various Parks - Remark Car Park Bays & Minor Repairs Operating 10,000 • Treat Bores for Iron Bacteria Operating 16,000 • Replace Playground Sand/Minor Play Items Operating 15,000 • Upgrade Garden Beds Operating 8,000 • Replace Park Signs Operating 5,000 Total 908,000

The 2014/2015 adopted Budget included a total of $720,000 associated with works relating to the Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $694,000 • Reserves $0 • ELA $0 • Grants/Contributions $26,000 (City of Vincent, MRWA) for Lake Monger Total $720,000



1. The Bent Park Irrigation System ($292,000 budget) above is for replacement of a 36 year

old system which requires constant repairs (to piping and wiring) to keep it operational. 2. Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Path Southport Street Link $110,000 is the last stage of

path replacement works. This path is bitumen 2.5 metres wide and it is proposed to replace it with a 3 metre wide coloured concrete. Although the path is old it is still functional.

460 metres x 3 metres width = $110,000

3. The Lake Monger Reserve has a staged lake edge rehabilitation plan Stage 3 of 6 is to

be progressed in 2015/16 with a budget of $100,000. Of the proposed projects listed above the Bent Park replace irrigation system is considered a higher priority due to the high maintenance costs incurred in keeping the system operational. 2. Sportsgrounds Construction

Project Budget Schedule

Budget $

• City Beach Oval South - Install New Playground with Shade Structure

Capital 80,000

• Grantham Park - Resurface Carpark Capital 30,000 • Various Sportsgrounds - Renovate Active Turf Areas Operating 35,000 Total 145,000

The 2014/2015 adopted Budget included a total of $696,000 associated with works

relating to the Sportsgrounds Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $ 201,000 • Reserve $495,000 • Endowment Nil • Grants Nil Total $696,000

Note: This included works budgeted for Wembley Sports Park Improvements of $495,000 in 2014/15.

3. Ocean Beaches Construction


Budget $

• Beaches and Dunes – City Beach Groyne Maintenance (stage 3 of 3). (Subject to Dept of Transport $120,000 Grant Application to be submitted April 2015)

Capital 240,000

• Beaches & Dunes - Upgrade Beach Access Paths Capital 20,000 • Beaches & Dunes - Dune Rehabilitation Operating 10,000 • Floreat Beach Park - Upgrade Landscaping (stage 5 of 5) Operating 10,000 Total 280,000

The City Beach Groyne Maintenance works (stage 3, final stage) budget above includes

grant funding from the Department of Transport of $120,000 (50/50 basis). The success of this grant will not be known until July 2015. The Town has been successful in receiving grants from the Department of Transport for stages 1 and 2.



Stages 1 and 2 maintenance works included the south, the west and a small section of the north side of the groyne. Works in stage 3 will include the remaining north side of the groyne.

Works proposed include repositioning and repacking of existing armour rock and the

placement of new armour rock to strengthen the groyne. This includes increasing the length of the rock armour (not the groyne or the path) protecting the core eastwards by approximately 30 metres, stopping approximately 10 metres short of the eastern end of the existing groyne path. Consideration will also be given to design and construct an access ramp from the groyne into the ocean.


relating to the Ocean Beaches Construction and Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $236,000 Includes $120,000 for Groyne works matching grant • Reserve Nil • Endowment Nil • Grants $120,000 DoT for Groyne maintenance 50% Total $356,000

4. Road Reserves Construction:


Budget $

• Holyrood Street - Ficus Trees Risk Management Operating 30,000 • Plant Trees in Kirkdale St Median (Rannoch-Lothian) Operating 10,000 • Treescape Plan – Priority & Precinct Streets Planting Program Operating 60,000 • Treescape Plan - Pine/Ficus/Palm Trees Management Operating 70,000 • Upgrade Garden Beds Operating 8,000 Total 178,000


relating to the Road Reserves Construction Program. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $108,000 • Reserve Nil • Endowment Nil • Grants Nil Total $108,000

Comment: The projects listed within each program are proposed to be included in the 2015/2016 Draft Budget for Council consideration. This list is not a final Draft Budget list as other projects may be identified for inclusion between now and the Draft Budget submission date in 2015. As Local Government Reform commences on 1 July 2015 additional programs are still being developed for the areas of Stirling, Nedlands and Subiaco which will be managed by the new Council. It will be recommended that Council considers funding the various projects which have been listed in the above programs and that all programs be prioritised to a level of expenditure set at around previous Municipal allocations and potential grants.






Past funding of the programs listed in this report has been supplemented from Council’s Reserve Accounts, in particular, the Area Improvement Reserve and Endowment Lands Account. The continued use of funds from these accounts will be subject to the availability of funds from within those reserves and the level of development works being carried out by the Town in other areas of operations. 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.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal: Quality local parks and open spaces for community to enjoy Strategy: Focus on activating our major public open spaces. Strategy: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds. Strategy: Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves. Our Natural Environment Goal: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy: Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean water consumption. Strategy: Care for and conserve our flora and fauna. Our Council Goal: The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects.


The implementation of individual projects within the programs listed in this report are undertaken so as to minimise any problems with the various stakeholders of the parks and sportsgrounds where works will be undertaken. Depending on the program, sporting clubs, user groups, community groups and individual residents are included in discussions when developing works programs and construction schedules.



In addition, each project is assessed using the Town’s Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. This report is for information purposes and therefore an assessment in relation to this policy was not undertaken. It is Council policy to publicly advertise the content of the Draft Budget prior to adopting an annual Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Infrastructure Parks Asset Management Programs Summary (Reviewed Nov. 2014) and Asset Management Programmes Overview (Reviewed Nov 2014).

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION That:- (i) the report on Infrastructure Parks 2015/2016 proposed Budget works programmes be

received; (ii) projects identified for implementation in (i) above be prioritised and listed for inclusion in

the 2015/2016 Draft Budget with an estimated total cost of each program as follows:-

Program Proposed Budget 1. Parks $ 908,000 2. Sportsgrounds $ 209,000 3. Ocean Beaches $ 280,000 4. Road Reserves $ 178,000 Total $1,575,000

(iii) grant applications be submitted as they become available for those projects considered

eligible. Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 During discussion, Members agreed that as the Lake Monger Reserve - Southport Street Link footpath was still functional, it was not necessary to upgrade at this stage and that it could be deleted from the program. Amendment Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Mayor Withers That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (ii) the Lake Monger Reserve - Upgrade Path Southport Street Link (Stage 9 of 9) be deleted

from the Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works program and the budget be amended accordingly.

Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, Langer and Walker Against: Cr Carr



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the report on Infrastructure Parks 2015/2016 proposed Budget works programmes

be received; (ii) the Lake Monger Reserve - Upgrade Path Southport Street Link (Stage 9 of 9) be

deleted from the Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works program and the budget be amended accordingly;

(ii) projects identified for implementation in (i) above be prioritised and listed for

inclusion in the 2015/2016 Draft Budget with an estimated total cost of each program as follows:-

Program Proposed Budget 1. Parks $ 798,000 2. Sportsgrounds $ 209,000 3. Ocean Beaches $ 280,000 4. Road Reserves $ 178,000 Total $1,465,000

(iii) grant applications be submitted as they become available for those projects

considered eligible. Carried 9/0



CR14.183 LANEWAY UPGRADE PROGRAM (2015/16 TO 2019/20)

SUMMARY:

A draft program for upgrading the 4.94 km of unsealed lanes remaining in Wembley is presented. This can be completed over a period of 5 years with an average annual funding of $644,000 or over 10 years with an average annual funding of $322,000.

BACKGROUND:

Laneways or Right-of-Ways provide access to the rear of some properties in Jolimont, Wembley and West Leederville. They are useful for allowing large properties to be sub-divided into two properties or for constructing a garage at the rear. The recent developments in Ocean Mia and Perry Lakes included rear lanes to facilitate the development of the small lot sizes. The Town commenced a program of upgrading lanes in 1994 to address the increasing traffic in lanes due to infill development. Approximately 73% of the Town's lanes are now sealed, kerbed and drained. The remaining 4.94 km of unsealed lanes that should be upgraded are all located in Wembley. Council last reviewed the Lane Upgrade Program at its meeting in December 2013 (Item CR13.155) “Laneway Upgrade Program (2014/15 - 2018/19)” and decided that:- "(i) the Draft Program for laneway upgrading 2014/15 to 2018/19 be endorsed for planning

and Budget considerations; (ii) Projects 1, 2 and 3 be listed in the Draft 2014/15 Budget:-

• Humphreys Lane $243,000 • Piper Lane $148,000 • Jacobsen Lane $210,100"

Humphreys Lane, Piper Lane and Jacobsen Lane were selected for funding in the 2014/15 Budget due to a history of flooding of adjacent properties, erosion from stormwater runoff and erosion by traffic. The total funding in 2014/15 was $601,000. When these lanes are upgraded this year, then the remaining unsealed lanes will be either south of Grantham Street or north of Scadden Street. When these three lanes are upgraded, the state of construction of laneways will be:- • Total length of laneway (Council and Private): 22.5 km (139 lanes); • Laneway owned by Council: 21.2 km (124 lanes); • Laneway owned by others: 1.3 km (13 lanes; all sealed except for McGuire Lane,

Blakemore Lane and Unnamed Lane - off Carlton Street and opposite Hett Lane); • Length of paved, sealed and drained laneway: 16.3 km (73% of total) (110 lanes); and • Length of unimproved laneway (Council): 4.94 km (22% of total) (21 lanes).



Policy No. 5.2.18 'Lanes – Maintenance and Upgrading', recommends that the laneways that are considered for upgrading are prioritised in accordance with the following criteria:- • Adjacent to land development to assist site development; • Flooding problems; • Sandy surface; • Where there is significant daily use of the right of way; and • Right of way to property vehicle access where there is no other vehicle access. Included in the Attachment to this report for reference is:- 1. Draft Laneway Upgrade Program – a list of all remaining unsealed lanes in priority order

for upgrading - updated November 2014. This priority order is the same as that prepared in conjunction with the Wembley Ward Elected Members in 2013; and

2. Plan E000-14-01 (November 2014) – Rights of Way - Construction Status. Showing all

sealed and unsealed lanes complete with ownership status and highlighting all lanes for the draft program which was updated in November 2014.

DETAILS:

Construction Standard The standard for constructing laneways is set out in Policy No. 5.2.18. The current practice is to construct a 250mm thick pavement from crushed limestone. The asphalt seal uses recycled asphalt in the mix. Concrete kerbing or treated pine kerbing is installed to support the lane pavement away from fences on the adjacent private properties. Large soakwells are installed in the lane to capture stormwater runoff from a 100 year storm event and recharge the groundwater aquifer. The levels in the lane are adjusted to match the levels of sewer manholes installed in the lane, drain stormwater runoff away from properties and match private property levels as best as possible. Program The Laneway Upgrade Program has been reviewed as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 2015/16 Budget. All unsealed lanes were initially listed on the draft program in a priority order which is based on drainage issues, gradients steeper than 5%, number of garages or sheds accessible from the lane and resident requests. The lanes were then prioritised so that all laneways south of Grantham Street are completed in the first 4 years. The fifth year of the program will target the lanes north of Scaddan Street where the sandy laneways are flat, have little drainage issues and garage access is minimal. The estimated total cost to upgrade all recommended 21 lanes is $3,221,372. Therefore, the program can be completed over 10 years, if an average of $322,000 is committed to lane upgrading in each annual budget. The program can be reduced to 5 years with funding of $644,000 per year as detailed above. This is based on the current funding of $601,000 for up-grading lanes in the 2014/15 Budget with an increase for inflation. If two lanes form a T-junction, then these lanes are ideally grouped together since they are effectively one lane. For example, Dix Lane by itself has low priority. However, it is the continuation of Halliday Lane that is higher priority. Therefore, Halliday Lane and Dix Lane are listed together.



On this basis, the following lanes are recommended for the first year of the program for funding in 2015/16:-

Lane Location Length Funding

Waddington Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/Daglish/McKenzie 322 $209,300

Waring Lane Off Ruislip between Daglish & McKenzie 298 $194,560

Loveridge Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/McKenzie/Essex 322 $209,177

Total 942 $613,037.00 The following lanes are placed at the lowest priority for the following reasons:- • Un-named Lane opposite Hett Lane - this is located adjacent to No. 1 Carlton Street. It is

3 metres wide, 32 metres long and is not vested in the Town. It provides access for 4 properties. It needs to be acquired by the Town prior to construction;

• McGuire Lane (adjacent to 11 Newnham Street) currently privately owned and not vested in the Town. It is connected to Cowden Park;

• Hennerty Lane - this is 3 metres wide and 60 metres long and accessed from Barrington Street only. This is not currently used as an access to any property and is vested in the Town. The current development plans for the large property at the west end does not require it as an access. It may be closed and sold to adjacent property owners when they are interested in buying;

• Dolphin Lane - this is located between 409 and 411 Vincent Street West. It is 3 metres wide, 47 metres long, originally vested in the Town and is closed as a right-of-way. It was disposed in 2014;

• Blakemore Lane (parallel to Grovedale Road) currently privately owned and not vested in the Town; and

• Harding Lane (Lot 200) - only the north and south ends exist. It is proposed to sell these sections to adjacent properties.


This recommendation is in accordance with Council Policy No. 5.2.18.


There are no direct financial implications related to this report. If three lanes are to be constructed in 2015/16, then funding of $613,000 is required in the first year. This year’s review proposes an average funding level of $644,000 per year if Council wishes to complete the lane upgrading program over five years. This is balanced by the road capital works program requiring less funding over the same period. If Council places less urgency on completion of the program, then potentially a ten year program would require funding of $322,000 per year.



Laneways have usually been funded from the Area Improvement Reserve funding allocation. This Reserve was originally sourced from the sale of Jersey Street land opposite Henderson Park and this portion of the Reserve is now expended. This source of funding may not be available in 2015/16 as these funds may also be considered for alternative initiatives. On this basis, funding will need to be prioritised against other capital works projects.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs Strategy: Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs. Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Our Council Goal: The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects. Goal: A strong performing local government Strategy: Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit. Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2015/16.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Laneway Upgrade Program. 2. Plan E000-14-01 (December 2014) – Rights of Way - Construction Status.




That:- (i) the Draft Program for laneway upgrading 2015/16 to 2019/20 be endorsed for planning

and Budget considerations; (ii) projects 1, 2 and 3 be listed in the Draft 2015/16 Budget:-

• Waddington Lane BetweenRuislip/Grantham/Daglish/McKenzie $209,300 • Waring Lane Off Ruislip between Daglish & McKenzie $194,560 • Loveridge Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/McKenzie/Essex $209,177

Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 During discussion, following a request during a deputation by Julie Romano, Members agreed that Atterton Lane be listed in the Draft 2015/2016 Budget. Amendment Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Carr That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) projects 1, 2 and 3 be listed in the Draft 2015/16 Budget:-

• Waddington Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/Daglish/McKenzie $209,300 • Waring Lane Off Ruislip between Daglish & McKenzie $194,560 • Loveridge Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/McKenzie/Essex $209,177 • Atterton Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/Essex/Nanson $208,650

Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Draft Program for laneway upgrading 2015/16 to 2019/20 be endorsed for

planning and Budget considerations; (ii) projects 1, 2 and 3 be listed in the Draft 2015/16 Budget:-

• Waddington Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/Daglish/McKenzie $209,300 • Waring Lane Off Ruislip between Daglish & McKenzie $194,560 • Loveridge Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/McKenzie/Essex $209,177 • Atterton Lane Between Ruislip/Grantham/Essex/Nanson $208,650

Carried 9/0



CR14.184 FIVE YEAR FOOTPATH PROGRAM (2015/16 TO 2019/20) - FOOTPATHS

SUMMARY:

The Draft Five Year Program for upgrading slab footpaths to concrete is reviewed annually in November/December as a prerequisite to preparing the Draft 2015/16 Budget. An annual budget similar to previous budgets is proposed to complete the upgrading of remaining slab paths to concrete over the next 2 years. Preparation of this report has been based on current Town of Cambridge programs and community requests. Further budget programs will be prepared to cover the areas of City of Stirling, City of Nedlands and City of Subiaco when information and data from these Councils is received. This information relevant to the Local Government Reform process which commences on 1 July 2015.

BACKGROUND:

Council last reviewed the “Five Year Program for Footpaths” in December 2013 (Item CR13.156) Five Year Program (2014/15 To 2018/19) - Footpaths. The first year of that program was included in the 2014/15 Budget except for one section of path on Reserve Street. The 2014/15 Budget also included 5 new footpath projects that were an addition to this program. The 2014/15 Budget funded the replacement of 4.5km slab paths and construction of 0.7km new paths or a total of 5.2 km of paths. By 30 June 2015, the state of construction of footpaths is expected to be:-

• Length of slab footpaths: 10.7 km (6% of total); • Length of brick paved footpaths (in commercial areas): 5.3 km (3% of total); • Length of concrete footpaths 126.5 km (75% of total); and • Length of asphalt surfaced shared paths 25.4 km (15% of total). • Total length of all footpaths and shared paths: 167.9 km.

DETAILS:

This report considers the upgrading of slab footpaths to insitu concrete and construction of new footpaths within road reserves only. The proposed Five Year Program for upgrading footpaths and constructing new footpaths is provided in the attachment to this report. The location of all footpaths, shared paths and walking trails in the Town and the remaining 10.7 km of slab footpaths are indicated on a map provided in the Attachment to this report. Levels of Service for Footpaths The objective of the footpath upgrading program is to provide a safe network of paths for people to travel by walking, running, riding bicycles or wheelchairs. The existing slab paths are now relatively expensive to maintain in a good condition and the best long term option is to upgrade them to an insitu poured concrete footpath. These are expected to last at least 40 years with minimal maintenance.



The minimum standard for upgrading footpaths is set out in Policy No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading Of”, that states:- • Slab footpath adjacent to residential properties are upgraded to cast-insitu concrete; and • Slab footpaths adjacent to commercial properties are upgraded to brick paving. In addition to this minimum standard, the following standards are generally adopted:- • The minimum width of footpaths is 1.5 metre; • If possible, the existing 1.2 metre, 1.5 metre and 1.8 metre wide slab footpaths are

increased to 2.0 metre wide concrete paths so they can be classified as shared paths if required and signed with symbolic shared path markings;

• If the path is located next to the road kerb, then the width is increased by 0.5m to allow for the unusable width next to the road;

• Concrete paths that are 2.0 metres wide have “lock-joints” installed on the contraction joints to provide a smooth ride for cyclist and minimise tripping hazards in the future;

• Concrete paths in reserves are coloured marigold or limestone; • Levels of footpaths are adjusted to match the existing levels of service covers, verges

and crossovers; and • The verge area adjacent to intersections with high traffic volumes are filled with coloured

stencilled concrete. The colour is usually red brick or terracotta. The location of footpaths and attributes has been entered into the Town's asset management system (Asset Finda) and the Geographical Information System. All slab and concrete paths are inspected annually to assess condition, identify tripping hazards and control risk. The inspection for 2014 is in progress and tripping hazards will be progressively removed as maintenance work by relaying the defective slabs and grinding the displacement in concrete paths. Program for New Concrete Footpaths A proposed program of new path construction is listed in Year 3, 4 and 5, after all slab paths have been upgraded in Year 1 and 2. This list will be refined after appropriate community consultation is carried out in Year 2 of the program. To assist with the public consultation and planning the paths, all paths located in Floreat are proposed for Year 3 and all paths located in City Beach and Mt Claremont are proposed for Year 4. There are no new paths proposed for Year 5 since the new paths listed in Year 3 and 4 represent the missing links in the pedestrian routes to schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus stops. The locations of these proposed new paths in the path network are shown on a map provided as an Attachment to this report. Program for Replacement of Slab Paths The proposed program for upgrading slab footpaths to concrete footpaths was developed from the previous five year program and considered the following criteria:- • After completion of the current footpath program 2014/15 approximately 10.7 kilometres

of slab footpath will remain. These remaining slab footpaths are listed over a 2 year program at a rate of 5.33 kilometres each year and an average funding level of $704,000 per year;

• High pedestrian use or high traffic volume on adjacent road; • Paths adjacent to hospitals, schools, commercial centres, recreational centres and bus

stops; • Community requests;



• Complete the missing links and footpaths on whole roads rather than isolated sections;

and • Condition of the existing slab path.

Program for Brick Paving adjacent to Commercial Centres In general, slab paths adjacent to commercial premises are upgraded to brick paving. However the following project has been identified:- • Northwood Street (Cambridge Street - Railway Parade) has existing concrete footpaths

on both sides and is listed as a future street-scaping project on the Five Year Road Works program.

Program for Resurfacing Asphalt Shared Paths The Town has 25 km of shared paths with an asphalt surface that requires replacing every 30 years or so. Therefore, approximately 830 m of path should be resurfaced each year at a cost of approximately $65,000. This cycle of resurfacing was broken in the 2014/15 Budget when none were funded.


The recommendation is in accordance with Council Policies:- • No. 5.2.5 “Footpaths – Upgrading Of”; and • No. 5.4.9 Asset Management.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report other than consideration of setting appropriate levels of funding for the Draft 2015/16 Budget. Not including carry-forward projects, the current 2014/15 Budget provides a total of:- • $637,000 for upgrading 4.5 kilometres of slab footpaths; • $112,000 for constructing 0.7km of new paths; • $0 for resurfacing asphalt shared path; and • Total funding, not including carry forward funds and grants is $749,000. It is proposed that a similar total level of funding is adopted so that the program of replacement of all slab footpaths can be completed over the next 3 years. The first two years of the program proposes funding levels of approximately:- • $717,000 for upgrading of 5.3 km paths each year; • $0 for new path works; • $65,000 for resurfacing 830m of asphalt shared paths; • Total proposed funding is $782,000 for the first year of the program.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:-



Our Community Life Goal: An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities. Strategy: Create and maintain safe environments. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Facilitate commercial development within the Town. Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Reduce car dependency.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2015/16.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Five Year Program for Footpaths 2015/16 - 2019/20. 2. Location of Footpaths, Shared Paths and Remaining Slab Paths.


That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2015/16 to 2019/20) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning and budget considerations; and (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in the Draft

2015/16 Budget.



Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 Amendment Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr Grinceri That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the Administration develop and present to Council a policy on the construction of

footpaths. Amendment carried 5/0 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the proposed Five Year Program (2015/16 to 2019/20) for footpaths, as attached, be

endorsed for planning and budget considerations; (ii) the first year of the Five Year Program for footpaths be considered for funding in

the Draft 2015/16 Budget; (iii) the Administration develop and present to Council a policy on the construction of

footpaths. Cr Bradley left the meeting at 7.05 pm and returned at 7.08 pm. Carried 9/0



CR14.185 ROAD IMPROVEMENT - CAPITAL WORKS FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FROM 2015/16

SUMMARY:

Council reviews a proposed five year capital works program annually. This review is submitted for Council discussion, generally in November/December each year, and then used as a basis for preparation of the Draft Budget for the following financial year. 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. Further budget programs will be prepared to cover the areas of City of Stirling, City of Nedlands and City of Subiaco when information and data from these Councils is received. This information is relevant to the Local Government Reform process which commences on 1 July 2015.

BACKGROUND:

In December 2013 (Item CR13.154), Council considered a Road Improvement Capital Works Program for 2014/2015 to 2018/2019. It is now proposed that Council reviews and upgrades the program for the next five year period recognising the works that have been budgeted to be carried out in the 2014/2015 financial year. The recommended program was developed from Council's previously approved works and community requests with an objective to:- • reduce traffic accidents; • manage traffic speeds; • reinforce the road hierarchy; • provide cyclists and pedestrian facilities; • upgrade the streetscape; • 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 Councillor requests; • public transport requirements; • pedestrian, cyclists and adjacent property requirements; • 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 to obtain the necessary statutory approvals and 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 2015/16 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 2,500 metres of kerbing on both sides. This prepares 1.2 kilometres of pavements prior to asphalt overlay.

2. The 2013/14 budget allowed for Council's 1/3 contribution towards construction of a

roundabout on Salvado Road at the entry to St John of God Hospital. The full project cost is $330,000 with contributions of $110,000 to be recouped from the hospital and City of Subiaco. Works can commence when a land acquisition road widening process is finalised.

3. 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 submissions to Main Roads WA can be completed shortly. All infrastructure associated with the "Pelican Crossing" require prior approval from Main Roads WA and are to be fully funded by the local authority.

4. 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 with this ability specifically, crossings at McKenzie Street, Essex Street and Holland Street should be considered.

The McKenzie Street site was approved in the 2014/15 budget and Essex Street is listed for 2015/16. It is evident when progressing designs for McKenzie Street to establish a pedestrian crossing similar to the one at Nanson/Grantham Street, there may be insufficient road easement to construct the crossing and at some sites, high voltage power lines will complicate designs and significantly increase the required budgets and time to complete the project.

5. With the completion of the Wembley Sports Park expected by July 2014, some infrastructure on Selby Street could be considered for improvements which would complement the adjacent developments. Work including shared path resurfacing, new kerbing and replacement of wooden street light poles in the verge median with double outreach poles could be considered to supplement works budgeted for in 2014/15.

6. The report Attachment provides additional information on proposed projects for 2015/16

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 2015/16.

Other Projects 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. A list of Council's Blackspot sites was reviewed in August 2014 CR14.116. A project was submitted for the Grantham/Harborne Street intersection for the 2015/16 Blackspot program. The works involve traffic signal modification and installation of right turning pockets. The project budget is $700,000 with Council requiring to contribute a matching 1/3 of $233,333 to receive a grant of $467,000. It was proposed to review design options for the Jersey/Grantham Street intersection during the current budget period and submit this project for Blackspot funding in 2016/17. The State Government provides grants for Local Government road Improvement and Rehabilitation funding based on a cost benefit ratio assessment. These projects may be chosen from those incorporated in the five 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 the State. The 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 in April 2014 CR14.48 for projects in 2015/16. Three projects were listed and they are to be included in the Road Surfacing budget.



Road Improvement Grants were not considered in the April 2014 report as no projects were assessed as meeting the grant criteria. With the imminent Local Government Reform from 1 July 2015, a project being managed by City of Nedlands will now be handed over to the Town of Cambridge. This project covers the intersection of Underwood Avenue, Brookdale Road and Brockway Road. This intersection is a known Blackspot, which has received a grant of $305,000 under the Blackspot Grant program. The proposed design solution prepared by consultants of City of Nedlands has now presented options for Road Improvement works which need to be submitted by May 2015 for consideration within the 2016/17 program of works. The full project is estimated at $900,000. As the Blackspot grant of $305,000 is already allocated, a Road Improvement grant of $600,000 will be submitted. If successful, 2/3 will be a grant ($400,000) and the Council is required to fund 1/3 ($200,000) in 2016/2017. A further report will be prepared on this project once all details are received from City of Nedlands and Main Roads confirming these arrangements. Other Capital Works Programs This program of projects is supplemented by other programs presented to Council:- • Five Year Program for Footpaths; • Program for Road Resurfacing; • Laneway Upgrading Program; • Bicycle Path Plan Program; and • Development of a drainage program resultant from CCTV assessment of infrastructure. It is accepted Local Government mergers commence on 1 July 2015 and programs relevant to the areas be amalgamated from Stirling, Nedlands and Subiaco are still being developed.


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 estimated cost of the proposed budgeted works in the past has been up to $700,000 per year. 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.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Facilitate commercial development within the Town.



Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Work towards improving public transport. Strategy: Reduce car dependency. Our Council Goal: A strong performing local government Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard. Strategy: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


This project has been assessed under the community consultation 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 2015/2016 to 2019/2020.

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the proposed five year capital road works program for 2015/2016 to 2019/2020, as

attached, be endorsed for future planning and budget preparation; (ii) the projects as listed on the 5 Year Program for Year 1, 2015/2016 be costed and

included in the 2015 - 2016 draft budget submission for consideration by Council; and

(iii) investigation, design and grant funding application be prepared in line with the

accepted five year program. Carried 9/0



CR14.186 PROPOSED CRICKET NETS FACILITY - MCLEAN PARK

SUMMARY:

The Floreat Park Primary School in late 2013 had their two (2) concrete cricket wicket training facility demolished to make room for a new demountable classroom. The demountable classroom was required to accommodate growth of the school. The Town has been approached by the Floreat Park Parents and Citizens Association, the Floreat Park Primary School, local junior cricket clubs seeking support for the construction of a new cricket training wickets facility at McLean Park. The Town supports the construction subject to the funding being met 100% by the Education Department and that the community and local sporting clubs being provided access to them after school hours.

BACKGROUND:

Due to the growth of the Floreat Park Primary School, cricket training facilities were demolished and replaced with demountable classroom facilities. The cricket training facilities have not been replaced and the school and the P & C have approached the Town requesting the use of McLean Park for these facilities. Local junior cricket clubs - Wembley Districts and Subiaco Marist and the Wembley Primary School- also support the request. Town staff have met on site with officials of the Floreat Park P & C to discuss the proposal for the installation of the two (2) concrete cricket wickets/nets. The proposed location is outlined below: Proposed Location

The location has been chosen to minimise the disruption to winter seasonal users (predominantly West Coast Junior Football Club). To accommodate these facilities an area of approximately 7.8m (width) by 24.8m (length) is required. This includes areas for run-up, back drop and gap between pitch (source- Department of Sport and Recreation, Sporting Dimensions, 1992). Note: Part of the concrete wickets have a synthetic turf covering of approximately 11 metres in length (per wicket), which is standard practice for wickets within the Town.



DETAILS:

The Town has been approached by the Floreat Park primary School seeking assistance to construction a two cricket wicket training facility at McLean Park. Within the Town there are a number of public cricket wickets and turf cricket wickets. Details are provided in Table 1 below:

Table 1: Cricket Training Wickets

Location Public Wickets Sporting Clubs (Turf) 1. Bent Park 1 2. City Beach Oval- North 2 3. Floreat Oval 3 24 4. Grantham Park 2 5. Henderson Park 3 6. Pat Goodridge 3 10 Total 13 34 In addition to the training wickets, there are a number match wickets, specifically:

Table 2: Match Cricket Wickets

Location Public Wickets Sporting Clubs 1. City Beach Oval -North 1 2. City Beach Oval- South 1 3. Floreat Oval *1 turf wicket block 4. Grantham Park 1 5. Alderbury Reserve *1 turf wicket block 6. McLean Park 1 7. Pat Goodridge 1 *1 turf wicket block Total 5 * 3 turf wicket blocks Note - 1 turf wicket block contains five strips. As can be seen from Tables 1 and 2, the Town provide a number of public cricket training and match play wickets. Although it is acknowledged that Floreat Oval, Pat Goodridge and Alderbury Reserve have turf wickets and these are exclusively used by the Town's resident cricket clubs - Subiaco-Floreat and Wembley Districts. Although the Floreat Oval cricket facility is located across the road to the Floreat Park Primary School, the school has safety concerns with their children crossing the road. It is therefore the school's preference for a new cricket training facility to be built adjacent to their school premises at McLean Park. The approximate cost is $40,000 which covers nets, posts, earthworks, concrete and synthetic turf. Discussions have been held with both the Floreat Park Primary School and the Education Department in relation to funding the project. From the Town's point of view, it is not recommended to make a financial contribution towards the cricket nets as, although they could be used by the community outside of school hours, the predominant user will be the Floreat Park Primary School. Furthermore, in accordance with the Town's Community Grant Policy 2.1.15, funding will not be provided for the development of school facilities and and/or capital works program. Currently, the Floreat Primary School uses



both Floreat Oval and McLean Park for its sporting activities. McLean Park is maintained by the Town and there are no costs to the school for providing this. Therefore, the Town's contribution would be the provision of the land. This has been relayed to both the Floreat Park Primary School and the Education Department via email correspondence. Note: Given the cricket training facility will be located on Town land, it will become an asset of the Town and therefore maintenance should be undertaken by the Town. The annual maintenance cost is approximately $500 which covers minor repairs and damage.


Policy 2.1.23 - Use of Sporting Grounds/Reserves by Local Schools. Policy 2.1.23 allows Floreat Park Primary School to use McLean Park (active reserve) free of charge during school hours.


Minimal. It is proposed that the capital construction cost and future replacement costs of the cricket nets will be met by the Education Department with ongoing maintenance met by the Town.


The installation of cricket nets at McLean Park supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018 Priority One: Our Community Life

Goal 2: Quality Local Parks and open Spaces for the Community to Enjoy. Strategy: Focus on activating our major public open spaces.


No consultation with nearby residents is proposed. The location of the proposed cricket training facilities is 130metres from the nearest resident and it is therefore considered likely to cause minimal disturbance. The Town will however advise the nearby residents if and when construction begins.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Correspondence from Floreat Park Primary School, Wembley Primary School, Wembley Districts Cricket Club and Subiaco Marist Cricket Club.




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the installation of a two (2) concrete cricket wicket/net (11 metre per wicket covered with synthetic turf) training facility at McLean Park be approved subject to: (i) all construction costs being met by the Education Department, including turf and

reticulation restoration; (ii) free community and sporting club use permissible outside of school hours (iii) maintenance costs being met by the Town; and (iv) future replacement costs being met by the Education Department. Carried 9/0



CR14.187 BOLD PARK AQUATIC CENTRE - REQUEST FOR TENDER CAFE OPERATIONS

SUMMARY:

The Bold Park Aquatic Centre is currently closed for renovations with the new redeveloped facilities expected to open in October 2015. A significant change in the facility is the proposed café operations with a greater offering provided to the public. It is proposed that tenders are sought from potential operators for the cafe, with the preferred contractor then presented to Council for approval.

BACKGROUND:

In August 2014, Council awarded the construction tender of the redeveloped Bold Park Aquatic Centre to Doric Group (Item 10.1). Construction began on 22 September 2014 and is expected to be completed by October 2015. A new Café will be built, located adjacent to the main foyer with a number of strategically designed café seating areas in front of the building, inside the foyer and outside near the pool deck. A kiosk with a basic offering was previously provided at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre and managed in-house by aquatic centre staff. The new Café will provide a greater offering. A management review has been completed to determine a preferred management model for the new café. The review involved a competitive analysis and an 'in-house' verses 'out-source' management model using gross takings figure of 10% of the café, as a basis for the comparison. The preferred management model for the new Bold Park Aquatic Centre Café is to out-source for the following reasons:

1. not core business; 2. more financially viable; and 3. less of a risk. A copy of the management review (commercial in confidence) is available on request.

DETAILS:

It is proposed to introduce a hospitality contract for the Café operations at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre with the return to the Town being an agreed % of the gross takings through a public tender process. A similar model is in place at the Quarry Amphitheatre where the Town receives 10% of the gross takings of the Quarry Café.



The suggested hours of operations are outlined in Table 1 below: Table 1: Cafe Opening Hours

Days Summer (Oct-April) Hours/ Day Winter (May-Oct) Hours/ Day Monday to Friday 7.00am - 6.30pm 11.5 hrs 7.00am -5.30pm 10.5 hrs Saturday 8.00am - 6.00pm 10 hrs 8.00am - 5.00pm 9 hrs Sunday 9.00am - 6.00pm 9 hrs 9.00am - 5.00pm 8 hrs Total hrs/week 76.5 hrs/week 69.5 hrs/week The proposed hours will accommodate early morning users (triathlon squads, regular user groups, lap swimmers - who leave the facility at approximately 7.00am), mid-morning users (program participants (children and adults), general public), lunchtime users (lap swimmers, general public) and afternoon/evening users (regular user groups, lap swimmers, program participants and the general public). However, it is noted that these hours should be flexible and a clause in the management agreement along these lines should be included. A similar clause has been included in the lease of the Fremantle Aquatic Centre and potential café operators may also request this flexibility. It is proposed that in relation to the Café fit-out, the Town will provide an agreed level of shell and core provisions and the Operator will provide final fit out. The relative investment by both parties will be a key factor in determining the financial offer provided. An indicative timeline for the tender process is outlined below: Advertise for tender: January/February 2015 Tender Closure: March/April 2015 Tender Award: April/May 2015 This will allow an approximate 5-6 month lead in time for the operator before the new redeveloped Bold Park Aquatic Centre facility is open to the public.


The engagement of an operator in the manner proposed will be undertaken in compliance with s3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995.


Anticipated financial return will be an agreed % of the gross takings of the Bold Park Aquatic Centre Café/Kiosk.




This project supports the following Goals of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018, Our Council Goal 5: Facilitate commercial development within the Town. Goal 9: Transparent, accountable governance. Goal 11: A strong performing local government.


The proposed tender process for the Café operations at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it is purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) approval be given to tender for a Café operator at the Bold Park Aquatic Centre

under a Management Agreement; and (ii) following the conduct of the tender process, the tender from the preferred

operator be presented to Council for approval. Carried 9/0



CR14.188 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT CITY BEACH PARKING PROPOSAL - OUTCOMES OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

SUMMARY:

The community was invited to comment on a proposed traffic and parking layout on Challenger Parade adjacent to Jubilee Park. 48 submissions were received with the majority not in favour of the proposed location due to the perceived impact upon Jubilee Park amenity, congestion concerns with the safety of the road arrangement or perceived impacts of traffic potentially avoiding the area and using adjoining streets. Most of the comments prefer that the Town either expands Fred Burton car park or the existing car park west of Challenger Parade opposite Jubilee Park. It is considered that the proposal presents challenges from a community support perspective and Council may consider expansion of Fred Burton car park as a more amenable outcome along with improved traffic calming measures on Challenger Parade north and south of Oceanic Drive.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting of 24 September 2013, Council considered a report regarding the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach - WAPC Planning Approval and Community Consultation (Item CR13.121 refers). With regard to this report, an extract of the relevant decision is: "That options with designs and costings be prepared for unifying the Jubilee Crescent car park with the adjacent Challenger Parade car park." Report CR13.16 discussed at the Council meeting held on 26 March 2013 is also relevant for the discussion surrounding the BioLinc project.

DETAILS:

Proposal Under Consideration

The proposal under consideration was adopted by Council at its October 2014 meeting (CR14.149 refers), after reviewing earlier concepts. The key features of this proposal are:

• a net increase of 63 car bays after removal of 17 existing car bays to allow this design to proceed;

• 90 degree parking bays; • splitting Challenger Parade into two, one way sections (north and south), for part of the

parking precinct; • traffic calming measures such as raised plateaux; • landscaping and lighting enhancements; • location of parking bays more proximate to the largest restaurant (Building A now known

as Hamptons and southern path to City Beach). It is believed that the circuitous nature of the road layout, along with the traffic calming measures, would create a slow speed environment conducive to parking needs.



Further planning analysis has been undertaken since the plan was issued for comment to determine the largest vehicle that could travel south on the one way section of the proposed parking layout, given the two bends in the road proposed. It has been determined that a rubbish truck or similar can travel through the area in the roadway. If larger vehicles were to be accommodated, the road and parking area will need to expand further into Jubilee Park, or alternatively redirected to Branksome Gardens and Jubilee Crescent. Community Feedback 48 submissions were received regarding this proposal. Apart from submissions from City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club and Cambridge Coastcare, all submissions came from persons acting on behalf of or residents within South City Beach, especially Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens. 92% of submissions disagreed with the proposal for one or more reasons. Each submission raised one or more issues. Common themes appeared in the submissions:-

• suggestions that either Fred Burton car park or Challenger Parade car park opposite Jubilee Park be expanded: 55%;

• concerns that the layout increases risks of pedestrians and cyclists being hit by vehicles: 40%;

• concerns that layout will increase 'rat running' in adjacent streets: 42%; • concerns that the expansion in parking capacity is not warranted: 10%; and • believes parkland should not be taken up for car park: 10%. The balance of this report discusses the issues surrounding the community feedback providing commentary and information for consideration by Council. Car Parking Demand - Planning Model

Some respondents questioned the need for additional car parking and referred to the traffic and parking report contained in the Town's Development Application to WACP for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach. As part of the Development Application submitted by the Town to the WAPC, traffic consultants were engaged to provide traffic and parking analysis. In summary, the initial findings were that:

Existing car bays proximate to the project site: 705 Assumed number of bays to be removed due to works: -401 Assumed number of new bays to be built: 50 Total bays available at end of project: 715 The report indicated that demand (after the opening of the restaurants), in all but busy periods, was 646 bays; however also indicated that in summer Sundays, this demand could exceed 715 bays. They also indicated that a design capacity 10% greater than demand should be developed such that the carparks are not congested during peak periods. This resulted in a revised forecast recommended supply of 795 bays. The proposal adopted by Council for community feedback proposed to provide a net increase of 63 car bays. This would have brought the total bays available at the end of the project to 735 car bays, which exceeded the forecast demand (but below recommended capacity provided over time) as detailed above.

1 The actual number of car bays removed due to works is 33.



Car Parking Demand - Updated Information One of the issues with the Planning report was that due to timing constraints, the consultants were unable to measure existing car park demand in busy summer periods and as such some uncertainty regarding the modelling exists. The consultant at the time of planning approval suggested a strategy of further measurements to validate demand. The Town has engaged new traffic consultants who were able to undertake car parking demand. Over 4 Sundays in January - March 2014, the existing parking demand was ranged from 590 to 680 car bays (before any commercial development is undertaken). This is far in excess of the demand modelling undertaken previously. The original traffic report also concluded that, in line with Town planning policy, the new restaurant facilities would require a provision of 362 car bays. The report also pointed out that demand for parking changes over a day between surf club needs (early morning) through to beach users and then restaurants later in the day and evening. It is proposed that the immediate forecast demand for car parking bays is set at the existing 'base' demand of 680 bays satisfying beach users and surf club demand in the short term and allow 50% of the restaurant requirements as the normalised parking demand on summer Sundays - a demand of 860 bays. To satisfy this demand, 188 new car bays would need to be developed to match the 672 car bays available at the end of the construction works. These additional car bays can be delivered over time as demand dictates, noting that the proposal endorsed by Council provides 63 new car bays. It is noted that the planning study excluded the demand and capacity of the existing car park closest to Floreat groyne, however, these areas are too remote from the commercial precinct to be considered as viable capacity for commercial needs (although it would provide beach users with parking). Parking Locations

Within a 200 metre zone from the largest restaurant in the precinct, opportunities exist to expand car parking in:

• the proposed car park on the edge of Jubilee Park; • an expansion south of the existing western car park on Challenger Parade opposite

Jubilee Park; • an expansion of the Fred Burton car park on the Challenger Parade and Oceanic Drive

frontages. Car Parking Options Many comments received on this proposal could not understand why Fred Burton was not being developed for expanded parking. The original traffic study suggested that expansion of Fred Burton car park could be undertaken. It is noted that expansion of Fred Burton would require removal of some vegetated area which is known to be a concern to Cambridge Coastcare if this proceeded. Council decided, instead, to also explore parking options south of Oceanic Drive proximate to Jubilee Park which is the subject of this report.



Similarly, expansion of the western car park on Challenger Parade opposite Jubilee Park presents the same issues from the perspective of Coastcare and possibly other members of the community. Pedestrian Safety Many comments received considered that the one way traffic proposal, with cars reversing into and out of car bays, provided an unsafe situation, increased traffic congestion or slowed down Challenger Parade. One of the intents of this design is to create a strong impression that this section of Challenger Parade is a low speed environment. This design will, by deliberate intent, require vehicles to slow down through this area. It is believed that traffic will be slower within the car park part of Challenger Parade. It is recognised that this proposal will alter the perception of drivers using Challenger Parade, from what was essentially a through road, to a section of road tightly integrated with 90 degree parking for a beach side environment. Concern has been raised that this will increase the risk of pedestrians, especially small children, running into oncoming traffic, even if the traffic was at slow speed. Opinions as to whether or not this risk is increased (compared to pedestrians using the existing car park and crossing Challenger Parade) will vary. Traffic Calming

The nature of the layout of the one way roads in this proposal will create a lower speed environment, especially with the raised plateaux proposed to be installed. It is noted that this parking proposal only considered traffic calming in the immediate area south of Oceanic Drive, and the Administration proposes to undertake further traffic calming measures north of Oceanic Drive in front of the new developments to assist in pedestrians crossing the road from the Fred Burton car park. Traffic Diversions 42% of comments considered that, if this section of Challenger Parade was developed as proposed, some drivers would seek alternate 'rat running' routes through Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens to avoid slowing down. Some residents in these areas object to the potential increase in traffic in these areas. The last traffic counts showed an average of 1842 vehicles per day travel on Challenger Parade (total in both directions) near Jubilee Crescent. It would be uncertain how many of these would 'rat run' if the works proceeded as proposed, however it appears any changes would be within notional capacity of the local roads such as Jubilee Crescent and Branksome Gardens. BioLINC In 2013, the Town was in discussions with Cambridge Coastcare regarding their proposal to create an extensive network of vegetated plantings known as the BioLINC project. This project proposal generated significant community interest, both in support and against proposed works, primarily within Jubilee Park.



At this point in time, it is understood that the BioLINC project is not funded. It is relevant that the Council decision regarding BioLINC and Jubilee Park is re-iterated here to show that the Traffic and Parking needs were to take precedence over the BioLINC proposal. The relevant part of the Council decision in CR13.16 of 26 March 2013 was: the BioLINC project be supported as detailed in the attached modified indicative plan (No. CR 13.16 Plan 1) with up to 20% of Jubilee Park and surrounds, (excluding Challenger Parade car park) from kerb to kerb being vegetated, subject to detailed design of the final area including relevant modifications as outlined in Council Report of August 2012 and the outcomes of the traffic and parking study from the Surf Club and Commercial Development at City Beach Project; This car parking proposal is mostly in the road reserve and does not intrude signficantly into Jubilee Park. (a copy of Plan 1 discussed above is attached to this report for reference). If the BioLINC project proceeds, the proponents will need to take into account this new car park into their planning. Cambridge Coastcare, in their submission to this proposal, considered that the fringe of Jubilee Park being created for BioLinc is integral to the biodiversity corridor from the western dunes and as such object to the extent of parking being proposed. Jubilee Park Many objections raised felt that the creation of car parking space within Jubilee Park (despite that the car parking proposed is predominantly within road reserve) is not acceptable for a variety of reasons including visual amenity, perceived risk of cars close to park users and children. Other comments believed that Council had already 'reserved' this area for BioLinc, not taking into account the decision made by Council in March 2013 where the BioLINC planting would be subject to traffic and parking needs. It is also worth noting that the road and parking proposal is predominantly within the road reserve for Challenger Parade and technically not Jubilee Park; however, it is acknowledged that the area currently proposed to be converted to car park is grassed and presents like it is an extension of the parkland. Alternate Parking Proposal If Council determined to not proceed with this proposal on the basis of community feedback, the Administration considers that there needs to be an increase in car parking capacity provided in the south end of the precinct to meet forecast demand. As an alternate, the existing car park on the west side of Challenger Parade opposite Jubilee Park could be expanded south for parking in a relatively cost effective manner. It is acknowledged that this will take up some dune space that has been recently planted by Cambridge Coastcare, however, appears a feasible option. In consideration of the BioLinc proposal, some area of landscaped dune would be retained to facilitate future connections across the road into Jubilee Park for the fauna. This option may produce in the order of 60 car bays, depending on layout. A further option would be to construct an extension to the Fred Burton Car park close to the Oceanic Drive roundabout. This has been developed as an option for consideration. Based on early analysis, 132 new bays could be built (with 3 existing bays lost for connection road) which would be reasonably proximate to the new facilities. It is noted that users of this car park will be crossing Challenger Parade but in greater numbers than current. A plan of this option is attached for reference. It can facilitate BioLinc connections at the eastern end. This would require a new round of community consultation on this proposal.






The anticipated cost of this Car park is $380,000 to be funded within the budget for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach.


This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018: Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy; Goal 3: An active, safe and inclusive community; Strategy 2.1 Complete the City Beach - beach, cafes and restaurants project; Strategy 3.1 Develop a plan to renew aging club facilities. Project: Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach.


In line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11, this proposal has been assessed as Level 2 to allow community consultation to be undertaken. This proposal was advertised in the local press, direct mail to ratepayers and residents in South City Beach and electronic newsletters seeking feedback.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed car parking layout 2. Summary of comments received 3. Potential alternate car park - Challenger Parade 4. Potential alternate car park - Fred Burton


That:- (i) after consideration of community feedback, the proposed car park at the west edge of

Jubilee Park be reconsidered; (ii) consideration be given to an expansion of the existing Fred Burton car park on

Challenger Parade / Oceanic Drive including further community consultation if this option is preferred; and

(iii) further traffic appropriate traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossing provisions are

developed on Challenger Parade north and south of Oceanic Drive and funding for these elements sought.



Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 During discussion, Members agreed that, following the outcomes of community consultation, a modified version of the proposed car park at the west edge of Jubilee Park and an expansion of the existing Fred Burton car on the northern edge of Challenge Parade be considered at a Council Forum. Amendment Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Carr That the motion be amended to read as follows:- That after consideration of community feedback:- (i) a modified version of the proposed car park at the west edge of Jubilee Park be

reconsidered; (ii) consideration be given to an expansion of the existing Fred Burton car park on the

northern edge of Challenger. (iii) the options in (i) and (ii) above be considered at a Council Forum then; (iv) further community consultation be undertaken to assess the above two options; (v) further traffic appropriate traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossing provisions are

developed on Challenger Parade north and south of Oceanic Drive and funding for these elements sought.

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That after consideration of community feedback:- (i) a modified version of the proposed car park at the west edge of Jubilee Park be

reconsidered; (ii) consideration be given to an expansion of the existing Fred Burton car park on the

northern edge of Challenger. (iii) the options in (i) and (ii) above be considered at a Council Forum then; (iv) further community consultation be undertaken to assess the above two options; (v) further traffic appropriate traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossing

provisions are developed on Challenger Parade north and south of Oceanic Drive and funding for these elements sought.



Amendment Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That clauses (i) and (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) a modified version of the proposed car park in the Challenger Parade road

reservation at the western edge of Jubilee Park be reconsidered; (ii) consideration be given to an expansion of the northern edge of Fred Burton car

park. Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That after consideration of community feedback:- (i) a modified version of the proposed car park in the Challenger Parade road

reservation at the western edge of Jubilee Park be reconsidered; (ii) consideration be given to an expansion of the northern edge of Fred Burton car

park; (iii) the options in (i) and (ii) above be considered at a Council Forum then; (iv) further community consultation be undertaken to assess the above two options; (v) further traffic appropriate traffic calming measures and pedestrian crossing

provisions are developed on Challenger Parade north and south of Oceanic Drive and funding for these elements sought.

Carried 9/0



CR14.189 HOSPITALITY DEVELOPMENT AT WEMBLEY GOLF COURSE - COMMERCIAL ARRANGEMENTS AND APPROVAL TO CALL CONSTRUCTION TENDER

SUMMARY:

Negotiations are ongoing with the short listed operators for the Food and Beverage facilities built as part of the main works package. The negotiations have not reached a point where a firm lease proposal is ready for consideration by Council, however, there are reasonable expectations that the offers will align within a forecast revenue range. Design documentation and a pre-tender estimate of costs have been completed for the main construction contract for the Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course. It is proposed that the Town commence the tender process for the main works contract whilst commercial negotiations continue to conclusion at which time Council can consider the award of the construction contract in light of commercial outcomes.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 24 September 2013, Council considered community feedback and adopted a single storey concept design for the new hospitality facilities. (CR13.122 refers). Detail design works have continued to the point where the design is ready to call construction tenders. At its meeting held on 26 August 2014, Council considered a report recommending that negotiations continue with two potential operators for the food and beverage facilities at Wembley Golf Course (CR14.120 refers). The two operators have been provided with detailed information packs, including draft leases, plans and commercial terms. They are currently preparing formal offers for consideration.

DETAILS:

Scope of Construction

The scope of the main works construction contract includes the following main elements:

• shell and core of the hospitality building, which will have the restaurant, bar, function rooms, basement level back of house and loading dock and two commercial office spaces;

• full construction of the change room and toilet building (including fixtures and finishes) with the adjoined shell and core of the kiosk;

• new al fresco areas and canopy cover; • alterations and expansion to car parking, including porte cochere entry to the buildings; • hard and soft landscaping elements; • expansion and alteration of mains services (power, water, sewer etc.); and • provisional sum to provide modifications to the pro shop in preparation for miniature golf

works. It is to be noted that a separate construction contract is being prepared for the miniature golf facilities which will also include the proposed playground and landscaping works north of the new facilities. This will entail a separate business case for Council approval.



Cost Estimate

The design documentation and specifications have reached the stage where they are ready to call construction tenders. The Quantity Surveyor engaged by the Town has developed a pre-tender construction estimate, which, together with the fees, contingencies and other costs, allows development of a preliminary project cost estimate. The cost estimate for the project is $10.45 million comprising:

Construction Contract $ 8,580,000 Construction Contingency $ 420,000 Professional Fees

$ 1,300,000

Legals & Leasing

$ 50,000 Public Art

$ 80,000

Headworks

$ 20,000 Total

$ 10,450,000

This project estimate excludes the miniature golf project which is subject to its own cost plan and business case. At this stage, the indicative cost of the miniature golf is $1.5m, however, the cost estimate of the construction works is still being finalised and is subject to change. The overall forecast investment in Wembley Golf Course is in the order of $11.95m. Of this $10.45m investment in the hospitality project, some costs are directly related to the new toilet/change rooms, costs directly related to the shell and core of the hospitality facilities, with other costs involved in creation of the improved alfresco space, paving and retaining walls, site infrastructure, car parking and soft landscaping. A minor amount ($170,000) has been identified as a provisional sum to undertake modifications to the pro shop to facilitate miniature golf (the rationale being it is more cost efficient to undertake these works within a larger contract). For the purposes of modelling the direct benefits of the hospitality aspect, approximately 70% of the costs are related to the development of the hospitality/commercial spaces with the remainder being the new change room/toilets and the enhancements to the complex amenity such as landscaping, driveways, and civil works. This 70:30 cost split is only notional at this stage as many cost elements provide benefits to the hospitality and the player/visitor amenity alike. It is acknowledged that this preliminary project estimate is $650,000 higher than the capital cost estimate of $9.8m contained within the published Business Plan for this project. This has arisen from greater certainty of the design process, especially in the fine detailing of amenity issues, services and covered canopy spaces. It is also to be noted that the Pre-Tender Estimate (PTE) provided by the Quantity Surveyor is based on 'middle of the road' construction bids and that we will almost certainly receive bids above and below this PTE. Revenue Plan

The investment decision in the hospitality facilities would be undertaken in anticipation of the ongoing revenue generated to the Town, through a combination of rent charged to the hospitality operator and incremental golf revenue resultant directly from the new hospitality facilities. This incremental golf revenue would predominantly come from additional corporate golf green fees & event services as the Town would be able to host more events and larger



events that require large function spaces that currently don't exist. The investment in the hospitality facilities would facilitate this growth in corporate golf. The Town has identified a short list of two preferred operators to undertake the hospitality lease at Wembley Golf Course. They have now been provided with sufficient information by the Town to allow them to formulate and present their best commercial offer for consideration. The Town, with its commercial advisors, expects to receive offers that have a fixed base rent and an additional turnover rent component - the additional turnover rent being an agreed percentage of revenue that the operator achieves above a specified threshold. The base rent and threshold would rise annually with CPI (with base rent also subject to five yearly market review). The Town, when it published the Business Plan for this project as a requirement of s3.59 of the Local Government Act, estimated that the commencing rent (for both the Hospitality Facilities and the two Office spaces being created) would be in the order of $620,000 pa and an incremental uplift in golfing revenues of $350,000 pa. At this point in time, whilst commercial offers are in preparation, there is no evidence to suggest that these revenue figures are unrealistic. A full Business Case for this project, inclusive of approval of the project budget, will be presented to Council once tenders are received and commercial offers finalised. Up until that time, the revenue and cost plans are considered preliminary. A confidential attachment to this report details the anticipated revenue plan for this project and a draft financial viability analysis. Program

If approval was given to call tenders for construction at the December 2014 Council Meeting, an indicative program is as follows: Tenders called for construction 5 January 20152 Tenders close 17 February 2015 Council award hospitality lease 24 February 20153 Council award construction tender 24 March 2015 Contract works start on site start May 20154 Toilets & Change rooms open for public end Jan 2016 Contract works handed to operator for fit out end Jan 2016 Fit out complete, commence trading end April 2016 Risk

Ideally, construction tenders would be called once the Town had certainty surrounding the commercial offers and thus the assumed business case would be validated with actual revenue figures and firm pre-tender project costs.

2 The construction industry closes down between 19 December and 5 January, hence there is no benefit in issuing tenders prior to Christmas 3 This is the anticipated date at which firm commercial offers will be presented to Council for consideration 4 A nine month construction program on site is being forecast



Council may determine to hold off calling construction tenders until such time a firm commercial offer is adopted. This would have a knock-on effect to the program, delaying the completion of the project by at least two months. As shown by the program above, it is anticipated that Council will be asked to approve a commercial offer prior to being asked to award a construction contract. Thus, the revenue side of the Business Plan will be based on a firm offer. At that time, the range of tender offers would also be known, allowing an updated Business Case to be prepared. The tender documentation would also include a 120 day validity period, such that any slippage in the commercial negotiations would not unduly compromise the construction tender price. The only latent risk that isn’t mitigated is that if the commercial offers or the tender bids are such that the project is not sustainable from an economic perspective; the Town would not award a construction contract and commercial lease. The Town would suffer a reputational risk from the Construction Industry that may impact future tenders. It is pointed out that if the project does not proceed, the 'do nothing' outcome will need substantial re-evaluation of the hospitality offering at Wembley Golf Course. The existing facilities will require substantial investment to maintain the structures as they are; thus the Town will be facing significant capital investment to maintain the existing business revenue.


The procurement of the construction contract for the Hospitality Development at Wembley Golf Course is required to comply with the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations relating to procurement of goods and services.


Anticipated financial return from the lease will be determined as negotiations progress.


This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018, Our Council Goal 11: A Strong Performing Local Government Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit Project: Invest in Wembley Golf Course.


This matter has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it is purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Business Case (CONFIDENTIAL)




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) approval be given to call tenders for the main works construction contract; (ii) the progress of commercial negotiations for the Hospitality Contract at Wembley

Golf Course be noted; and (iii) the proposal that construction tenders are not awarded until the commercial offer

is finalised be noted. Carried 9/0



CR14.190 LOCAL GOVERMENT REFORM - PROGRESS REPORT NO. 1

SUMMARY:

The purpose of this report is to provide an update to the Council on the work completed to date on the implementation of the Local Government Reform Project and authorise the Chief Executive officer to commence to implement Stages 2 - 4.

BACKGROUND:

In July 2013, the State Government announced its policy for Metropolitan Local Government Reform. This policy outlined the State Government’s intention to reduce the number of local governments in the metropolitan area from 30 to 15 by 1 July 2015. In November 2013, the Minister for Local Government and Communities (the Minister) submitted 12 proposals to the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) for consideration. Since then the LGAB has been progressing its consultation, review and assessment of these proposals. This process has included seeking additional proposals and submissions from some affected local governments and electors. In all, the LGAB received 38 proposals. The Town of Cambridge submitted a proposal to the LGAB in October 2013. While the above process has been occurring, the Minister and the Department of Local Government and Communities (the Department) have been clear that the State’s Reform Program will eventuate and local governments should prepare for this to occur by 1 July 2015.

DETAILS:

On Wednesday 22 October 2014, the Minister for Local Government Hon. Terry Simpson and the Premier Colin Barnett announced the state Government's decision concerning the Local Government Advisory Board's (LGAB) Recommendations concerning local government reform and mergers in the metropolitan area. In summary, the state government has supported all of the LGAB's Recommendations, except two (City of Perth and City of Riversea), to reduce the number of local governments in the metropolitan area from thirty (30) to sixteen (16). The Cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo and Rockingham (except for a very minor boundary adjustment) are not be affected.

Specific details about the Town of Cambridge As detailed above, the Town of Cambridge is proposed to be merged with the City of Subiaco, together with parts of the Cities of Nedlands and Stirling, with a population of approximately 56,000. In essence, the Town's proposal dated 4 October 2014 was accepted, apart from a recommendation that City Beach, north of Hale road be included in the City of Stirling.



On 28 October 2014, the Council considered the matter and resolved as follows:-

"That:-

1. the Council support its residents in City Beach, north of Hale Road, as shown in the Plan in Attachment 2, to remain in the Town of Cambridge (to be known as "City of Subiaco", after 1 July 2015);

2. the Chief Executive Officer be authorized to prepare a proposal pursuant to section

2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 for the area of City Beach , north of Hale Road, to remain in the Town of Cambridge, for the further consideration of the Council at its meeting to be held in December 2014."

A separate item will be included on the December Council agenda to approve the proposal. Toolkit In February 2014, the Department in conjunction with WALGA and the LGMA prepared a practical guide, called the Local Government Reform Toolkit. This ‘toolkit’ identifies core activities grouped by function to be addressed over four stages:- Stage 1: ‘Review’ - (February until August 2014); Stage 2: ‘Plan’ - (August 2014 to March 2015); Stage 3: ‘Mobilise’ - (April 2015 to June 2015); Stage 4: ‘Implement’ - (July 2015 onwards). Note: The Stage 2 commencement date is now approximately three months behind the original schedule specified by the Toolkit, due to the later than expected decision from the Minister for Local Government on 23 October 2014 (the original announcement was due in July 2014). Project Director- Local Government Reform In May 2014 the Town appointed Mr John Giorgi, JP as Project Director to coordinate the Town's reform project and drive the reform process. The Project Director is responsible for:- • Facilitating the project management processes, procedures and outcomes throughout the

Reform Program (i.e. implementation of the Reform Program, Program Delivery plan and Transition Plan);

• Supporting the governance and administration of the Town (eg in-house Reform Steering Committee, in-house Working Groups, Local Implementation Committee (when established), and the standardising of project management across the Reform Program; and

• Establishing and driving performance monitoring and reporting across the Reform Program.



Stage One: Review Stage One of the Reform Toolkit has involved the review of the Town’s current state and documentation of its processes. The Town has also used this time to prepare for the next stages in the Reform process. The Due Diligence report has revealed that the Town is in "an advanced state of preparedness". A number of minor matters have been identified as requiring attention and these have been finalised or are currently being addressed. Due Diligence Report 'Due Diligence' is a process involving the critical analysis of the operations of the amalgamating local governments. The purpose of this analysis is to ensure minimum exposure to risk and interruption to service delivery. A copy of the report is available for Elected Members upon request. For the Town, this analysis has involved three key elements:- 1. A review of ‘current state’ of the Town's documentation and processes; 2. Process mapping of core functions and operations; and 3. An ‘audit’ of Stage One activities, as recommended in the Reform Toolkit. When the Town of Cambridge and City of Subiaco formally engage and communicate, this documentation and process mapping will allow both parties to compare core functions and operations, as a starting point in determining what processes and policies the new local government entity will require. Due Diligence Document Register Key documents within the Town have been reviewed, updated and collated including over-arching strategies, and management policies and practices. Over 37 key documents reflecting the Town’s current state have been collected and identified in a document register. Stage One Activities As outlined in the Reform Toolkit, the overall aim of the activities and tasks for Stage One was to identify, review, audit and document current processes and policies and to plan for Stages two, three and four. As discussed above, the activities and tasks identified in the Reform Toolkit have been progressed through to the end of Stage One. The Town has formed in-house working Groups to assess and progress all Stage One tasks. This information has been collated and a Stage 1 Due Diligence Report dated 22 August 2014 has been prepared. This report provides the status of all Stage One tasks. Internal and External Communications Plan Internal and external Communications Plans have been developed by the Town. The purpose of these plans is to:- • ensure that both internal and external communications and messages are consistent and

targeted to reflect the different stages of the transition; and

• ensure media and social media channels are managed proactively. Risk Management Plan A Risk Management Plan has also been developed to identify the risks which the Town of Cambridge may be exposed to during the reform project. It should be noted that a Risk Matrix is required as part of any funding application to the Department of Local Government.



Project Delivery Plan (PDP) The Town has prepared and almost finalised a Project Delivery Plan for the structured implementation of local government reform tasks and transition to the commencement date on 1 July 2015. This Plan sets out:- • a timeline with the key milestones and tasks for each stage of the Reform process;

a reporting framework; • an assessment of risks and opportunities; and

• indicative project costs and resources required. The Project Delivery Plan will also be an essential requirement for any funding application to the Department of Local Government and Communities (if an application is made). Key Deliverables – Stages 2 to 4 The following is a List of key deliverables should occur prior to 1 July 2015. Work has commenced on many of these tasks. However, due to a delay in the announcement by the Minister, some work will not be able to be completed to the standard desired to achieve the stated reform objectives within the time frame available until 1 July 2015. These are summarised in the following categories: Task Number Priority Asset Management 33 High Business Systems 34 High Changeover Day 15 High Commissioner - Appointment of (if applicable) 8 Low Communications 18 High Community Consultation 10 High Community Development 103 Medium Customer Service 32 High Due Diligence 23 High Environmental Management 66 Low Financial Management 268 High Governance 39 High Human Resources Management 209 High Integrated Planning and Reporting 64 Medium Interim CEO (if applicable) 21 Low Leading and Managing Change 37 Medium Legal 7 Low Management and Executive Team 30 High Marketing and Branding 22 High Native Title 8 Low Organisational Structure 31 High Procurement 191 High Project Management 7 Medium Property Management 41 High Records management 29 High Reform Costs 4 High



Regional Councils 19 Low Regulation and Enforcement 28 High Risk Management 62 High Planning and Development 37 High Service Delivery 61 High Waste Management 89 High

TOTAL: 1,646 Essential and High Priority Tasks: The following have been identified as essential and priority will be given to these:- Managing the Transition:

• Project Development/Transition Plan

Organisational Structure/ Employee Arrangements: • Organisational Structure

• Employee transition

• Workplace locations

• Redeployed staff

• Change management

• Organisational Culture

Financial Matters and Budget 2015-16: • Consolidation of Cambridge and Subiaco Budgets (plus expanded areas of Stirling and

Nedlands)

• Reform Budget

• Fees and Charges

Service Delivery/Customer Service: • Services–review/priorities

• Customer Service Charter

• Operational Plans

• Contracts (review of external)

• Procurement



Business Systems:

• Integration and Implementation

• Data/information –exchange/integrity

• Records management

Governance and Administrative Matters : • Council, Committees-

• Local Laws, Policies and delegation, Town Planning Scheme

Corporate Image and Communication : • Corporate Image (branding, logo, image, design)

• Communication

• Website

Asset Management: • Assets and liabilities-determination

• Asset Management Policies

• Asset Registers- reviewing and combining

• Infrastructure/property/plant/equipment

Local Implementation Committee In November 2013 the Department of Local Government released details of a recommended governance framework for adoption during the reform process. This involves the creation of a ‘Local Implementation Committee’ (LIC) for each group of local governments that are subject to a reform proposal, and the establishment of a ‘Metropolitan Reform Implementation Committee’ (MetRIC). The purpose of the MetRIC is to oversee the co-ordination of the Local Implementation Committees, facilitate the collaboration and sharing of information between local governments on reform, and resolve technical issues associated with reform. The MetRIC is attended by representatives from the Department of Local Government, WALGA, LGMA, and a LIC member from each of the local governments. The purpose of the LIC is to oversee and drive planning and implementation of the reform program (at an Elected Member level), act as a conduit to Council, and to facilitate decision-making. To date a LIC has not been formed with the City of Subiaco. Recent dialogue with the City of Subiaco has indicated that there is a desire to consider a LIC. A separate item is included on the December agenda to approve the Memorandum of Understanding and appoint the Town’s members. The Department of Local Government and Communities has recently advised the Town that representation on the MetRIC has been approved. Having regard for the above, it is considered prudent to seek the establishment of the Local Implementation Committee.



Wards At the Council meeting held on 26 May 2014, the Council considered the matter of wards and Elected member representation and resolved to lodge a submission with the LGAB to:- 1. adopt a four ward system, with two councillors in each ward; and 2. election of a Mayor by the electors. The Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) did not support the Town's position for wards and recommended that all wards be abolished. The Department of Local Government and Communities has recently advised that Guidelines for wards will be issued shortly. However, as at the time of writing this report, no Guidelines have been received. The matter of wards considered at the Council Member Forums held on Monday 10 November and 2 December 2014. At the Forums, the timeline for implementation of wards was noted to be very tight. An Indicative Timeline is as follows:- Indicative Timeline ITEM INDICATIVE TIMEFRAME Dialogue with City of Subiaco December 2015 Prepare Discussion Paper and write Agenda Report 5- 9 January 2015 Council meeting to approve Wards Discussion Paper Tuesday 13 January 2015 Community Consultation (6 weeks) Monday 19 January - Friday 6

March 2015 Consideration of Submissions, Finalisation of Wards and preparation of Agenda Report

9 - 13 March 2015

Issue Agenda Report to Elected Members Monday 16 March 2015 Council meeting to approve Wards and representation Thursday 24 March 2015 Lodge Submission with Local Government Advisory Board Monday 30 March 2015 Elected Members have expressed the view the matter of implementing wards until not be pursued until after the next local government elections to be held in October 2015, for the following reasons:- 1. The absence of Guidelines and information from the Department; 2. The very tight timeframe to consider, prepare a Discussion Paper and consult with the

affected electors; 3. A lack of time to consult and agree the ward boundaries with the City of Subiaco; and 4. The LGAB did not accept the Town's previous submission (May 2014) to introduce a four

(4) ward system and instead recommended no wards for the new district.


There are no policy or legislative implications as a result of the Stage 1 of the Reform Program. Stage 1 has involved the review and collation of current state material, and planning for future stages of the Reform Project.




All costs associated with the reform process will be funded from the Town's operating budget. No external consultants have been engaged to date. A $50,000 grant was received from the State Government in June 2014, for successfully completing Stage 1 work. The State Government has announced the following funding arrangement: The State Government will provide up to $15 million in grant funding, with a maximum of $5 million in grant funding each financial year, starting from 2014/15. This is the total amount that is to be shared across the twelve (12) new local governments. The State Government will also offer up to $45 million in loans, with a two per cent subsidy on the applicable interest rate. The loan guarantee fee will also be fully subsidised by the State Government. Local governments will be required to pay the WATC the full applicable interest rate amount and the State Government will subsequently reimburse local governments the relevant interest expense amount. Applications will be based on the submission of a Project Delivery Plan (PDP) covering all aspects of the reform. Any approval of funding is conditional upon a number of conditions.


The proposal by the State Government for the Town of Cambridge to be combined in a new Council will have a significant impact on the Town's Strategic Community Plan, 2013-2023. This plan was adopted in June 2013 following consultation with the community and under the Goal of "A strong performing local government" and includes a strategy to "Actively pursue local government reform in the best interest of our community".


Not applicable. The Town has been working since early 2014 to complete the work required during Stage 1 of the reform process. However, due to no LIC being formed, no consultation and very little exchange of information between the City of Subiaco and the Town of Cambridge has occurred. However, now that the legal challenge to the Supreme Court has been dismissed, it is anticipated that Subiaco will now engage with the Town and a LIC may be formed.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil.




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Key Deliverables required in Stages 2 to 4 of the Reform Project, as detailed in

this report, be noted; (ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to commence work on Stages 2 - 4 of the

Reform Toolkit, as detailed in this report and commit expenditure within the Town's Operating Budget for the purposes associated with the Reform Project;

(iii) the Chief Executive Officer be requested to submit a report to the Council at the

completion of the Local Government Reform Toolkit Stage 2, in the first quarter of 2015;

(vi) the Council not pursue the matter of implementing wards for the new district until

after the next local government elections to be held in October 2015, for the following reasons:-

(a) the absence of Guidelines and information from the Department of Local

Government and Communities; (b) the very tight timeframe to consider and prepare a Discussion Paper and

consult with the City of Subiaco and the affected electors; (c) a lack of time to consult and agree the ward boundaries with the City of

Subiaco; and (d) the LGAB did not accept the Town's previous submission (May 2014) to

introduce a four (4) ward system and instead recommended no wards for the new district; and

(v) funding arrangements provided by the State Government for the reform process,

as detailed in this report be noted and the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to prepare a Funding Application on behalf of the Town.

Carried 9/0



CR14.191 LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE FOR TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE AND CITY OF SUBIACO

SUMMARY:

To obtain the Council's approval for the proposed Local Implementation Committee (LIC), between the Town of Cambridge and City of Subiaco, including membership, Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and Terms of Reference (TOR).

BACKGROUND:

As previously reported to the Council at its meeting held in October 2014, on Wednesday 22 October 2014 the Minister for Local Government the Hon. Tony Simpson and the Premier Colin Barnett announced the State Government's decision concerning the Local Government Advisory Board's Recommendations in relation to local government reform and mergers in the metropolitan area. The Town of Cambridge and the City of Subiaco are to be merged, along with parts of the City of Stirling and City of Nedlands. To assist affected local governments in the implementation of the merger process, the Western Australian Local Government Association and the Department of Local Government and Communities have developed a Toolkit. The Toolkit recommends that a Local Implementation Committee be formed, comprising of Elected Members and the Chief Executive Officer.

DETAILS:

A draft Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference have been prepared. The proposed MOU and TOR have been based on the Toolkit model. The primary purpose of the Local Implementation Committee is to prepare for the 'successful' merger of the Town of Cambridge and the City of Subiaco, oversee issues associated with the merger and facilitate a positive culture for the new organisation. The LIC is to utilise the Metropolitan Reform Toolkit as a guide to delivery of the transition process. It is important to note that the LIC does not have any executive powers or authority to implement action in areas over which the Chief Executive Officer has legislative responsibility; and does not have any delegated authority or decision making powers. The LIC does not have any management functions and cannot involve itself in management processes or procedures, however, has a strategic overview to ensure the best interests of the Council and community are represented. It is recommended that the Mayor, Deputy Mayor, one Councilor and the Chief Executive be appointed to the LIC, representing the Town of Cambridge.


Section 5.10 and 5.11 of the Local Government Act 1995 allows for the Council to appoint members and deputy members to a committee. An Absolute majority decision of the Council is required.




There are no financial implications with respect to managing the LIC, however, there are significant financial implications related to the merger process.


The proposal by the State Government for the Town of Cambridge to be combined in a new Council will have a significant impact on the Town's Strategic Community Plan, 2013-2023. This plan was adopted in June 2013 following consultation with the community and under the Goal of "A strong performing local government" and includes a strategy to "Actively pursue local government reform in the best interest of our community".


Community consultation is not applicable. The Local Implementation Committee Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference were presented to the Council Member Forum held on 2 December 2014.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Local Implementation Committee Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of Reference.


That:- (i) a Local Implementation Committee between the Town of Cambridge and the City of

Subiaco be formed;

(ii) the following be appointed as the Town of Cambridge Members to the Local Implementation Committee;

Mayor Simon Withers;

Deputy Mayor Alan Langer;

Councillor………………………………….; and

Chief Executive Officer; and

(iii) the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of the Local Implementation Committee, as shown in Attachment No: 1, be approved.

Committee Meeting 8 December 2014 During discussion, Members agreed that the appointment of a Councillor, in addition to the Mayor, Deputy Mayor and Chief Executive Officer, to the Local Implementation Committee was not necessary.



Amendment Moved by Cr Walker, seconded by Cr Grinceri That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) the following be appointed as the Town of Cambridge Members to the Local

Implementation Committee;


Deputy Mayor Alan Langer; and

Chief Executive Officer;

Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Withers, Crs Grinceri, Langer and Walker Against: Cr Carr COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) a Local Implementation Committee between the Town of Cambridge and the City

of Subiaco be formed;

(ii) the following be appointed by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as the Town of Cambridge Members to the Local Implementation Committee;




(iii) the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of the Local Implementation Committee, as shown in Attachment No: 1, be approved.

Amendment Moved by Mayor Withers, seconded by Cr MacRae (iv) the Mayor and CEO be authorised to amend the Memorandum of Understanding

based on any reasonable alterations proposed by the City of Subiaco Amendment carried 9/0



COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) a Local Implementation Committee between the Town of Cambridge and the City

of Subiaco be formed;

(ii) the following be appointed by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as the Town of Cambridge Members to the Local Implementation Committee;




(iii) the Memorandum of Understanding and Terms of the Local Implementation Committee, as shown in Attachment No: 1, be approved;

(iv) the Mayor and CEO be authorised to amend the Memorandum of Understanding

based on any reasonable alterations proposed by the City of Subiaco. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR14.192 DOCUMENTS SEALED - DEC 2014

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge.

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

18 November 2014

Request for Withdrawal of Caveat and Reinstatement of Caveat over 8 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach.

Withdrawal of Caveat so a mortgage can be registered against the property in order for construction of a dwelling to commence. As the subject property does not have a dwelling constructed upon it, the caveat is required to be re-lodged over the property.

1






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 Consultation 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 Langer, 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



CR14.193 BOLD PARK COMMUNITY SCHOOL - NEW BUILDING

SUMMARY:

The Bold Park Community School has submitted a retrospective development application for a transportable classroom that was relocated within their lease area in September 2012. As the Town is the owner of the property, it is required to approve the application, as the Landlord, before it can be assessed for planning and building approval. This report does not necessarily consider any of the planning or building requirements for the classroom under the Town Planning Scheme, but does consider land use from a Landlords perspective. The proposed recommendation will permit the School to lodge an application for retrospective approval with the Town.

BACKGROUND:

The following items refer:

• CCS02.90 September 2002 Speech and Hearing Centre – request to sublease to Bold Park Community School

• DES 06.209 November 2006 location no. 633 (nos. 61-63) Powis Street, Wembley –

infant/toddler child care centre

• DV08.166 Dec 2008 Proposed Carpark for Bold Park Community School - Reserve 34689 (No.36) Dodd Street, Wembley

• CR13.9 February 2013 Bold Park Community School - Parking Licence

The Town of Cambridge leases Reserve 34689 to the Speech and Hearing Centre who in turn sub lease the northern section of the Reserve to the Bold Park Community School. This was granted with approval from the Western Australian Planning Commission in 2004 for the School. The sub lease was supported by an approved Masterplan for the site (the "Masterplan") In September 2012, the School submitted an application containing a new site plan (the "2012 Plan") to the Town for the relocation of a transportable building from the Speech and Hearing Centre to the Bold Park Community School. On further investigation, the Town discovered that the building had already been relocated and the Town requested that the School submit a planning application, requesting that retrospective planning approval be sought. This was considered at the February 2013 Council Meeting. The 2012 Plan indicated that the new building was to be located on the site previously allocated in the Masterplan for 18 car parking bays. The 2012 Plan also indicated that the area identified in a previous approval February 2009, amended a designated parking area (14 bays) to a fruit orchard. Since 2004, the Town had repeatedly requested that the School complete the car parking that was required in its Master Plan and subsequent plan approved in 2009.



Council determined that it would not consider the planning application for the new building until the outstanding parking requirements from 2004 had been met and in February 2013 decided that: (i) the Town reiterate that the school construct the remaining 14 car bays by 30 June 2013,

providing design drawings by 31 March 2013; (ii) if the Bold Park Community School does not comply with this direction, that a notice of a

breach of lease be issued and that remedies be sought under the lease agreement; (iii) the Bold Park Community School be requested to provide an accurate estimate of the

number of bays it utilises in the Lake Monger car park; (iv) the Town grant a licence to the Bold Park Community School to lease 14 car parking

bays in the Lake Monger car park for a period commencing on the first day of the 2013 school year and ceasing on 30 June 2013 at $4/bay per day;

(v) the school be advised that any further extension to the licence beyond 2013 will not be

approved; (vi) a report be submitted to Council on implementing parking restrictions in the North Lake

Monger car park and Dodd Street car park. New site plans were submitted in June 2013 that showed the new car park and removed the relocated classroom and fruit orchard (the "2013 site plan"). The WAPC approved the new site plans in December 2013 and the construction of 15 bay car park bays was completed in July 2014. The School now complies with its car parking requirements.

DETAILS:

Following the completion of the construction of the car parking bays, the School again submitted an application for retrospective planning approval for the transportable classroom that is located at the front of the school. The building was previously located at the adjacent Speech and Hearing Centre and was relocated to the School during the recent upgrade of the Speech and Hearing Centre. The School advised that the building had to be moved as a matter of urgency and that they did not have time to submit a building application. They also reported that the building was not being used and was not connected to any services. When the building was initially moved, it was certified by a structural engineer. The 2009 approved site plan for the School shows several locations within the lease area that have been identified for new buildings. This classroom was not located on any of the sites because the size of the building did not allow it to be transported through the school. The Town needs to ensure that the developed area does not exceed that beyond what was approved in the original 2004 Master Plan and the subsequent approved 2013 site plan. The 2013 plan indicates the location of three planned classrooms that have yet to be constructed. To accommodate the new building on site, the Town should request that the planned but yet to be constructed classroom on the eastern boundary of the site be removed from the approved site plan.



Aesthetically, the building does not look out of place in its current location. With the relocation of the new building, the number of parking spaces required at the School will be considered during the planning approval process. It has been advised by the Town's Planning Officers that it is unlikely that the number of parking bays required will change significantly. The Towns permission is required for the new building, as it is the owner of the land and the changes to the site will require approval from the WAPC. It is recommended that approval as Landlord be granted, subject to complying with all laws and approvals, and that such approvals issued by the Town (in its regulatory capacity) be final (i.e. there is no ability for the tenant to appeal). In other words, the conditions imposed by the Town under a planning approval issued under the Planning and Development Act 1995 will also form the conditions of the Landlord's approval issued under the lease.


Lease Clause 2 (i) of the lease between the Town and the Speech and Hearing Centre requires the Lessee: "not to make any alteration in or additions to the demised premises without the Lessor written consent." Further requirements of the sub lease between Speech and Hearing and the Bold Park Community School Clause 12.1 (a) require;

Three planned but yet to be constructed classrooms

New Building



"The Lessee must not carry out the development works of any stage unless it first obtains the Lessor's written approval to those proposed works, and the Lessee otherwise complies with clause 12." The Lessor, (The Speech and Hearing Centre), have provided written consented to the relocation of the new building. (Attachment 6). Clause 12.10 of the sub-lease "acknowledges that the approval of the Lessor is subject to the approval of the Head Lessor (the Town) before any alterations or improvements are made on the premises and the Head Lessor may withhold its approval in its absolute discretion." The new building is consistent with the permitted use of the lease as the building will be used as a classroom. Aboriginal Heritage Land Act The Lake Monger precinct is subject to Section 18 of the Aboriginal Heritage Act. Approval for the original application was granted in 2005. Whilst the developed area has not changed, elements within it have varied. The School and the Speech and Hearing Centre will need to be satisfied that the proposal is consistent within the Aboriginal Heritage approval. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:



Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal 5 Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy 5.1 Facilitate commercial development within the Town Key Actions • Promote economic development opportunities in the Town.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy as "Inform". The Committee/Council meeting schedule and amendments will be advertised locally in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 12 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 2004 Master Plan approved by WAPC 2. 2008 Approved Plans 3. 2013 Approved Plans. 4. 2014 Submitted Plans 5. Correspondence 16 September 2014 from Bold Park Community School - Mark Nolan, 6. Correspondence 1 September 2014 from Telethon Speech and Hearing - Peta Monley,

Chief Executive Officer 7. Aerial Timeline Bold Park Community School 2007-2014




Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the Town, as the Landlord, grants approval for the Bold Park Community School to

lodge an application for retrospective planning approval for a transportable classroom at 61 - 63 Powis Street Wembley;

(ii) a final Landlord's approval, in accordance with Clause 2(i) of the Lease between

the Town of Cambridge and the Speech and Hearing Centre, will be considered following an assessment of the planning application and, if approved, will be subject to any conditions imposed by the Town at that time;

(iii) the planned (but not approved) future buildings illustrated on the eastern boundary

of the plan be removed from the approved site plan. Carried 9/0



CR14.194 LOTHIAN PARK BUILDING FUTURE USE - COMMUNITY CONSULTATION

SUMMARY:

In October 2014, Council considered the future use of the Lothian Street Pre Primary building and decided its preferred option was to demolish the building, however, the Town was to conduct consultation with residents within a 300 metres radius of the building to advise them of Council's preference. The Town issued correspondence to 236 properties advising of the Town's intention to demolish the building and inviting comment. Twenty six responses were received, of these 10 were in opposition to the proposal. This report recommends the Town proceed with the demolition of the Lothian Street Pre Primary building and to return the area park land.

BACKGROUND:

The following items refer: CR 14-152 October 2014 - Lothian Park Building Future Use The existing building at 1 Lothian Street, Floreat was leased by the Department of Education (DoE) as the West Leederville Pre-Primary School building in 2000. It was previously used as the Churchlands Pre-primary. The building was constructed in 1959 and is approximately 192m². It consists of an older style pre-primary centre with play rooms and outdoor play equipment. The building is located in the middle of Lothian Park East and the land that the building occupies is zoned Parks and Recreation.

The Department of Education terminated their lease of the West Leederville Pre-Primary centre on 30 April 2014. It was originally envisaged that the non-conforming use of the building as a centre for early childhood learning (ie pre-primary) could continue and that a use consistent with the previous use could be sought. However, recent advice indicates this non-conforming use expired and thus the potential use of the building is restricted to community recreation, given the Parks and Recreation zoning.



At the October 2014 Council Meeting, the potential uses of the building were considered. Each potential use presented a range of issues to be contended with. Council considered each potential use for the building and the accompanying issues on its merits and determined that: (i) the preferred option is to demolish the building in Lothian Park. (ii) consultation be conducted with residents within 300 metres of Lothian Park advising them

of Council's preferred option to demolish the building and inviting them to comment.

DETAILS:

The Town sent 236 notices out to residents who reside within 300m of the park advising them of Council's intention to demolish the building and inviting comment on the proposal. Twenty six (26) responses were received by the Town and out of these ten (10) were in opposition to the demolition of the building. A summary of the reasons for opposition is as follows: • Concerns that the land will been used for high density residential purposes. • Retain the building as a pre primary / child care centre / school. • Consider the building should be retained for community purposes.

With respect to the concerns raised by the community the following should be noted: • The Town has advised concerned residents that the land is zoned Parks and Recreation

and can not be used for residential purposes without changes to the Town Planning Scheme.

• The Town has investigated the option to retain the building for school / childcare purposes, but has been advised that the building is only able to be used for a purpose which gives effect to the purpose of the zoning. Childcare and education purposes are not considered to be consistent with the zoning. If the building is to be leased to a commercial operator, it would require planning approval and changes to the current zoning as the land is zoned Parks and Recreation. This is not necessarily insurmountable, but at this stage, there appears to be little support.

• If the building was to be maintained for community purposes, the zoning of the land would not require to be changed, however significant improvements would be required to be made to the building before it could be used for this purpose. The Town would also be responsible for the ongoing maintenance costs and the management of the building. These costs would be offset (in part) by any income raised from the hire of the building however it is anticipated, (based on the Holyrood Pavilion) that the building would operate at a cost of around $20,000 per annum.

• Parking has always been an issue at this site and by entering into a new agreement for the building (lease or community purposes) the parking arrangements will be required to be formalised and the amount of paved parking bays increased. It is estimated that the cost to provide park bays would be between $50,000 - $100,000 depending on the intensity of use and thus number of bays.

With only 4.2% of the residents surveyed in opposition to the proposal, it is recommended that the Town proceed with the demolition of the building. The results of the community consultation has been summarised in Attachment 1.






The estimated cost to demolish Lothian Street Pre Primary is $35,000 inclusive of a small allowance for remedial landscaping of the demolished area. This will leave the land occupied by the building and surrounds in a condition able to be used as a park. There is no budget provision for the demolition, so approval for unbudgeted expenditure is sought.


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


A letter box drop to 236 properties within 300 metres of the Lothian Street Pre Primary was conducted after the October Council Meeting. Responses are contained within Attachment 1.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Table of responses COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That:- (i) the comments received from residents in relation to the demolition of the Lothian

Street Pre Primary site be noted; (ii) residents be advised that the Town has decided to proceed with the demolition of

the Lothian Street Pre Primary building; (iii) the Town commences the process of demolition of the Lothian Street Pre Primary

building and remedial landscaping of the demolition site. (iv) an amount of $35,000 for the demolition of the building be authorised by an

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CR14.195 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - NOVEMBER 2014

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.

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




Moved by Cr Langer, 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-2014 11-November-2014 050515 - 050550 $46,538.77Municipal Fund 12-November-2014 14-November-2014 050551 - 050565 $101,134.62Municipal Fund 19-November-2014 21-November-2014 050566 - 050592 $49,971.77Municipal Fund 27-November-2014 27-November-2014 050593 - 050623 $40,434.42Golf Course 01-November-2014 30-November-2014 000459 - 000460 $2,249.03

Total Cheque Payments $240,328.61

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-November-2014 30-November-2014 INV0700 - INV0708 $6,864,627.00Direct Bank Charges 01-November-2014 30-November-2014 Sup 224 - Sup 227 $86,393.87Accounts Payable 01-November-2014 05-November-2014 E15442 - E15531 $741,300.55Accounts Payable 06-November-2014 12-November-2014 E15532 - E15645 $478,449.39Accounts Payable 14-November-2014 21-November-2014 E15646 - E15741 $558,644.88Accounts Payable 21-November-2014 21-November-2014 E15742 - E15858 $967,443.21Golf Course 01-November-2014 07-November-2014 E00057 - E00057 $49,976.09Golf Course 07-November-2014 14-November-2014 E00058 - E00058 $54,433.05Golf Course 18-November-2014 18-November-2014 E00059 - E00059 $1,832.55Golf Course 24-November-2014 24-November-2014 E00060 - E00060 $49,182.17Golf Course 27-November-2014 27-November-2014 E00061 - E00061 $49,840.72Golf Course 28-November-2014 28-November-2014 E00062 - E00062 $49,943.52Payroll 01-November-2014 30-November-2014 Pay 711 - Pay 717 $1,139,043.90

Total EFT Payments $11,091,110.90

TOTAL PAYMENTS $11,331,439.51



CR14.196 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - NOVEMBER 2014

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.

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 The Reserve Bank official cash rate remains on hold at 2.50% and is not expected change given the current economic climate. Global economic growth remains moderate overall, although it is the result of a mixed set of economic indicators with the US economy continuing to strengthen, Japan and the Eurozone experiencing economic weakness and China faced with the challenge of a weakening property market. The strengthening US dollar has seen the Australian dollar falling which will have a positive result on local export markets, although key commodity prices have significantly fallen in past months. Australian economic conditions continue to remain much the same with resource sector spending declining significantly offset to some degree by increased investment in other markets although at varying rates. The housing market remains strong with an increase in lending to investors given the current low interest rate environment. Unemployment has edged slightly higher with the labour market having a degree of spare capacity and it will be some time before unemployment is likely to decline. Inflation as expected is currently running within the Reserve Bank's target range of 2 to 3%. In terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same as last month with rates over the short term of three months ranging from 3.1% to 3.6% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months range from 3.1% to 3.8%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.77% for November 2014. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 2.67% at 30 November 2014. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 2.50% for November 2014 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 3.40%. The weighted average investment period of 155 days (approximately five months) compares favourably with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.86%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for November 2014 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period November 2013 to November 2014.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since November 2011.



The total investment at the end of November 2014 is $51.4 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $17.0 million, Reserve Funds of $3.6 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $29.3 million and Trust Funds of $1.5 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from November 2013 to October 2014.



The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of November 2014 is as follows:

Term(Days) Rating

Current Interest

RateNovember

2014 IncomeTotal Amount

Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes .Emerald Reverse Mortgage "A" 3.11% $2,022 $764,762 1.49% 0.05%

Sub-total $2,022 $764,762 1.49% 0.05%

Term Deposits and Bank BillsANZ - Term Deposit 112 "A1+" 3.20% $1,315 $503,332 0.98% 0.03%ANZ - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 3.20% $1,315 $503,332 0.98% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 180 "A1+" 3.50% $262 $92,734 0.18% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 59 "A1+" 3.40% $2,795 $1,004,471 1.95% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 3.35% $2,753 $1,006,975 1.96% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.45% $639 $521,076 1.01% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.35% $212 $77,648 0.15% 0.01%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 210 "A1+" 3.35% $113 $41,339 0.08% 0.00%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 66 "A1+" 3.50% $2,978 $1,040,644 2.02% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 96 "A1+" 3.45% $1,429 $505,530 0.98% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.45% $2,618 $1,028,479 2.00% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 3.40% $1,416 $508,758 0.99% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 80 "A1+" 3.40% $1,424 $512,829 1.00% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 280 "A1+" 3.50% $719 $255,010 0.50% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.45% $1,250 $1,018,430 1.98% 0.07%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 3.40% $1,414 $507,558 0.99% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 63 "A1+" 3.50% $863 $301,784 0.59% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 63 "A1+" 3.50% $871 $304,446 0.59% 0.02%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 3.40% $7,467 $2,680,432 5.21% 0.18%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 103 "A1+" 3.40% $1,397 $504,751 0.98% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 103 "A1+" 3.35% $4,130 $1,510,188 2.93% 0.10%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 89 "A1+" 3.50% $192 $500,192 0.97% 0.03%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.45% $2,042 $802,042 1.56% 0.05%BANKWEST - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 3.40% $2,795 $1,003,819 1.95% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 187 "A1+" 3.60% $3,127 $1,067,490 2.07% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 3.60% $2,743 $939,000 1.82% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.50% $2,158 $752,949 1.46% 0.05%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.60% $2,608 $896,534 1.74% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 3.60% $1,493 $510,644 0.99% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.50% $2,679 $936,867 1.82% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 3.50% $1,478 $518,747 1.01% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 187 "A1+" 3.60% $3,015 $1,032,725 2.01% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.46% $1,317 $515,892 1.00% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 188 "A1+" 3.60% $6,027 $2,064,719 4.01% 0.14%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.50% $1,821 $951,083 1.85% 0.06%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.50% $1,918 $1,001,918 1.95% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 168 "A1+" 3.55% $1,471 $508,290 0.99% 0.04%NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 3.60% $2,959 $1,011,638 1.96% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.60% $2,959 $1,010,258 1.96% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 89 "A1+" 3.45% $2,836 $1,008,318 1.96% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 173 "A1+" 3.55% $2,918 $1,007,197 1.96% 0.07%NAB - Term Deposit 166 "A1+" 3.55% $1,459 $503,599 0.98% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 126 "A1+" 3.45% $1,418 $503,261 0.98% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 3.46% $1,422 $503,270 0.98% 0.03%NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.50% $75 $26,228 0.05% 0.00%StGeorge - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.35% $986 $538,298 1.05% 0.04%St George - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 3.25% $4,076 $1,539,058 2.99% 0.10%St George - Term Deposit 91 "A1+" 3.11% $2,601 $1,024,777 1.99% 0.06%St George - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 3.32% $2,786 $1,024,891 1.99% 0.07%St George - Term Deposit 245 "A1+" 3.38% $2,828 $1,023,879 1.99% 0.07%St George - Term Deposit 181 "A1+" 3.34% $2,514 $920,147 1.79% 0.06%St George - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 3.36% $2,792 $1,018,204 1.98% 0.07%St George - Term Deposit 152 "A1+" 3.35% $5,603 $2,060,449 4.00% 0.13%St George - Term Deposit 123 "A1+" 3.32% $9,551 $3,538,839 6.87% 0.23%St George - Term Deposit 147 "A1+" 3.25% $2,671 $1,006,767 1.96% 0.06%StGeorge - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 3.40% $3,633 $1,308,356 2.54% 0.09%St George - Term Deposit 273 "A1+" 3.40% $4,751 $1,710,927 3.32% 0.11%Term Deposits Matured in November $6,359

Sub-total $141,459 $50,721,015 98.51% 3.36%4.92%

Total Investments $143,481 $51,485,777 100.00% 3.41%

Weighted Average 155 3.41%




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.


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 2014 Budget

2014/2015

Budget as at November

2014

Actual as at November

2014 % General * $572,433 $600,000 $250,000 $213,143 35.5% Reserves $106,598 $43,500 $18,000 $46,402 106.7% Endowment Lands $676,688 $720,000 $300,000 $479,217 66.6% Total Investments $1,355,719 $1,363,500 $568,000 $738,762 54.2%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $20,194


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, 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 Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - November 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2014, as attached, be received. Carried 9/0


COUNCIL MINUTES TUESDAY 16 DECENBER 2014


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.


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 2014 Budget

2014/2015

Budget as at November

2014

Actual as at November

2014 % General * $572,433 $600,000 $250,000 $213,143 35.5% Reserves $106,598 $43,500 $18,000 $46,402 106.7% Endowment Lands $676,688 $720,000 $300,000 $479,217 66.6% Total Investments $1,355,719 $1,363,500 $568,000 $738,762 54.2%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $20,194


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, 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 Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - November 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr Carr That the Investment Schedule as at 30 November 2014, as attached, be received. Carried 9/0



10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - NOVEMBER 2014

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 30 November 2014 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

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 $53,701 $34,417 $34,666Expenditure $41,340 $17,313 $16,601Operating Profit/(Loss) $12,361 $17,104 $18,065

$0

$10,000

$20,000

$30,000

$40,000

$50,000

$60,000

$'00

0

Operations

Capital ExpenditureAmended Budget Major

Projects $32,303

Amended Budget excl MajorProjects $14,053

YTD Budget $8,211YTD Actual $6,797

$0

$5,000

$10,000

$15,000

$20,000

$25,000

$30,000

$35,000$'0

00Capital Expenditure

AmendedBudget YTD Budget YTD Actual

Transfers to/(from)Reserves -$354 $331 -$319

Transfers to/(from)Endowment Lands -$23,225 $429 $571

-$10,000

-$8,000

-$6,000

-$4,000

-$2,000

$0

$2,000

$'00

0

Reserves & ELA Transfers

Current Assets, $58,615

Current Liabilities, $10,710

Net Current Assets ($'000)

General Funds, $17,009

Reserves, $3,615

Endowment Lands, $29,314

Trust, $1,548

Investments ($'000)

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\14 MINUTES\December 2014\D Item 10 Onwards.docx 221


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 $34 million in line with year to date budget. Interest earnings are well above budget with actual interest earnings of $858k against budget of $709k, a favourable variance of $149k. Substantial funds of $28 million available within the Endowment Lands Account have accounted for the variance. Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $16.6 million compared to budget of $17.3 million, giving a favourable variance of $0.7 million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for November YTD is $5.3 million against year to date budget of $5.7 million, giving a favourable variance of $400k.

The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: Sustainability programs $19k under YTD budget; Waste management operations $153k under YTD budget; Ocean beaches building maintenance $13k under YTD budget; Clubs leased premises non-capital works $30k under YTD budget; Library Building Maintenance $20k under YTD budget; Parks and landscape non-capital works $40k under YTD budget; Road reserves non capital works $13k under YTD budget; Road infrastructure maintenance non-capital works $68k under YTD budget; Administration Centre building maintenance $30k under YTD budget;

Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $17.5 million is above year to date budget of $16.6 million giving a favourable variance of $0.9 million.

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



Non Operating Revenue

Non Operating Revenue year to date is $4.2 million in line with budget. Capital Works Programs The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 30 November 2014 is $6.8 million against year to date budget of $8.2 million, a variance of $1.4 million. A brief overview of the capital works programs for the period ended 30th November shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $4.3 million in line with year to date budget; • Furniture and Equipment - $174k against year to date budget of $611k; • Plant and Equipment - $178k against year to date budget of $428k; • Parks and Reserves expenditure is $239k against year to date budget of $341k; • Roads and Lanes - $1.6 million against year to date budget of $1.8 million; • Other assets and infrastructure - $319k against year to date budget of $656k. The following material timing variances exist as follows: • Furniture and Equipment - Timing difference with respect to various budget items being

under YTD budget. • Plant and equipment - Timing difference with respect to light fleet vehicle purchases. • Parks and Reserves - Timing difference with respect to various budget items being under

YTD budget. • Roads and Lanes - Cambridge Street West Leederville Centre Street Enhancement

$228k under YTD budget. • Other assets and infrastructure - drainage projects $152k under YTD budget.

No material permanent variances exist within the capital works program to report on at the date of this report.

Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The surplus as at 30 November 2014 is $18.1 million which is above the year to date budget of $15.4 million, a $2.7 million variance. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works.

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 2014 the following material variances exist:

• Interest on Investment - Endowment Lands Account $479k actual as against YTD budget $321k, a favourable variance of $158k. This is largely due to the significant amount of ELA funds available for investment with drawdowns for major projects funded from this account scheduled for later in the year. This has no impact on general purpose funding.

• Governance - Other Income - actual revenue is $60k against YTD budget of $14k, a favourable variance of $46k. This is due to an insurance rebate of $50k received from the Town's insurers not budgeted for.

• Waste Management - refuse site operations $58k under YTD budget. This is a timing difference and costs are expected to re align with budget during the remainder of the year.

Budget Amendments The following budget amendments have been identified: Carried Forward Works - Funds for the following uncompleted capital projects were carried forward in the 2014/2015 budget. Subsequent to year end, the projects were found to have been either completed at year end or works progressed further than anticipated and budgets need to be amended as follows:

• Road Surfacing - Holyrood Street (Cambridge to Woolwich) - amend budget carried forward of $31,000 to "Nil", as project was completed at year end;

• Footpath - Kimberley Street (Cambridge - Railway Parade) East - budget carried forward of $20,100 is reduced by $8,100 to $12,000;

• Footpath - Kimberley Street (Woolwich - Cambridge Street) East - budget carried forward of $20,000 is reduced by $16,000 to $4,000.


02468

1012141618202224

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual


Planning - A number of strategic planning priorities were identified at the October Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee including the Wembley Town Centre Plan and West Leederville Precinct Housing Option Study. In order to progress and complete these projects prior to reform, a strategic planner has been engaged to 30 June 2015 to be funded from additional planning revenue generated to date. Recommendation: That the budgets for both planning fees and salaries and wages be amended by $40k, which will not affect the overall budget position.


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 transparent, accountable governance and a strong performing local government.


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. Monthly Financial Statements - November 2014 COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Carr That: (i) the report on the Financial Statements as at 30 November 2014 be received;



(ii) the following budget amendments be made: Details Budget Adjustment Amended

Budget

Road Surfacing - Holyrood St (Cambridge -Woolwich)

Expenditure $31,000 ($31,000) $Nil

Footpath - Kimberley St (Cambridge - Railway Pde) east

Expenditure $20,100 ($8,100) $12,000

Footpath - Kimberley St (Woolwich - Cambridge St)

Expenditure $20,000 ($16,000) $4,000

Planning Fees Revenue $520,000 $40,000 $560,000 Planning - Employee Costs

Expenditure $690,000 $40,000 $730,000

Carried 9/0



10.2 CITY OF PERTH SURF LIFE SAVING CLUB - NEW LOOKOUT TOWER

SUMMARY:

The existing lookout tower used by the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club (the Club) is not able to be used for the 2014/15 season due to occupation health and safety concerns. As a result, the Life Savers from both the Club and Surf Life Saving WA (SLSWA) will not have an elevated position to monitor the beach from this season. SLSWA have ordered a pre-fabricated portable lookout tower similar to those seen in the United States to be trialled in WA. SLSWA have offered to locate the tower at City Beach for the 2014/15 season to assist in the monitoring of the beach. The tower will arrive in December 2014. This report seeks approval to locate the new portable tower on the groyne at City Beach.

BACKGROUND:

In 2013, the Club received an internal safety report that highlighted several safety concerns with the existing lookout tower. The concerns were related to the safety of club members when ascending and descending the tower, and not necessarily to the structural integrity of the Tower, which the Town monitors through a consultant engineer. On receiving the advice from the Club, the Town commissioned an independent report of the tower (Attachment 1) which in turn identified several safety concerns and issues of non-compliance. These included:

• The worker is at risk from a fall from height when ascending or descending the equipment that does not comply with Australian standards, and is unsafe.

• The worker may slip or trip on an uneven surface, resulting in an injury. • The access equipment does not meet the requirements of the relevant Australian

Standards. • The employer must ensure that a workplace is free of risk to health and safety, and that

reasonable measures are taken to reduce the risks. As a result of the reports from both the Club and the independent assessor, the tower has not been in use since the completion of the 2013/14 beach season.

DETAILS:

As the existing tower is not able to be used, and the elevated lookout position in the old Surf Club building has been demolished with the building, the Club and SLSWA have requested that an elevated position be provided from which its members can safely monitor the beach. The Town, SLSWA and the Club met in November 2014 and SLSWA advised that it has been considering introducing lookout towers similar to those seen on beaches in the United States (Attachment 2). The towers are moulded pre-fabricated structural fibreglass components on a modular steel support structure and are able to be easily located on beaches around WA. SLSWA advised that it has ordered one tower from the United States and it is currently in transit to Perth. SLSWA has offered the use of the tower to the Town and the Club in order to provide an elevated position to observe the beach for the 2014/15 season.



It is proposed to locate the Tower on the groyne next to the existing lookout tower. It has been requested that the tower be connected to electricity to enable the tower to be used to its full potential. Electricity is currently on site as it is connected to existing tower. The Town has investigated the cost of modifying the existing tower and it is estimated at $74,000 (Attachment 1). The Town has not budgeted for these repairs in the 2014/15 budget. This report seeks approval from the Town to locate the new lookout tower on the groyne at City Beach (or other suitable location determined by the Chief Executive Officer) for the 2014/15 season only, and that a further report be submitted to Council investigating the options to provide elevated observation positions at City Beach.


As the owner of the land, the Town is required grant approval in order for the applicant to lodge a building and planning application. As the location of the tower is outside the area leased to the Club, it does not affect the lease that the Town has with the Club. It has been advised that as the use of the tower is consistent with that of the Reserve so WAPC approval will not be required, however, the Town will be inform the WAPC of the approval.


There may be some minimal costs associated with locating the tower on the groyne and connecting it to an electrical supply. These costs are unknown at this time.


Goal 2 Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.3 Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves

New lookout tower




The project is being co-ordinated with the key users of the beach and the tower including with the Club and SLSWA.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Lookout Tower Assessment Report 2. Lookout Tower Design COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O'Connor That - (i) the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club be granted permission to locate a new

lookout tower at City Beach, at a location deemed appropriate by the Chief Executive Officer, and subject to the Chief Executive Officer being satisfied of the safety and suitability of the structure;

(ii) the approval be granted for the 2014/15 season only; (iii) a further report be submitted to Council investigating the options to provide safe

access to an elevated observation position at City Beach. Carried 9/0



10.3 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - ANNUAL REVIEW

SUMMARY:

To submit the Delegation of Authority Register (the Register) for the Chief Executive Officer from the Council for consideration and review. A review of the Delegations Register has been conducted and some minor changes are recommended in line with the guidelines provided by the Department of Local Government.

BACKGROUND:

Section 5.46 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires that delegations from the Council to the Chief Executive Officer are to be reviewed by the Council at least once every calendar year. The previous review was considered by the Council at its meeting held on 15 October 2013. The purpose of delegating authority to the Chief Executive Officer is to provide for the efficient and orderly administration of the day to day functions of local government. The Chief Executive Officer exercises the delegated authority in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act and the Council’s policies. It is necessary to use the delegated authority process to expedite business and avoid unnecessary and repetitious reference to Council. Delegations to Chief Executive Officers are used extensively by all local governments to ensure the Council can respond to defined matters in a timely manner. A local government may delegate to the CEO the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Act other than those such as any decision requiring an absolute majority, accepting major tenders, appointing an auditor or borrowing money. A full listing of the exceptions can be found at Section 5.43 of the Local Government Act 1995. The CEO may also delegate to any employee of the local government the exercise of any of the CEO’s powers or the discharge of any of the CEO’s duties under this Act other than the power of delegation.

DETAILS:

The Town has completed a review of the Register and updated the delegations in line with the Local Government Operational Guidelines on Delegations (Attachment 3) provided by the Department of Local Government. This has resulted in several changes being made including changing the Register to a more "user friendly" format and formalising delegations, where previously the Town "acted through". "Acting through" is the process in which officers carry out a function of the local government in which they have no discretion in decision making. The old Register (Attachment 2) identified three different categories of decision making: Red - Not able to be delegated Green - Able to be delegated Yellow - Able to be acted through The new Register has removed the legislation that is prohibited from delegation (previously identified as red) and items that do not require delegation and can be acted through by the CEO (previously identified as yellow).



By removing the items that do not need to be delegated it has created a more succinct document. Several delegations that had previously been "acted through" have been changed to a delegation (these have been highlighted in orange). This increases the number of delegations to the CEO, but does not increase his power, as previously these issues were being resolved by "acting through". By providing the delegation it will ensure that decisions made by the Town's employees cannot be challenged, particularly in instances where the decision making process is being examined from a legal perspective. There is only one new delegation and this is highlighted in blue 65 TRANSITION

ARRANGEMENT FOR ORDERS ABOUT DISTRICTS

Local Government Act 1995

Schedule 2.1 - 11(2)

Any local governments affected by an order made under clause 2.1 are to negotiate any adjustment or transfer between them of property, rights and liabilities

Negotiate only. Refer back to Council for agreement.

It is not considered that the number of decisions made under delegation will increase significantly in 2015. However a review will be completed in 2015 and the number of decision made under delegation will be investigated. The majority of delegations exercised by Council staff on a daily basis are those associated with the day-to-day operations of the Council. A schedule of specific delegations exercised by the CEO during the past 12 months, (Attachment 4), reveals that the majority relate to the provision of replacement vehicles in accordance with the Light Vehicle Fleet Replacement Strategy, waiving of venue hire fees for ratepayer groups, venue licensing issues for local sporting/recreation clubs and reallocation of funds within existing cost centres to meet unanticipated expenditure. Several of the delegations that were previously made to the CEO are now made to the Audit Committee. The attached schedule presents delegations which may be made by the Council to the CEO and Committees under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995.


There is a direct relationship between Council policies and delegated authority, as the Chief Executive Officer will be guided by Council policy when exercising any delegated authority. Relevant powers and duties are delegated to the Chief Executive Officer in accordance with section 5.42 of the Local Government Act, subject to the limitations specified in section 5.43. Section 5.46 provides that the Chief Executive Officer is to maintain a register of delegations made.


Any financial implications related to this report are controlled by the Delegation of Authority Register attached.




The delegation process streamlines the day to day operations of the Town’s Administration by authorising the Chief Executive Officer to approve certain matters that have received the blanket approval of the Council. Annual reporting complies with the provisions of the Strategic Plan relating to open and transparent governance.


This matter has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. New Delegation of Authority Register 2 Previous Delegation of Authority Register 3. Schedule of CEO Delegations exercised. COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Walker That:- (i) pursuant to Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Council APPROVES

BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the delegation of the exercise of those of its powers and duties contained in the Local Government Act 1995 as detailed in the attached Schedule of Delegations, to the Chief Executive Officer;

(ii) each of the delegations in (i) above be reviewed by December 2015 to reconsider

their currency, ongoing relevance and applicability. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



10.4 BOUNDARY PROPOSALS - CITY BEACH, NORTH OF HALE ROAD AND MT CLAREMONT

SUMMARY:

To obtain the Council's approval of the Town's proposal to retain City Beach, north of Hale Road and Mt Claremont within the Town of Cambridge (to be known as the "City of Subiaco", effective from 1 July 2015). This report recommends the Council to authorise the Chief Executive Officer and Mayor to submit a proposal to the Local Government Advisory Board ('the Board').

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 28 October 2014, the Council considered an item of Urgent Business and resolved as follows: "That:-

(i) the Council supports the residents in City Beach, north of Hale Road, as shown in the Plan Attachment 2, to remain in the Town of Cambridge (to be known as "City of Subiaco", after 1 July 2015); and

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorized to prepare a proposal pursuant to section 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 for the area of City Beach North of Hale Road, to remain in the Town of Cambridge, for the further consideration of the Council at its meeting to be held in December 2014."

On Wednesday 22 October 2014, the Minister for Local Government the Hon. Tony Simpson and the Premier Colin Barnett announced the State Government's decision concerning the Board's Recommendations concerning local government reform and mergers in the metropolitan area. In summary, the State Government has supported all of the Board's Recommendations, except two (City of Perth and City of Riversea), to reduce the number of local governments in the metropolitan area from thirty (30) to sixteen (16). The Cities of Joondalup, Wanneroo and Rockingham (except for a very minor boundary adjustment) would not be affected.

DETAILS:

Specific details about the Town of Cambridge

The Town of Cambridge is proposed to be merged with the City of Subiaco, together with parts of the Cities of Nedlands and Stirling, with a population of approximately 56,000. In essence, the Town's proposal dated 4 October 2014 was accepted, apart from a recommendation that City Beach, north of Hale Road be included in the City of Stirling. In addition, only that part of Wembley Downs south of Hale Road will be included in the new Council and Woodlands will stay in City of Stirling.



City Beach - North of Hale Road

The LGAB has recommended that City Beach, north of Hale Road be transferred to the City of Stirling. The Town was surprised by the outcome of the Board's recommendation to transfer part of City Beach (north of Hale Road) to the City of Stirling, as no discussion was held with the Town. The Town's proposal to the Board did not suggest the change and neither did the proposals submitted by the City of Stirling or the Minister for Local Government. It seems the Board has acted independently by simply adopting a major road as appropriate local government boundaries, without considering the impacts on specific areas such as City Beach. Since the announcement, the Town has received numerous enquiries from residents expressing their strong dissatisfaction with the Board's recommendation and seeking information as to how they can prevent being transferred to the City of Stirling. The residents submitted a proposal to the Board under Schedule 2.1 clause 2 on 19 November 2014 to remain in a combined Cambridge/Subiaco Council post July 2015. The Town has provided some assistance to the resident organisers of the proposal. The residents have also organised a petition to the Western Australian Parliament Legislative Assembly. At the time of writing this report, approximately 559 signatures have been collected. The organiser of the petition has advised that only 4 residents have declined to sign the petition.

The area in question contains approximately 363 residences and is a size of approximately 67 hectares. It is noted that the affected area is within the Endowment Lands Area. The main implications are that rates are to be levied on the Unimproved Value method (as opposed to the Gross Rental Value method) and the proceeds from any land sales within that area must be paid into the Endowment Lands Account and can only be applied for development in the Endowment Lands Area. The Cambridge Endowment Lands Act does not control the zoning of the land. Mt Claremont In its boundary proposal to the Board the Council proposed that a small portion of Mt Claremont within the Town of Cambridge and cut off from the rest of residential Cambridge is more closely associated with the residential part of Mt Claremont located in the City of Nedlands. In order that a logical boundary could be created on the proposed Cambridge/Subiaco southern border consistent with a two council model in the western suburbs, the Council proposed that this area of Mt Claremont be transferred to the southern western suburbs council. This area is also within the Endowment Lands Area and subject to the provisions of the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act. The Town's proposal recognised the complications this would cause and the following note was included on page 13 of the proposal: "Note: This area is currently located within the Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920

(CELA) boundaries. It is recommended that the CELA be amended to exclude the area being transferred to another council to avoid unnecessary complications with the few remaining provisions of the CELA."

It seems that the Board did not consider this matter in supporting the boundary proposed as no recommendation has been made to effect the required amendments to the CELA. The administration is not aware of any legislation amendments being prepared by the State to this effect. It is noted that legislation changes can take some time to progress particularly if they are of a minor nature and not of State significance. This would indicate that it would be difficult to change the legislation prior to 1 July 2015 when the new Council boundaries are planned to be in place.



Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 Residents in north City Beach have raised concerns about the implications of the CELA and noted that provisions in the CELA apply to the area. Some of the residents consider that these provisions can prevent the boundary change and the area being transferred to the City of Stirling. In lieu of this and having regard to the matter being identified in relation to Mt Claremont the Town has obtained legal advice to ascertain whether or not the CELA has any implications for the proposed boundary changes. The recent legal advice from McLeods is attached. This advice indicates that there are practical problems in parts of the Endowment Lands Area being ceded to other local governments principally due to the rating implications. Specifically, the advice states in paragraph 1.7: "If it happened that the two excluded portions of the Endowment Lands were included in the districts of the Cities of Stirling and Riversea respectively as at 1 July 2015, but without amendment to the Endowment Lands Act, those Cities would be faced with the problem of how best to comply with the requirements of both the LG Act and the Endowment Lands Act….." The advice also states that the lawyers cannot see any basis on which the Governor's order can override the provisions of the Endowment Lands Act which establish a clear relationship between the Town of Cambridge and the portion of the Endowment Lands included within the definition of the 'said lands' (paragraph 1.4). In paragraph 1.5 the lawyers have concluded "….it would be impractical for any part of the Endowment Lands to be in any local government district other than the Town of Cambridge." The lawyers have identified the solution to this difficulty as: 1. Parliament to amend the Endowment Lands Act prior to 30 June 2015 noting that it may be

possible to pass retrospective legislation, or

2. The two excluded portions of the Endowment Lands (north City Beach and Mt Claremont) remain within the district of the Town of Cambridge (or new City of Subiaco).

In these circumstances, it seems appropriate for two separate proposals to be put to the Board to retain both areas in the district of Town of Cambridge (or new City of Subiaco). POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides poll provisions that could provide the community with an opportunity to vote on any proposed amalgamation. However, the poll provisions are not applicable to the Town, as the merger is deemed a 'boundary adjustment'. The Board cannot consider a proposal until the Governor's Orders are issued. The following provisions detailed in Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government outline the process for making a proposal to amend local government boundaries. 2. Making a proposal

(1) A proposal may be made to the Advisory Board by - (a) the Minister; or (b) an affected local government; or (c) 2 or more affected local governments, jointly; or



(d) affected electors who — (i) are at least 250 in number; or (ii) are at least 10% of the total number of affected electors.

(2) A proposal is to -

(a) set out clearly the nature of the proposal, the reasons for making the proposal and the effects of the proposal on local governments; and

(b) be accompanied by a plan illustrating any proposed changes to the boundaries of a district; and comply with any regulations about proposals.

Under the Local Government Act (Schedule 2.1; clause 3) the Board is to consider any proposal it receives. However, the Board has the following options when considering a proposal:

(a) Conduct an inquiry unless any of the following apply. (b) Recommend to the Minister to reject the proposal if in the opinion of the Board:

i. it has a similar effect to a proposal the Board has already made a recommendation

on, or ii. where a proposal made by electors is no longer supported by a majority of those

affected electors, or iii is frivolous or not in the interest of good government.

(c) Recommend to the Minister to reject or accept the proposal if in the opinion of the

Board it is of a minor nature and one which public submissions do not need to be invited. Given that the Board decided to adopt its own boundary for north City Beach without consultation, by deeming the variation to proposals from Cambridge, Stirling and the Minister as not 'significantly different', it is open to the Board to recommend to the Minister to accept these two boundary proposals without conducting an enquiry by determining they are minor in nature. However, there is also a risk that the proposals could be rejected without conducting an inquiry.


Nil. The proposal has been prepared in-house by the Town's Administration.


The proposal by the State Government for the Town of Cambridge to be combined in a new Council will have a significant impact on the Town's Strategic Community Plan, 2013-2023. This plan was adopted in June 2013 following consultation with the community and under the Goal of "A strong performing local government" and includes a strategy to "Actively pursue local government reform in the best interest of our community". This report is consistent with the key action to "Submit a boundary change proposal that reflects communities of interest in our area".


Correspondence was sent by the Town's Mayor on 3 November 2014 to the residents in the affected area advising them of the Council's action.



ATTACHMENTS:

1. Legal Advice - Impact of Cambridge Endowment Lands Issues (McLeods) 2. Boundary proposal plans. COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION)

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr King That:- (i) the Town of Cambridge being an affected local government within the meaning of

Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA), resolves to submit the following proposals to the Local Government Advisory Board, pursuant to clause 2(1) of Schedule 2.1 of the LGA:

(a) that orders be made by the Governor under Section 2.1 of the LGA which would vary the district of the City of Subiaco (Town of Cambridge in part prior to 1 July 2015) so as to include within it that area of City Beach north of Hale Road and formerly within the district of the Town of Cambridge; and

(b) that orders be made by the Governor under Section 2.1 of the LGA which would vary the district of the City of Subiaco (Town of Cambridge in part prior to 1 July 2015) so as to include within it that area of Mt Claremont formerly within the district of the Town of Cambridge

in accordance with the attached plans illustrating the proposed changes.

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer in liaison with the Mayor be authorised to prepare and submit the proposals to the Local Government Advisory Board as detailed above.

Carried 9/0



11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil 12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil 13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS Meeting Behind Closed Doors Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That the following matter be regarded as confidential in accordance with Section 5.23(a) of the Local Government Act 1995. Carried 9/0 At 7.24 pm, Mayor Withers requested all persons other than Elected Members to leave the Council Chamber.

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER - REVIEW

COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the confidential Final Performance Appraisal report, as attached and amended,

prepared by the CEO Performance Review Committee be received and the recommendations contained therein be adopted;

(ii) the Mayor be authorised to consult the City of Subiaco under the proposed MOU

on the CEO’s contract extension and, if thought fit, approve the CEO’s contract extension with the amended terms and conditions in the Review Committee Report.

Carried 9/0 Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the meeting be reopened to the public. Carried 9/0 At 8.12 pm, the Mayor reopened the meeting to the public.



14. CLOSURE There being no further business, Mayor Withers thanked those present for their attendance and declared the meeting closed at 8.12 pm.
