cover for web

Council MinutesCouncil Minutes 26 July 2005

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\A Council Front.doc i

MEETING OF COUNCIL 26 JULY 2005

INDEX OF MINUTES 1. Declaration of Opening/Announcement of Visitors........................................................1 2. Record of Attendance/Apologies/Leave of Absence......................................................1 3. Questions from Elected Members of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given

(Without Discussion) .........................................................................................................1 4. Public Question Time ........................................................................................................1 5. Applications for Leave of Absence ..................................................................................6 6. Petitions/Deputations/Presentations ...............................................................................6 7. Confirmation of Minutes....................................................................................................6 8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion........................................................6 9. Committee Reports............................................................................................................7 Technical Services Committee .........................................................................................8

TS05.42 Roads to Recovery – Federal Government Road Funding Program 10

TS05.43 Gayton Road - Extension of Shopping Centre. Rationalisation of portion of road reserve 13

TS05.44 Catesby Street – Kerbside Parking adjacent to Kapinara Primary School 16

TS05.45 Vehicle Crossovers – Specification (Policy No. 4.2.8) 19 TS05.46 Road Verges – Development And Maintenance – (Policy No.

4.2.23) 22 TS05.47 Parking Restrictions – (Policy No. 4.2.26) 25 TS05.48 Tender No. 47-04 – Supply and Delivery of Irrigation Parts and

Equipment 31 TS05.49 Street Trees – Management of unauthorised planting/removal

of trees and shrubs 34 Policy and Administration Committee 42

PA05.20 Payment of Allowances in Lieu of Reimbursement 44

PA05.21 Waste and Recyle Conference 2005 50

COUNCIL 26 JULY 2005 MAYOR…………………………………………………………

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\A Council Front.doc ii

Corporate and Customer Services Committee 53 CCS05.73 Accounts for Payment 55 CCS05.74 Investment Schedule 57 CCS05.75 Documents Sealed 59 CCS05.76 Cambridge Youth Consultation 61 CCS05.77 Quarry Amphitheatre – Report on Operations 65 CCS05.78 Classics in the Park Event 74 CCS05.79 Tender No. T38-04 – Beach Inspection and LifeguardServices 78 CCS05.80 Lease of Pat Goodridge Pavilion – Wembley Athletics Club

(Cricket) 82

Development and Environmental Services Committee................................................85

DES05.120 Games Village Commemorative Feature 87 DES05.105 Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville – Proposed

Change of Use – Showroom to Motor Vehicle Sales Premises 95 DES05.127 Lot 400 (No. 7) Larundel Road, City Beach – Retrospective

Approval for Cabana and Deck 101 DES05.128 Lot (No. 36-40) Southport Street, West Leederville – Proposed

Mixed Use Development (Nine Offices and Eight Grouped Dwellings) 106

DES05.129 Lot 2 (No. 116) Kimberley Street, West Leederville – Three Two Storey Grouped Dwellings 119

DES05.130 Lot 42 (No. 16A) Clune Avenue (Cnr St Leonards Avenue), West Leederville – Proposed Three Level Dwelling including Undercroft 124

DES05.131 Lot 399 (No. 64) Branksome Gardens, City Beach – Three Storey Dwelling with Undercroft 135

DES05.132 Lot 62 (No. 125A) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Proposed Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft and Below Ground Swimming Pool 144

DES05.133 Lot 61 (No. 125B) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville – Two Storey Dwelling 157

DES05.134 Lot 24 (No. 90A) McCourt Street, West Leederville – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling With Loft 166

DES05.135 Lot 299 (No. 116) Chipping Road, City Beach – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage 180

DES05.136 Lot 46 (No. 29) Windarra Drive, City Beach – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling and Swimming Pool 186

DES05.137 Lot 63 (No. 14) Fortview Road, Mt Claremont – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling with Undercroft Garage 193

DES05.138 Lot 163 (No. 123) Grovedale Road, Floreat – Proposed Two Storey Dwelling 197

DES05.139 Lot 43 (No. 18) Barnsley Road, Mt Claremont – ProposedTwo Storey Dwelling 200

DES05.140 Lot 1452 (No. 22) Kildare Road, Floreat – Proposed Additions and Alterations 206

DES05.141 Lot 198 (No. 47) Dampier Avenue, Corner Hovea Crescent, City Beach – Proposed Additions and Alteration, including Fencing in the Street Setback Area 212

DES05.142 Lot 151 (No. 68) Chipping Road, City Beach – Proposed Pergola 217


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\A Council Front.doc iii

DES05.143 Lot 20 (No. 16A) Reserve Street, Wembley – Proposed Additions and Alterations to Existing Single Storey Dwelling 221

DES05.144 Lot 212 (No. 451) Cambridge Street, Floreat – Proposed Alterations and Additions to Existing Single Storey Dwelling 226

DES05.145 Lot 273 (No. 26) Cambourne Avenue, City Beach – Alterations and Additions to an Existing Dwelling 232

DES05.146 Lot 711/712 (No. 19) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville – Proposed Carport 236

DES05.147 Lot 313, 101 and 102 (No. 67) Harborne Street, Wembley – Proposed Front Fence 240

DES05.148 Survey of Community Attitudes Towards Housing in the Town of Cambridge – Submission of Final Report 244

DES05.149 Delegated Decision and Notifications 246 DES05.150 Building Licences Approved Under Delegated Authority 248 DES05.151 Subiaco Redevelopment Authority – Construction of

Showroom over Existing Carpark Lot 3 (55) Salvado Road, Subiaco – Request for Comment 249

10. Elected Members Motions of which Previous Notice has been Given .....................252 10.1 Areas F and G Mount Claremont: Inclusion of Provisional Sum in Financial

Statements 252 10.2 Redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium Site 256 11. Representation on Statutory Authorities and Public Bodies ....................................258

12. Late Items .......................................................................................................................258 12.1 Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment and Construction of Associated

Sporting Facilities : Correspondence Received 258 12.2 Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment Project : Letter from Director General

of Department of Local Government and Regional Development 262 12.3 Redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium Site – Town Development Strategy 268 12.4 Withdrawal of Legal Action: Unauthorised Front Fence, Lot 540 Alderbury

Street, Floreat 286 13. Confidential Items..........................................................................................................289 DES05.152 87 (No. 35) Brighton Street, West Leederville – Proposed

Extension to Existing Carport 289 14. Closure............................................................................................................................289

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\A Council Front.doc 1

MINUTES OF THE ORDINARY MEETING OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE COUNCIL’S ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 26 JULY 2005. 1. PRAYER, DECLARATION OF OPENING AND ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS The Mayor took the Chair and the prayer was read by the Chief Executive Officer. The

meeting was declared open by the Mayor at 6.06 pm. 2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Present:

Mayor: Marlene Anderton Councillors: Kate Barlow David Berry

Rod Bradley Penny Huxtable John Gow Alan Langer Corinne MacRae (In at 6.13 pm) Pauline O’Connor JP

Officers: Graham Partridge, Chief Executive Officer Jason Buckley, Executive Manager, Corporate and Customer Services Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Ian Birch, Executive Manager Development and Environmental Services

Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Apologies: Nil Leave of Absence: Nil Adjournment: Nil

3. QUESTIONS FROM ELECTED MEMBERS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN (WITHOUT DISCUSSION)

Nil

4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

Mr Peter Duckett, 210a Weaponess Road, Wembley Downs Question The Cambridge Council has been publicly criticised in the media for failing to follow due process in regard to Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment decisions.



In particular, the June 2005 Council decision has been highlighted for this reason. The Local Government Act states that the Chief Executive Officer must ensure that Council decisions are in line with the Act. If the June 2005 Council decision did not follow due process did you bring this to the attention of the Presiding Member during that debate or before Council voted on the item or advise the Council to adopt the resolution in principle for further advice and administration assessment? Response The Chief Executive Officer responded that he always advises the Council of due process and brings matters to the attention of the Council when required. Question Mr Ron Birmingham QC, ratepayer of the Town of Cambridge Question The Mayor referred to an email from Mr Ron Birmingham QC who had responded to an email from Cr Berry. His question relates to how Cr Berry obtained his email address. The Mayor asked Cr Berry if he wished to respond. Cr Berry responded that, as he had previously advised the Mayor this afternoon, his email to Mr Ron Birmingham QC, which he also sent to other ratepayers, was in response to a discussion paper which was widely circulated on the Internet and had attached a list containing hundreds of email addresses. The ratepayers whom he had contacted were part of that list. The Mayor said that she had been requested by Mr Birmingham to read his email as he was unable to attend the Council meeting. The Mayor then summarised his email as follows:- “Mr Birmingham was disturbed as to how Cr Berry got his email address. He states that he doesn’t agree with the position as outlined in Cr Berry’s email. He asks that the Mayor conveys to all Elected Members his request that they pay due regard to the overwhelming expression of opposition to the proposed redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium by the ratepayers in the community forums and in the May Council Elections and proceed in a manner consistent with the expressed wishes of the majority of ratepayers. To do otherwise is to deny fundamental democratic principles and processes. Ms Pamela Van Der Meulin, 21 Jukes Way, Wembley Question I would like to ask this question directly to the Mayor. I would like to know how she received the information that the students who live in Floreat and City Beach areas were not allowed to attend City Beach High School? I actually have a directive from the Director General of the District and I will submit that. Response The Mayor advised that she received the information when her daughter applied to go to the High School.



Mr Rod Sutcliffe, 2/23 Selby Street, Floreat – Secretary of the City Beach Christian Resource Council Chaplaincy Committee Question On Sunday, I delivered a letter to all Councillors. I was wondering, in light of this letter and the petition submitted, would you re-look at the funding of a chaplain at City Beach High School? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that Council has made a decision on this matter, however, this matter can be reconsidered by Council at its Special Meeting to be held on 2 August 2005 for the purpose of adopting the 2005/2006 Budget. Mr Jim Putt, 165 Jersey Street, Wembley Question 1 I’ve been told that the funding for the chaplaincy at City Beach High School is a matter for the budget. Can I just disregard the budget for a moment and ask you what is the policy of the Town of Cambridge in regard to supporting a chaplaincy at City Beach High School and the Youth Centre in Cambridge Street? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that the Council has decided not to support the chaplaincy at City Beach High School financially and not to provide additional funds to enable the Youth Centre to open on a Saturday. Question 2 Would the Mayor or the Councillors like to advise the people present why you came to that decision not to support the chaplaincy and the Youth Centre in Cambridge Street? Response The Mayor advised that there has not been a decision on the 2005/2006 Budget at this stage. The draft Budget is currently advertised for public comment and will be discussed and adopted by Council at its meeting held on 2 August 2005. At that meeting, those questions can be answered. Mrs Sandy Moran, 56 Challenger Parade, City Beach Question Does the Mayor feel that the pressure being applied to this Council over Perry Lakes has the capacity to pervert the course of the democratic process within local government, considering this issue was the platform at the recently held elections and the overwhelming majority of voters in the Coast Ward (where Perry Lakes is) were not happy with the then Council direction? Response



The Chief Executive Officer advised that any adverse publicity would draw attention to the Council and could have that effect, however, it is not the Council’s view. The Mayor advised that it has been a very difficult time for Council. There are opposing views on our Council on this item and the pressure we have been feeling is immense. It is quite distressing at times to read media reports or hear radio interviews that are not truly representative of our Council. I would like to reassure all ratepayers that this Council works extremely hard, every one of the Elected Members and the Administration to provide good governance and good decisions for the greatest benefit of our ratepayers. Ms Pamela Van Der Meulin, 21 Jukes Way, Wembley Question Other local Councils have been surveyed and all of them support funding of chaplaincy programmes in their Local Government High schools. In some schools, Councils have even increased their funding. This Council has always supported the chaplaincy programme at City Beach High School, why now has the Town of Cambridge decided to withdraw its funding of $2,000 per annum? Response The Mayor advised that the Council has not adopted its budget yet and the final decision will be made at its meeting on 2 August 2005. Mr David Eckersley, 37 Oakdale Street, Floreat Question 1 I received Cr Berry’s email this morning in which he says there are two issues at play re the redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium. I appreciate that the plan was dreamt up before your time and you have inherited it but Cr Berry in his email makes no mention of the simple inescapable fact that the full cost of building these state sporting facilities are the full responsibility of the state and not the owners of the 10,223 rateable Town of Cambridge properties. Why is this so? Why are we paying for this facility which should be paid for in full by the State Government? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that it was a decision of Council to proceed in that manner with regard to the redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium when considering the facts and the information it has received over a long period of time and in accordance with its decision of 28 June 2005. It is the Council’s view that this is the way the matter should be proceeded with. Question 2 My understanding is that this plan, of which I have a copy, was first proposed in 2001 and my understanding is that the disgraced former Councillor Burkett was the promoter of it and the bulk of the Council no longer support it. I understand only three councillors support the original Multiplex type plan. In a democracy, doesn’t the majority rule? Why is it still being promoted and pushed hard by Alannah McTiernan? Response



The Mayor advised that she can’t respond for the Minister as to why she is still pushing that decision. The Mayor also advised that since the elections in May, the Council has had several meetings with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure and also the Mayor and officers of the Town have met with her. The majority of Council were not supporting the proposal that the Town funds a State Athletic facility but, in discussions with the Minister, a compromise was reached which was agreeable to all parties. One of the conditions was that with a reduced land development there was no longer a requirement for the high cost of a development partner. Council’s decision was based on cost effectiveness to ratepayers, the size of the project and therefore the savings to ratepayers of doing the project management through the Town’s Administration with consultancies to provide the expertise. Therefore Council will go forward to fund the three sporting facilities and to sell a reduced amount of land at the Perry Lakes Stadium site. The Council has agreed to fund the Athletics facility at a capped figure. The Council will be undertaking the project as per the development strategy on the Agenda tonight. Question 3 You said earlier that Council’s contribution to the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment was capped. I’ve read that State Government’s contribution will be approximately $6.7 million and the rest will be provided by the Cambridge ratepayers. There has been no plan for this construction yet. What is the Council’s cap? Response The Chief Executive Officer advised that the Council has capped the expenditure at $16.8 million in 2001 and that figure is indexed from that time in accordance with Rawlinson’s guide for building cost index. The Mayor advised that if there is any further expenditure required then the three sporting clubs would have to provide the funding. Question 4 What contributions are the sporting clubs making? Response The Mayor advised that the clubs would not be making any contribution, however, they have contributed to their existing facilities. Mr Glen Carroll, 16 Arbordale Street, Floreat Question 1 How much vacant land has the Town of Cambridge that can be developed? Response The Chief Executive Officer took the question on notice and undertook to advise Mr Carroll later. Question 2 Can any other land be used to fund the Perry Lakes Redevelopment?



Response The Mayor advised that Council has made the decision to provide the funding for the redevelopment from the sale of the Perry Lakes Stadium site. Question 3 Why does this Council persist with a bad idea to develop Perry Lakes Stadium when it is against the wishes of the majority of ratepayers? Response The Mayor advised that Council has decided to go forward with the project as outlined in the Development Strategy which will be discussed tonight. Question 4 What rent will the Clubs be paying for their state of the art brand new facilities? Response The Mayor advised that those details will be considered as part of the Development Strategy. At this time, the figures are not available.

5. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Nil

6. PETITIONS/DEPUTATIONS/PRESENTATIONS The Chief Executive Officer advised that a petition containing 354 signatures has been submitted as follows: “We the undersigned residents and ratepayers of the Town of Cambridge are

extremely concerned about budget cuts and lack of additional support for youth programmes. We respectfully ask the Town of Cambridge to continue its long-standing support of the City Beach High School Chaplaincy and to fund the additional hours at the Cambridge Youth Centre and support programme for PICYS (Perth Inner City Youth Service). We need to support our youth and families who are at risk. Thank you.”

Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr MacRae That in accordance with Clause 2.26 of the Standing Orders, the petition be received and referred to the appropriate Committee/Council for consideration. Carried 9/0

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council held on 28 June 2005 and the Special Meeting of the Council held on 11 July 2005 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.


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\B TS.doc 8

TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMITTEE The report of the Technical Services Committee Meeting held on 12 July 2005 was submitted as under:- 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Technical Services Committee open at

6.02 pm 2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving

Members: Cr Pauline O’Connor JP (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 7.08 pm Mayor Marlene Anderton 6.06 pm 7.08 pm Cr Kate Barlow 6.02 pm 7.08 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 7.08 pm Observers: Cr John Gow 6.02 pm 7.08 pm Cr Penny Huxtable 6.43 pm 7.08 pm Officers: Chris Colyer, Executive Manager Technical Services Richard Watson, Manager Engineering and Waste Management Jon Bell, Manager Construction and Operations Ross Farlekas Manager Parks and Landscape Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance)

Adjournments: Nil

Time meeting closed: 7.08 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Apology – Cr Langer



4. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil 5. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS Nil 6. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley

That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Technical Services Committee held on 14 June 2005 as contained in the June Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Carried 7. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS Nil 8. REPORTS



TS05.42 ROADS TO RECOVERY – FEDERAL GOVERNMENT ROAD FUNDING PROGRAM (File Reference:TES0232) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To present details relating to the continuation of the Federal Government’s “Roads to Recovery”, program (now referred to as R2R) of road funding allocations and to endorse Council’s continued use of the funds to complete road pavement rehabilitation works throughout the Town. BACKGROUND: In December 2000, the Federal Government introduced a Bill to Parliament to initiate a new Local Road “Roads to Recovery” Funding Program. The program made available to all Australian Local Authorities $1.2 billion dollars over 4 years, with a set completion date of 30 June 2005. There was no guarantee at this time to extend the program. The program was introduced on 1 January 2001 and the Town of Cambridge allocation was $764,213 over the 4 year program. The allocation resulted in grants of $191,053 annually over 4 years. The introduction of this program has assisted Councils to tackle the serious backlog of essential improvements to local roads. The program allowed for funds to be recouped directly from the Federal Government on projects, subject to specific guidelines, which has allowed all Councils to respond pro-actively to long term emerging demands. Councils were able to set their own priorities for works. This is the major variation to the guidelines applied by Main Roads WA when Councils compete for State Road Funding Grants (Road Improvement, Road Rehabilitation, Black Spot). In a report to Council in February 2001 (TS01.16) Council considered an approach to allocation of these specific annual funds and in recognition of the Council’s endorsed road resurfacing program allocated the funds to the resurfacing program on roads that were not likely to attract grant approvals from State Road Funding sources. Over the 4 years of the initial program, the Council allocation has continued to be used to support the road resurfacing program, and this has allowed the Town to address the backlog of urgent maintenance works. The most recent review of Council’s Road Asset Management, which included recommendations on a proposed works program and level of funding, was considered by Council in November 2004 (Item TS04.92). DETAILS: In January 2004, the Federal Government announced its intention to extend the Roads to Recovery Program for an additional 4 years in order to provide an extra $1.2 billion dollar boost to Councils for roads and local land transport infrastructure. The commencement of the new program is to be from 1 July 2005 and expire on 30 June 2009. It was announced the funding of $1.2 billion dollars over the 4 year program life would provide an annual allocation of $300 million. Of this total, $200 million would be allocated annually to 720 Australian Councils by a formula in the same manner as was used in the original program. The major change in the Roads to Recovery Program (R2R) is that the other $100 million per year over 4 years is to be available through a competitive process. This $400 million allocation over the 4 year life of Roads to Recovery (R2R) is available so Councils facing the demands of emerging or expanding, industries can access funds to ensure inadequate infrastructure does



not impede each region’s development. This component of Roads to Recovery will be provided directly to Councils for local land transport infrastructure projects of strategic regional importance. It is to reward strategic and collaborative planning approaches among Councils and, in some cases, the various States. The strategic infrastructure element of the new program will assist especially where the proposed infrastructure improvement extends beyond the interests and financial capacity of a single Council, and which often cannot attract funding against competing projects. It is designed to encourage Councils to co-operate to get important cross border links upgraded. In May 2005, all Australian Councils were advised of the specific details in relation to the Roads to Recovery Program (R2R). The announcement stated a total of $180 million had been allocated to Western Australian Councils, which is the same allocation as in the present program. This amount is to be divided between Councils on the basis of the 2004/05 recommendations of the Local Government Grants Commission for the roads component of the Financial Assistance Grants (FAGS). On this basis, the Town of Cambridge will be allocated $681,022 over the four year life of the program and the allocation for budget 2005/06 is to be one quarter of this ($170,305). The funds can be allocated at the discretion of Council under the same guidelines as were used in the original program. The formal program funding conditions will be provided when finalised. The reduction in the Cambridge allocation from $191,053 to $170,305 reflects the distribution formula adjustment which is reviewed by the Local Government Grants Commission. COMMENT: The allocation of $170,305 for Roads to Recovery has been included within the Council’s budget for 2005/06 which was adopted by Council at the meeting held 29 June 2005 for public comment. The continued use of the Roads to Recovery grants over the four year program period to complete the program of Road Asset Management is recommended. The second issue relates to the proposed projects which would qualify for the Auslink Strategic Regional Component of the Roads to Recovery funding program. In May 2005, Councils were advised by WALGA as follows:- “In addition to the Roads to Recovery funding, the Federal Budget contained $150 million for the Auslink Strategic Regional Component. Advice will soon be sent to all Councils by the Federal Government confirming that of this funding $120 million has been allocated over 5 years (including 2004/05) to strategic projects and $30 million over 4 years to roads in unincorporated areas. Of the $120 million for strategic projects, $93 million has been allocated to accelerate the implementation of the strategic program. It is understood that the Federal Government will call for competitive bids for the balance of this funding ($27 million) in 2006/07, however details of the bidding process and criteria are yet to be finalised. The Association considers that the Auslink Strategic Regional Component should be increased from $150 million to $400 million and has worked with Councils to develop an indicative list of projects that will benefit from funding under this component if additional funding becomes available. A copy of the Association’s letter to the Hon John Anderson, Minister for Transport and Regional Services advocating for an increase in the Strategic Regional Component is attached together with a copy of the indicative list of projects that has been compiled with information received from Councils. Advocacy efforts will also be undertaken with the Federal Minister for Roads, Hon Jim Lloyd and WA Federal Parliamentarians.”



A copy of this correspondence from WALGA dated 24 May 2005 is included in the report attachment for reference. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Council can expect Roads to Recovery grants of $170,305 over the next four budgets to assist with road pavement asset rehabilitation works. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Revised guidelines for project expenditure are still to be provided, however, the existing guidelines are still applicable for 2005/06. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: As this issue relates to provision of information in relation to grants to be provided to the Town of Cambridge by the Federal Government, no consultation is required. CONCLUSION: The Federal Government has confirmed the Roads to Recovery Program is to continue as R2R from the 1 July 2005 for a further four year period. The allocation to the Town is expected to be $170,305 for each of the four years of the program, with funds allocated on a formula developed by the Local Government Grants Commission. It is recommended that Council continues to allocate these funds towards road pavement rehabilitation works in a similar manner as has occurred over the last four years. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That the allocations to be received under the Roads to Recovery (R2R) program over the next four budget periods commencing 2005/06 be used to implement Council’s Road Asset Maintenance Program. Carried 9/0



TS05.43 GAYTON ROAD - EXTENSION OF SHOPPING CENTRE RATIONALISATION OF PORTION OF ROAD RESERVE (File Reference: PRO0547:PLA0069:TES0015) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To complete statutory formalities associated with closing a portion of Gayton Road between Oban Road and Landra Gardens adjacent to The Boulevard Shopping Centre. BACKGROUND: In December 2004, the Administration met with the new owners of The Boulevard Shopping Centre (Lot 13, No. 31) and reviewed options for refurbishment of the existing complex and to review Council’s adopted plans for the reconstruction and landscaping of Gayton Road between Oban Road and Landra Gardens. During discussion, it was evident that the redevelopment of the existing complex would be enhanced if a portion of Gayton Road adjacent to the shopping complex was closed and acquired by the new owner. Subsequently, the plans for the refurbishment and extension of the complex were submitted to Council in April 2005 (Item DES05.59). Council approved the development application submitted subject to two conditions:- (i) the proprietor of each premises wishing to conduct outdoor dining to make application to the Town for approval; (ii) closure and amalgamation with the subject site of the relevant portion of Gayton Road reserve being completed prior to the commencement of development to the satisfaction of the Town. DETAILS: The relevant Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 is detailed as follows:-

Section 58 – Closure of Roads

1. When a local government wishes a road in its district to be closed permanently the local government may, subject to subsection (3), request the Minister to close the road.

2. When a local government resolves to make a request under subsection (1), the local government must in accordance with the regulations prepare and deliver the request to the Minister.

3. A local government must not resolve to make a request under subsection (1) until a period of 35 days has elapsed from the publication in a newspaper circulating in its district of notice of motion for that resolution, and the local government has considered any objections made to it within that period concerning the proposals set out in that notice.

4. On receiving a request delivered to him or her under subsection (2), the Minister may, if he or she is satisfied that the relevant local government has complied with the requirements of subsections (2) and (3) –

(a) by order grant the request;

(b) direct the relevant local government to reconsider the request, having regard to such matters as he or she thinks fit to mention in that direction; or

(c) refuse the request.

5. If the Minister grants a request under subsection (4) –



(a) the road concerned is closed on and from the day on which the relevant order is registered; and

(b) any rights suspended under section 55 (3)(a) cease to be so suspended.

6. When a road is closed under this section, the land comprising the former road –

(a) becomes unallocated Crown land; or

(b) if a lease continues to subsist in that land by virtue of section 57(2), remains Crown land.” In order to progress the statutory requirements, the following public notice was included in the West Australian Newspaper on Saturday 28 May 2005 and in the Cambridge Post Newspaper on Saturday 28 May 2005.

NOTICE OF PROPOSAL TO CLOSE A PORTION OF GAYTON ROAD In pursuance of the provisions of section 58(3) of the Land Administration Act 1997, the Council of the Town of Cambridge intends to make a request to the Minister to close permanently a longitudinal section of Gayton Road in City Beach between Oban Road and Landra Gardens. The section identified comprises approximately 534m2 adjacent to Lot 13 which contains part of The Boulevard Shopping Centre. The proposed road closure is adjacent to Lot 13, and approximately 5.8 metres in width. The shopping centre owners intend to purchase this road reserve in order to finalise redevelopment plans on Lot 13. Before considering the request, Council invites submissions on the proposal within 35 days of the date of this public notice. Written submissions should be submitted to the Town of Cambridge, PO Box 15, Floreat WA 6015 no later than Tuesday 5 July 2005. For information on this proposal interested persons can contact Council’s Customer Service Officers on 9347 6000 or view plans of the proposal at the Council Administration Offices at 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat. COMMENT: At the close of the 35 day public submission period (Tuesday 5 July 2005) no public submissions had been presented for Councils consideration. During the public submission period, several enquiries were made to the Council and the requests were generally in relation to clarification of the proposal. On this basis, Council can consider the motion for resolution. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The closure of this portion of Gayton Road will not result in any expenditure or income for the Town of Cambridge. The closed portion of road will be offered for sale to the owner of Lot 13 by the Department of Planning and Infrastructure.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The closure of the road and amalgamation with the adjacent Lot 13 provides a solution for the Town and adjacent shopping complex owner which is seen to provide benefits to both organisations. The proposal will not affect the Town’s plans in reconstruction of the adjacent Gayton Road. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: The requirements of Section 58 of the Land Administration Act 1997 are relevant and have been followed. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 5 points (out of 100), which provides for a Level 1 consultation. Level 1 consultation (score 0-40). No specific consultation is required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council’s staff. Level 3 consultation has been completed as this is a statutory requirement. CONCLUSION: The process of permanently closing roads or portions of road easements is covered by the Land Administration Act 1997 – Section 58. On the basis this proposal was publicly advertised on 28 May 2005, submissions and comments could be received by the Town for a period of 35 days.

At the completion of the public advertising period, no submissions have been received for Council to consider and it is now recommended that Council proceeds with the road closure in accordance with the Administration recommendation. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure be requested to close a portion of

Gayton Road reserve adjacent to Lot 13 as detailed within the report attachment; (ii) the Town supports amalgamation of the closed portion of Gayton Road with the

adjacent Lot 13. Carried 9/0



TS05.44 CATESBY STREET – KERBSIDE PARKING ADJACENT TO KAPINARA PRIMARY SCHOOL (File Reference: PRO1319) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To review and amend the kerbside parking in Catesby Street for the Kapinara Primary School. BACKGROUND: In February 1999 (Item TS99.12), Council reviewed the kerbside parking in Catesby Street for the Kapinara Primary School. With the more recent reviews of kerbside parking and, at the request of the Kapinara Primary School, it is proposed to update some of these restrictions. DETAILS: It is proposed that there be amendments recognising:- • The bus stop on Catesby Street just east of the main driveway to the school car park is no

longer required; • The development through ‘Road Wise’ for a 2 minute pick up set down zone designated

for ‘kiss and drive’ is seen as a good initiative. It would support the current practice on the northern side of Catesby Street;

• The need for clear definition of ‘No Stopping’ in Catesby Street adjacent to Dupont Avenue and Styne Road, as well as the driveway access to the Kapinara Primary School car park.

The school Parents and Citizens Association has established a practice of left turn traffic moving anti clockwise around the primary school to pick up and drop off children. This has led to an orderly traffic movement. With the new kerbside parking, it is hoped that the congestion at the driveway to the Kapinara Primary School car park will be distributed along the kerbline from Dupont Avenue to Styne Road. Catesby Street is approximately 9.5 metres wide which is of adequate width for kerbside parking on both sides of the road and two way traffic for slow moving vehicles and low traffic volumes. It is unusual to have kerbside parking on the south side of Catesby Street because of the residential properties and wide verge for off street parking. COMMENT: The recommended kerbside parking restrictions will complement the current parent practice of one way anti clockwise traffic movement around the primary school site. Further, it will have no adverse impact on the residential environment. The existing footpath adjacent to the kerbline in Catesby Road between Dupont Avenue and Styne Road does facilitate this pick up and set down parent parking zone and pedestrian movement. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The strategic direction for this report is to establish kerbside parking that will enhance the school pick up and drop off operation as well as reduce the traffic congestion and improve the residential environment.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The estimated cost of this work is $1,000. The expenditure will be allocated to the Road Infrastructure Expenditure budget account number M924 Road Signs and Parking Signs. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: To support the Road Wise and Education Department School Parking practice. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Nil. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This project has been developed in consultation with the Principal of the Kapinara Primary School who is in contact with the school Parents and Citizens Association. Further, it brings the kerbside parking in line with the Local Government and Education Department standard practice. This item has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 30 points (out of 100) which provides for a Level 1 consultation. Level 1 consultation (score 0-40) requires that issue be investigated and assessed by Council staff and no other specific consultation is required. CONCLUSION: The Principal of the Kapinara Primary School has requested amendments to the kerbside parking on the northern side of Catesby Street adjacent to the Kapinara Primary School. The adjustments are aimed to:- • Remove the redundant school bus stop; • Establish a 2 minute pick up and set down parking zone commensurate with the Road

Wise policy of ‘kiss and drive’ zone; • Define the ‘No Stopping’ distance adjacent to the access to the Kapinara Primary School

car park and adjacent streets, namely Dupont Avenue and Styne Road. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) a ‘No Stopping’ zone be established on the western side of Dupont Avenue commencing on the northern boundary of Catesby Street and extending 20 metres northwards; (ii) a ‘No Stopping’ zone be established on the northern side of Catesby Street commencing on the western side of Dupont Avenue and extending 20 metres westwards;



(iii) a ‘No Stopping’ zone be established on the northern side of Catesby Street commencing at the Kapinara Primary School car park access and extending 10 metres eastwards and 10 metres westwards; (iv) the school bus zone on the northern side of Catesby Street west of Dupont Avenue be removed and the kerbline be left unrestricted; (v) a 2 minute parking pick up and set down zone from 8 AM to 9 AM and 2.30 PM to 3.30 PM be established on the northern side of Catesby Street commencing 10 metres west of the crossover to the Kapinara Primary School car park and extending 45 metres westwards; (vi) a ‘No Stopping’ zone be established on the northern side of Catesby Street on the eastern side of Styne Road and extending 20 metres eastwards; (vii) the 45 metre length of 2 minute parking commencing 10 metres west of the Kapinara Primary School car park access be designated as a ‘kiss and drive’ zone painted on the road and pictorial sign posts; as indicated on the plan E064-05-01 as tabled. Carried 9/0



TS05.45 POLICY No. 4.2.8 - VEHICLE CROSSOVERS – SPECIFICATION PURPOSE OF REPORT: To review Policy No. 4.2.8, "Vehicle Crossovers – Specification". BACKGROUND: The Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy was last reviewed in October 2003 and is now due for reconsideration. The policy has been successfully used in developing crossovers with adjacent residents and has been found to be successful. It is proposed that it be continued with two additional paragraphs. The Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy as approved in October 2003 has been included in the attachments to this report. DETAILS: In order to bring the policy in line with the "Verge Development" policy, it is proposed that a property owner notify their neighbour where the crossover at the kerbline extends over the verge in front of the neighbour’s property. The clause to consider in relation to this issue will be: “(x) Any alterations to the verge, path or crossover in front of a neighbour’s property shall be

carried out at the proponents cost. The neighbour must be notified of the details of the alterations prior to applying to Council for approval. Council must be notified in writing by the proponent of the responses of the neighbour with the application for the crossover.”

In discussions with the community concerning the “West Leederville Traffic Review”, it has been raised that a number of residents have difficulty in accessing their property along Harborne Street from Cambridge Street to Dodd Street. Recognising this and Council report TS05.34 (June 2005) it is recommended that there be two additional clauses in the crossover policy namely: “(xi) The minimum width of a crossover at the boundary line is 3.0 metres. The crossover

ramp at the kerbline is 1.0 metre wider on both sides of the boundary line entry. (xii) The exception to clause (xi) above is in Harborne Street from Cambridge Street to Dodd

Street where the crossover ramp at the kerbline shall be 2.0 metres wider on both sides of the boundary entry.”

COMMENT: The notification from the adjacent owner will formalise the past practice that has been in operation for many years and generally accepted by the community. It is recognised that a crossover is no closer than 0.75 metre from the property side boundary. The one or two metre extension at the kerbline will encroach on the verge in front of the neighbour. It is considered preferable that the encroachment be in hard stand so that the vehicles exiting or entering do not damage the verge and or verge sprinklers.



The introduction of a wider break in the kerbline along Harborne Street acknowledges the following characteristics of Harborne Street:- • The 60 kph traffic speeds; • The traffic volume; • The width of traffic lane due to restrictions caused by the raised median islands. A site inspection has shown that many crossovers along Harborne Street are not built to Council current standards and the upgraded standard will be a significant improvement on the current crossovers. Under the Council policy, it is incumbent on the adjacent property owner to apply to Council for the crossover specification and the Town does make a financial contribution to the construction and maintenance of one crossover per property. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: To improve street safety and community consultation associated with the development of crossovers. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There will be no financial implications associated with the improved community consultation between neighbours. There may be an increased number of crossover applications from residents along Harborne Street and therefore an increased demand on Council budget allocation for its cost contribution. The expenditure in this area will be taken from the Council Crossover Infrastructure Maintenance Budget and is seen as a specific benefit. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The recommended policy adjustment should improve traffic safety and community consultation. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Nil. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at 32 points (out of 100), which provides for a Level 1 consultation. Level 1 consultation (score 0-40). No specific consultation is required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council’s staff. The upgrading of the crossovers along Harborne Street has been recognised in the community consultation phase for the “West Leederville Traffic Management Review” Item TS05.34 in June 2005. CONCLUSION: It is proposed there be additions to the current Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy No. 4.2.8. These are to add three clauses to facilitate communication between neighbours where a



crossover intrudes into the verge in front of a neighbour’s property and to improve the safety of access to crossovers in Harborne Street from Cambridge Street to Dodd Street. These two issues have been raised with Administration during community consultation works. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That Policy No. 4.2.8 – Vehicle Crossovers – Specification be amended by adding the following clauses:- “(x) Any alterations to the verge, path or crossover that encroaches onto the land in

front of a neighbours will be carried out at the proponents cost. The neighbour must be notified of the details of the alterations prior to applying to Council for approval. Council must be notified in writing of the response of the neighbour with the application for the crossover.

(xi) The minimum width of a crossover at the boundary line is 3.0 metres. The

crossover ramp at the kerbline shall be 1.0 metre wider on both sides of the crossover at the boundary line entry.

(xii) The exception to clause (xi) above is in Harborne Street from Cambridge Street to

Dodd Street where the ramp at the kerbline shall be 2.0 metres wider on both sides of the crossover boundary line entry.”

Carried 9/0



TS05.46 POLICY No. 4.2.23 - ROAD VERGES – DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE PURPOSE OF REPORT: To review the "Road Verges – Development and Maintenance" – Policy No. 4.2.23 in the consideration of issues raised since the last review in October 2003. BACKGROUND: The current policy for Road Verges (Development and Maintenance) has been found to be useful and has guided a number of verge changes during the last two years. There has, however, been one clause that has caused some concern. This clause is under "Guidelines," and is the eleventh and last point. This clause seeks the neighbour’s written consent where work on one verge impacts the verge in front of their neighbour’s property as follows:- “Any cut/fill required and any necessary alterations to the neighbour’s verge, path or crossover will be completed at the proponent’s cost. Details of these adjustments, together with the neighbour’s written consent, must accompany the permit application. For pedestrian safety, retaining is not permitted.” The clause requiring amendment is “together with the neighbour’s written consent.” DETAILS: It is proposed that the words within the existing paragraph requiring amendment are “together with the neighbour’s written consent”. It is proposed that this clause be changed to “together with the written notification signed by the proponent that the neighbour has been notified and the neighbour’s response”. It is seen that the neighbours must talk about any necessary alterations caused by work on one verge, to their neighbour’s verge. An agreement may not be practical. The Administration will decide the reasonability of the changes in accordance with the Council policy. Where the Administration cannot support the application in accordance with policy, a report will be forwarded to Council with a recommendation for a resolution by the Council. COMMENT: It is unusual for the work on one neighbour’s property to cause conflict with an adjacent neighbour. There has been one such incident where conflict did arise and the proponent modified his work after the conflict. The key element for this type of issue is that there be a uniform verge level suitable material for pedestrians to walk safely without causing a blight on the streetscape. Further, that both neighbours discuss the issues and come to a mutual agreement for the benefit of both parties. The cost to Council for the changes to this policy will be nil. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The strategic direction for this amendment is to encourage the community to discuss any works on their verge that may impact on their neighbour prior to seeking Council approval.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: It is considered that this amendment will improve the administration of the verge policy and enable a more rapid response to be given to the community. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Nil. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 25 points (out of 100), which provides for a Level 1 consultation. Level 1 consultation (score 0-40). No specific consultation is required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council’s staff. This issue has arisen through discussion with a resident. CONCLUSION: A review of the verge policy highlights the difficulty in application of the policy. The intent was to encourage the community to consult and resolve conflict issues between themselves. However, this is not always practical and the responsibility and liability is that of the Council in accordance with the Local Government Act and Council’s policy. It is therefore considered that once the proposed works have been discussed between neighbours this information should be forwarded to Council with the application so that a decision can be made. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Barlow That Policy No. 4.2.23 "Road Verges – Development and Maintenance" be amended to enable the last point under the heading Guidelines to read as follows:- “Any cut/fill required and any necessary alterations to the verge, path or crossover in front of a neighbour’s property will be completed at the proponent’s cost. Details of these adjustments, together with the written notification signed by the proponent that the neighbour has been notified and the neighbour’s response, must accompany the verge permit application. For pedestrian safety, retaining is not permitted.” Committee Meeting 12 July 2005 During discussion, Mayor Anderton requested that the Administration investigate an alternate verge treatment to grass that would support water wise initiatives.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That the item relating to Policy No. 4.2.23 – “Road Verges – Development and Maintenance be referred back to the Technical Services Committee for further consideration. Carried 9/0



TS05.47 POLICY No. 4.2.26 - PARKING RESTRICTIONS PURPOSE OF REPORT: To review Policy No. 4.2.26 “Parking Restriction” and to introduce amendments. BACKGROUND: In May 2005, Council decided to amend some guidelines for establishing parking restrictions in the “West Leederville Kerbside Parking Review – Workshop” (Item TS05.26) and decided:- “That:- (i) further reports be prepared with a view to introducing the following:-

(a) the introduction of increased “No Stopping” distance at intersections to provide motorist improved sight distance and manoeuvring room;

(b) timed kerbside parking restrictions to encourage customer parking in lieu of all day parking adjacent to commercial properties;

(c) review of the Town Planning Scheme to increase on site parking at the time of development and the change of land use;

(d) “No Parking Road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Exempt” restrictions adjacent to residential properties;

(e) yellow kerbside line marking in conformity with Australian Standards and Town of Cambridge Local Law to reinforce “No Stopping” signs, where required;

(f) paid parking meters for kerbside parking adjacent to commercial properties or commercial zones;

(ii) yellow line markings be installed in Salvado Road adjacent to the Matthews Netball Centre and St John of God Hospital proceed with funds up to $1,500 to be charged to budget account number M924 Parking Signs;

(iii) the Administration recommendations included within reports TS04.90 (November 2004) and TS05.03 (February 2005) be used as guide when preparing the reports in (i) above.”

In June 2005, Council considered a report relating to “West Leederville Traffic Management Review February 2005 – Community Response” (Item TS05.34) whereby the following principles for kerbside parking were outlined:- 1. Parking:- The following principles be adopted when considering parking issues within the Town and be incorporated into the Town Parking Policy in conjunction with the West Leederville Kerbside Parking Review (Item TS05.26):- • Extend the “No Stopping” at intersections to ensure minimum distance for the motorists

right hand side to be 20 metres and left 15 metres from the side intersection property boundary;

• Extend the “No Stopping” distance at an intersection to facilitate safe turning movements;



• Adjust kerbside parking to facilitate through traffic during peak AM and PM on district distributor roads;

• Adjust kerbside parking as requested by adjacent businesses to assist customer parking with time limits;

• Encourage development of staff parking onsite, or the use of public transport; • Protect residential precincts from intrusion of businesses and recreational parking on local

roads; • Encourage recreational events to include the cost of public transport in the cost of the

event entrance tickets. It is proposed that these Council decisions now be incorporated into the Parking Restrictions Policy update. The policy as approved in October 2003 is included in the attachments to this report. Sections (i), (v), (vi), (vii) of the 2003 policy will remain, Section (ii) has been re-written. Section (iii) and (iv) have been amended. DETAILS: The re-writing of Section (ii) Kerbside Parking Restrictions identifies a number of guidelines that have been resolved in May and June 2005. The objective of these new guidelines is to:- • Review the complexity of signs; • Simplify the enforcement process; • Reduce the number of all day parkers in the residential precinct; • Facilitate the turnover of customer parking on the kerbline adjacent to business,

commercial and medical areas; • Provide for the introduction of parking meters in business, commercial, medical areas

where the enforcement of time parking becomes impractical; • Provide the strategic direction for businesses to develop onsite parking for all day staff

and customers where applicable; • Reduce the impact of all day parking in commercial and residential streets by people who

then commute to adjacent municipalities; • Encourage business, commercial and medical developments to provide onsite parking for

staff and customers; • Encourage sporting events to include the cost of public transport in the entrance ticket

charge. In Section (ii), under the heading of, “Kerbside Parking Restrictions”, the following insert is recommended:- (ii) Kerbside Parking Restrictions 1. General Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to:-

(a) Implement parking restrictions to improve safety; (b) Introduce parking restrictions where the road pavement is less than 5.0 metres wide

for local low volume roads and 5.5 metres for district higher volume traffic roads to provide clear thoroughfare for traffic. This does include Council rights of way;

(c) Change parking restrictions to meet changes of adjacent land use or road conditions;



(d) Establish “No Stopping” restriction at an intersection to provide motorists with improved sight distance and manoeuvring room. The motorist exiting a side street will have a 20 metre “No Stopping” to the right and a 15 metre “No Stopping” to the left to be used as a guideline;

(e) Extend the distance of “No Stopping” in the side street to provide adequate manoeuvring room when negotiating the intersection;

(f) Add a yellow line, marked in conformity with Australian Standards and Town of Cambridge Local Law to reinforce the “No Stopping” signs where required;

(g) Adjust the kerbside parking to facilitate through traffic by introducing a Clearway restriction during the peak AM and PM times of day on district distributor roads;

(h) Encourage recreational events to include the cost of public transport in the cost of event entrance tickets;

(i) Provide parking space in an area subject to consistent parking due to a seasonal event recognising the requirements of motorists, businesses/commercial/medical and residents;

(j) Permit kerbside parking in areas previously used for crossover or similar purpose where this purpose is no longer required.

2. Business / Commercial / Medical Areas Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to:-

(a) Adjust kerbside parking as requested by adjacent businesses/commercial/medical to assist customer parking with time limits;

(b) Assist an adjacent business without unduly inconveniencing motorists and pedestrians;

(c) Introduce timed kerbside parking to encourage customer parking in lieu of all day parking adjacent to business/commercial/medical properties;

(d) Encourage development of onsite staff parking or the use of public transport; (e) Introduce parking meters for kerbside parking adjacent to

business/commercial/medical properties where timed parking is consistently miss-used.

3. Residential Precincts Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to:-

(a) Protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of businesses / commercial / medical / recreational / commuter parking on local roads;

(b) Introduce a “No Parking on Road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Exempt” in local residential precincts adjacent to residential properties;

Section (iii) of the 2003 Policy addresses Verge Parking. The intent of this was to provide a “No Verge Parking” into areas requested by the adjacent property owner. It is therefore proposed that (iii) (a) be amended to read “No Verge Parking maybe imposed when requested by the adjacent property owner/occupier and/or approved by Council”. Section (iv) of the 2003 policy addresses Parking Signs, and it is recommended this clause be amended to include “Parking Meters.” It should now read “Parking Signs and Meters”. The first section (a) should read “Parking Signs and Metres shall conform to the relevant standards”. This will permit Council to introduce meters as required. A new section (c) to this section is to be added which will read “Parking Meters will be introduced where the enforcement of timed parking in commercial areas is shown to be impracticable”. COMMENTS:



The adjustments to the Parking Restriction Policy do provide a significant change. It is intended that it will closely reflect the requests of the community and provide for safer and more manageable road network. These adjustments have been discussed at Council Meetings in May and June 2005. Further, they were subject to a process of community comment period in December 2004 and April 2005. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Strategic direction incorporated in these policy amendments is to provide an environment where sustainable business and residential activities can take place and there is a transition from dependents on the motor car to utilising both the motor car and public transport. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications involved in this recommendation will be those that will be approved through the Town of Cambridge annual budget for Parking Signs and a separate budget allocation for metered parking. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The amendments to this policy are in the form of progressive upgrades that have been established through community consultation and requests. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Nil. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at 70 points (out of 100), which provides for a Level 3 consultation. Level 3 consultation (score 61-70) requires that Information be given to the community but also soliciting general responses for consideration by the Council. The discussion to establish these amendments has been through a period of community consultation in December 2004 and April 2005. CONCLUSION: A review of the Kerbside Parking Policy No. 4.2.26 has been carried out through a community consultation program associated with the St John of God car park redevelopment and the “West Leederville Traffic Management Review”. As a result of these discussions, the emphasis is focussed on establishing kerbside parking that will:- • Protect the commercial areas from all day commuter parking; • Assist businesses with time parking so their customers can park close by; • Protect residential precincts from intrusion of all day and recreational parking; • Be able to be more easily enforced. The policy will be closely monitored so that adjustments can be made through an implementation process of reporting to Council at each change of parking restrictions.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That Policy No. 4.2.26 be amended as follows:- (i) section (ii) of the policy titled Kerbside Parking Restrictions be deleted and

replaced by:- (ii) Kerbside Parking Restrictions

1. General Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to:- (a) Implement parking restrictions to improve safety; (b) Introduce parking restrictions where the road pavement is less than 5.0

metres wide for local low volume roads and 5.5 metres for district higher volume traffic roads to provide clear thoroughfare for traffic. This does include Council rights of way;

(c) Change parking restrictions to meet changes of adjacent land use or road conditions;

(d) Establish “No Stopping” restriction at an intersection to provide motorists with improved sight distance and manoeuvring room. The motorist exiting a side street will have a 20 metre “No Stopping” to the right and a 15 metre “No Stopping” to the left to be used as a guideline;

(e) Extend the distance of “No Stopping” in the side street to provide adequate manoeuvring room past park cars when negotiating the intersection;

(f) Add a yellow line marked in conformity with Australian Standards and Town of Cambridge Local Law to reinforce the “No Stopping” signs where required;

(g) Adjust the kerbside parking to facilitate through traffic by introducing a Clearway restriction during the peak AM and PM times of day on district distributor roads;

(h) Encourage recreational events to include the cost of public transport in the cost of event entrance tickets;

(i) Provide parking space in an area subject to consistent parking due to a seasonal event recognising the requirements of motorists, businesses/commercial/medical and residents;

(j) Permit kerbside parking in areas previously used for crossover or similar purpose where this purpose is no longer required.

2. Business / Commercial / Medical Areas Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to: (a) Adjust kerbside parking as requested by adjacent

businesses/commercial/medical to assist customer parking with time limits;

(b) Assist an adjacent business without unduly inconveniencing motorists and pedestrians;

(c) Introduce timed kerbside parking to encourage customer parking in lieu of all day parking adjacent to business/commercial/medical properties;



(d) Encourage development of onsite staff parking or the use of public transport;

(e) Introduce parking meters for kerbside parking adjacent to business/commercial/medical properties where timed parking is consistently misused.

3. Residential Precincts

Kerbside parking restrictions may be imposed to:- (a) To protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of

businesses/commercial/medical/recreational/commuter parking on local roads;

(b) To introduce a “No Parking on Road or Verge Residential Parking Permit Exempt” in local residential precincts adjacent to residential properties;

(ii) the section (iii) “Verge Parking” be amended to start clause (a) with “No Verge Parking,” in lieu of “Verge Parking”; (iii) section (iv) Parking Signs be amended to incorporate:-

• the heading “Parking Signs and Meters” in lieu of “Parking Signs”; and • clause (a) to start “Parking signs and meters” in lieu of “Parking Signs”; and • a new clause (c) be introduced namely: “Parking Meters be introduced where

commercial time parking is shown to be impractical to enforce”. Carried 9/0



TS05.48 TENDER NO 47-04 - SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF IRRIGATION PARTS AND EQUIPMENT (File Reference:TAC47-04) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To establish a contract for the “Supply and Delivery of Irrigation Parts and Equipment ” for a period of twenty two months. BACKGROUND: The Town of Cambridge has 115 hectares of parks, sports grounds and road reserves which are automatically irrigated and a further 25 hectares which are manually irrigated. The Wembley Golf Complex has a further 40 hectares on automatic irrigation. A contract for the supply of irrigation parts and equipment enables Town staff to undertake repairs to ensure the efficient running of irrigation systems. The existing contract for the supply of irrigation parts and equipment was awarded to Hugall and Hoile and Total Eden in June 2002 and it expires on 31 August 2005. DETAILS: The annual tender for the “Supply and Delivery of Irrigation Parts and Equipment” was advertised in The West Australian on 7 May 2005 and closed on the 24 May 2005. Four Tenders were received in total, one from Hugall and Hoile, one from Custom irrigation and two from Total Eden. The requirements under this Contract comprise the supply and delivery to the Council as required, of irrigation parts and equipment such as sprinklers, UPVC pressure pipes, and various ancillary equipment. The expenditure under this contract is expected to be in the range of $100,000 to $110,000 per annum with the majority of expenditure being allocated to the relevant operating budgets. The price on all goods is fixed for the duration of the contract. The Town’s tender evaluation methodology follows a process which is applied to each submission and this information was provided to the Tenderers in the Tender documents as follows: 1. Tenders are checked for completeness and compliance. Tenders that do not contain all

information requested (eg completed Offer form and Attachments) may be excluded from evaluation.

2. Tenders are assessed against the Selection Criteria. Contract costs are evaluated, eg tendered prices and other relevant whole-of life costs are considered.

3. The most suitable Tenderers may be short-listed and may also be required to clarify the Tender, make a presentation, demonstrate the product/solution offered and/or open premises for inspection. Referees may also be contacted prior to the selection of the successful Tenderer.

4. A contract may then be awarded to the Tenderer, whose Tender is considered the most advantageous tender to the Principal (The Town).

Tender submissions were evaluated using the following weighted criteria:-



1. Contractor performance; 2. Organisation capabilities/key personnel’ 3. References; 4. Pricing. Tender evaluation results can be summarised as follows: • All three organisations submitted complying tenders. Total Eden submitted two tenders,

one of which was an alternate tender. This submission was not accepted as it did not comply with the tender requirements;

• Hugall and Hoile and Total Eden have a strong background in the supply of irrigation parts

and have contracts with various Councils. Both organisations would supply most of the products from nearby retail stores. (Total Eden from Osborne Park and Hugall and Hoile from Subiaco Home Base). Custom Irrigation has an outlet in Balcatta and is predominantly involved with commercial irrigation installation projects;

• The tender submitted by Total Eden is considered to represent the best value for money

across a broad range of items and over the life of the contract. COMMENT: The Town’s tender evaluation process conforms to The Western Australian Municipal Associations Local Government Purchasing Guide, 2000. The details of each submission including the evaluation information are considered confidential and hence have been provided as Confidential Attachments to this report. The tender document made an allowance for contract extensions of only one year periods at Council’s discretion. Based on Council direction when assessing tender reports at the June 2005 Council Meeting, this option is not to be exercised and this contract will be tendered on a two year price cycle. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The calling of tenders is in accordance with Council’s policy for open and accountable government to seek the best price available for the purchase of materials. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The supply and delivery of irrigation parts and equipment under this proposed contract will be charged to the relevant operating accounts approved in the 2005/06 Budget and 2006/07 Budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 2005-2009:- Values: Behave in an honest, ethical and accountable manner Strategy: Ensure compliance with statutory legislation and enforcement of regulatory requirements



STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: The Local Government Act 1995 requires public tenders to be called where the consideration of the value of the contract exceeds $50,000. PUBLIC CONSULTATION: Nil as it is not applicable to materials supply. CONCLUSION: Tender submissions for the “Supply of Irrigation Parts and Equipment” have been received. The period for this tender is for twenty two months and is to expire on 30 June 2007. The tenders have been evaluated and the preferred tender is from Total Eden. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That the tender submitted by Total Eden for the Supply and Delivery of Irrigation Parts and Equipment as detailed on Tender T47-04 be accepted for a period of twenty two months from 1 September 2005 to 30 June 2007. Carried 9/0



TS05.49 STREET TREES – MANAGEMENT OF UNAUTHORISED PLANTING / REMOVAL OF TREES AND SHRUBS (File Reference:TES0013) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform Council of the concerns and the measures the Administration are taking in managing unauthorised planting of trees and shrubs and unauthorised tree removals on Council verge areas and to endorse procedures for the future management of these issues. BACKGROUND: The practice of planting trees and shrubs and removal of street trees on verge areas within the Town by residents without Council approval or the involvement of Councils Administration has been of concern for many years. In June 2004, Council reviewed the Management of Street Trees Policy No 4.1.5 (Item TS04.46) and decided as follows:- That:-

(i) Policy 4.1.5 – Management of Street Trees be amended to read as follows:-

“Planting That the Town:- (i) plants street trees in accordance with the programmed Removal/Replacement tables in

Section 3.3 of the Treescape Plan, in order to replace those trees removed, or provide new trees where no trees existed, following the resident be advised seeking comment on tree location. The decision, on the appropriateness of planting a verge tree, shall be made by the Administration and in accordance with this Policy and the Treescape Plan”.

(ii) the Towns residents, including new home owners/residents, be advised on a regular basis

of the benefits of Street Trees;

(iii) a further report be submitted to Council outlining the measures the Administration would take to manage privately planted trees on verges and verges where no trees have been planted.”

This policy review was aimed at providing direction for the Administration particularly when residents object to the replacement of a tree after its removal and the planting of new trees where no trees existed. This process is currently working well. DETAILS: As requested by Council in (iii) above, and together with the need to identify other matters of tree management concern, this report will describe the issues, processes and outcomes of managing:- 1. Unauthorised planting of trees on verges; 2. Non Conforming Shrubs on verges; 3. Unauthorised removal of trees on verges;



4. Tree planting programs for verges without trees; 5. Repairs to Crossover / Driveways damaged by verge trees. The above matters are all managed in accordance with:- • Management of Street Tree Policy No 4.1.5; • Council’s Treescape Plan 2002 – 2012 (SULE 1 Implementation Program); • Road Verges – Development and Maintenance Policy No 4.2.23 and • Vehicle Crossover – Specification Policy No 4.2.8 The above documents are included within the attachments to this report for reference. Relevant sections of the Management of Street Tree Policy No 4.1.5, in relation to this report are as follows:- Planting That the Town:- (i) plants street trees in accordance with the programmed removal/replacement tables in

section 3.3 of the Treescape Plan, in order to replace those trees removed, or provide new trees where no trees existed, following the resident being advised and their comment sought on location. The decision on the appropriateness of planting a verge tree shall be made by the Administration and in accordance with this Policy and the Treescape Plan.

Removal - General That the Town:- (vi) removes a street tree only after approval from the Chief Executive Officer or his nominee. Managing the five issues listed above can be described as follows:- 1. Unauthorised Planting of Trees on Verges There are many verges within the Town that have new (recently planted), mature and post mature (planted in previous years), street trees that were not planted by the current or previous Administration. As part of its “duty of care,” in relation to safety and health, these trees are managed by the Administration in the same manner as Council planted trees. There are numerous instances where a resident plants a new street tree without Council knowledge or approval. If the tree is the same species as recommended in the Treescape Plan for that street and on the correct alignment, no action by Council is required other than to notify the resident that the tree will be managed by Council. For management purposes, a new street tree is regarded as one that has been planted within the last 24 months Trees planted on verges by residents are often planted on the wrong alignment. This can result in safety and health concerns such as traffic sight line obstructions and hazards to pedestrians. In these instances, when the tree has just been planted by a resident and brought to the attention of the Administration quickly, either by a Council officer or by a resident, it can be removed and replaced with a species as recommended in the Treescape Plan. The management of unauthorised planting of trees can be described using the following recent example:-



• The Administration was advised in writing by a concerned resident in Blencowe Street West Leederville, in March 2005, that a small street tree had been removed by a bobcat operator at their neighbours property in Blencowe Street;

• Following an inspection of the site by a Council Officer, this unauthorised removal was confirmed and a replacement tree was programmed to be planted in late May 2005. The property owner was not advised at this time;

• There were delays in planting the tree in May 2005, due to piles of sand being placed on the verge area by the resident. In mid June 2005, the resident planted two Liquidamber trees on this verge area;

• On 27 June 2005, the Administration sent the resident a letter requesting removal of the unauthorised street trees and offered to undertake this work on their behalf if they were unable to do the work. The Administration also advised that a new tree will be planted at this location which conforms to the Towns’ Treescape Plan. A copy of this letter is included in the report attachments;

• On 29 June 2005, the resident contacted the Administration and requested the two trees be retained as other properties in the street also had privately planted verge trees. The resident was told that tree retention was not possible and the removal will proceed as advised in the correspondence. The resident was also advised that all the unauthorised street trees in Blencowe Street will in due course be removed by the Administration and replaced with the appropriate street tree for Blencowe Street;

• Though disappointed and feeling ‘singled out’, the resident appears to have accepted this decision.

The above example is of a new tree. If the tree, however, has been planted for many years and has become a significant tree in the street, justifying its removal to the resident, can be difficult if it is not clearly representing a safety or health concern. The Administration deals with these trees as it would Council planted trees, that is, will only remove them if they are assessed to be unsafe and in accordance with the replacement program in section 3.3 of the Treescape Plan. Problems have and are occurring due to the requirement for Council to treat all street trees the same. For example: pruning for traffic sight line clearances, power line vegetation clearances, road and footpath vegetation clearances and Council initiated tree removals, where safety and health concerns exist. Residents who have planted their own trees on verges are often opposed to Council’s requirement to prune or remove ‘their tree’ and take exception to the manner in which the tree is being pruned in accordance with statutory requirements. 2. Non-conforming shrubs on verges As opposed to trees, shrubs are the responsibility of the resident and not Council. A shrub is a plant that cannot be pruned in such a manner to be classified as a tree and there are many shrubs that can grow up to 4 metres high. Within the guidelines of the “Road Verges – Development and Maintenance Policy No 4.2.23” residents are permitted to plant shrubs on verges provided that they are:- • not within 6.0 metres of an intersection of road/lane; • do not exceed 0.75 metres in height and; • are Council approved species. However, most residents do not apply for permission and plant whatever they think is best on the verge. Shrubs create problems by restricting clear traffic sightlines or public access on the verge area, particularly if they are planted too close to the road kerb and are above 0.75 metres in height. When one of these problems is brought to the Towns’ attention, the resident is requested to prune or remove the shrub within a given time frame. Failure to comply with this request may



result in the Administration undertaking the pruning/removal works and then attempt to recover costs from the adjacent property owner. 3. Unauthorised removal of trees on verges There have been numerous instances where the resident removes a street tree without Council knowledge. In most cases, this undertaking is reported to the Administration by a neighbour. A Council Officer will then either phone or write to the property owner depending on the significance of the tree, advising this is against Council Policy and that the tree will be replaced in the winter planting program by Council. Problems associated with this action include proving who actually removed the tree and if recovery of costs are to be pursued and who will pay. In instances where the resident removes a street tree that has recently been planted by Council, it will be replaced. If it occurs a second time consultation with the resident is undertaken and if the resident still does not agree to the replanting, a letter will be sent to the resident and neighbours either side and over the road advising that it is an offence to remove/damage Council Property which may result in Council seeking to recover costs if those responsible are identified. The management of unauthorised removal of street trees by a resident can be described using the following recent example:- • The property owner’s representative applied in writing on 6 December 2004 to have three

privately planted palm trees removed from the verge as part of a new building development and property landscaping.

• The removal of the three palm trees were approved in writing on 14 December 2004. The resident was advised of this decision including the species of tree to be planted, “Eucalyptus macrandra” which is a small gum tree and is the recommended tree species listed in the Towns Treescape Plan, for all the verges in this street.

• The palm trees were removed by the owner in late December 2004 and a new tree was planted by Council in May 2005 during the winter planting program.

• The new tree was removed by someone, without Council approval, within two weeks of planting. A new tree was then planted a second time by Council in early June 2005. This second tree was also removed by someone within a two week period.

• The property owner contacted the Administration by telephone and advised they had removed the first tree as it had died and they removed the second tree because it detracted from their new front garden landscaping. They also advised that their representative did not inform them of the requirement of a replacement street tree.

• The property owner was offered a third street tree which they declined. The property owner also advised that hardly any residences in this street had a street tree and felt it was unfair that they should be forced to have one. They did advise that an Olive tree may be suitable if they had to have a tree on the verge. This species however does not conform to the guidelines of the Treescape Plan and is not a recommended species for verges.

The Administration will program for another tree to be planted and further consultation with the resident is required before this will occur. The consultation to be undertaken with the above example will include information on:- • the timing of Street tree replacement programs, where trees may be removed at any time

but tree planting occurs only once a year; • Verges without trees will be planted on a street by street basis as recommended in the

Treescape Plan; • The Towns’ Treescape Plan and associated Implementation programs are aimed at

ensuring the retention and improvement of the Towns Leafy Nature Attribute.



4. Tree Planting Programs for verges without trees The programmed planting of new trees on verges, where no trees previously existed and where space permits, commenced in 2004. This is undertaken in consultation with affected residents and is in accordance with the Management of Street Trees Policy No 4.1.5 In addition, to facilitate the progress of planting trees in verges devoid of trees, the Council in March 2005, Item TS05.20, reviewed the Treescape Plan and amended the 10 year program, which is included in the Plan, to progress this issue commencing first with high profile streets. This program (SULE 1) is included within the attachments to this report for reference. The reaction from the community has been well received and the Administration has only received some negative comments from some of the effected adjacent residents/property owners. 5. Repairs to Crossover / Driveways damaged by verge trees There are also situations where residents request Council to repair their crossover/driveway due to damage caused by the verge tree. The Administration manages this issue as follows:- • Where the verge tree is an authorised Council tree and the crossover is constructed

according to the Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy No 4.2.8, then the Administration will arrange repairs at the cost of Council;

• Where the verge tree is an unauthorised tree that has been planted by current or previous residents/owners, repairs to the crossover including neighbouring crossovers are the resident’s responsibility, irrespective of the specification conformance of the crossover. The Administration, however, will manage the tree (prune canopy, prune roots, install root barrier) in the same way as with Council planted trees.

Policy No 4.2.8 will need to be amended to reflect the procedure described above if approved by Council. COMMENT: There is currently clear direction within the Management of Street Trees Policy No 4.1.5 to program the replacement of trees that have been removed and to program the planting of trees on verges where no trees have previously existed. However, clear direction and procedures are required to assist the Administration in managing:- • new trees that are planted by residents on the verge; • mature trees that have been planted by residents on the verge in past years; • unauthorised removal of Council verge trees; • Non conforming shrubs on verges; • Repairs to Crossover / Driveways damaged by verge trees; This report and resultant recommendation provides clear direction to deal with issues in relation to the above.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This report Recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town’s Strategic Plan 2005-2009:- Governance Strategy:- • Ensure compliance with statutory legislation and enforcement of regulatory

requirements. Communication Strategy:- • Be responsive to key stakeholders, ratepayers and residents in communicating planning,

service delivery and associated measurement of activities. Natural and Built Environment Strategies:- • Develop and maintain effective programs and policies to facilitate environmentally

responsible and sustainable management; • Identify and implement improvements to streetscape pedestrian spaces and community

facilities throughout the Town. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: The following Council policies relate to this report recommendation:- • Management of Street Trees Policy No 4.1.5; • Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy No 4.2.8; and • Road Verges – Development and Maintenance Policy No 4.2.23. These policies will need to be reviewed as soon as possible following the endorsement of this report. It is noted a review of all policies is due for September 2005, and these amendments could be endorsed at that time. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: Nil PUBLIC CONSULTATION: This recommendation/Project has been assessed under the trial community consultation policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at 43 Points (out of 100), which provides for a Level 2 consultation. Level 2 consultation, (score 41 - 60), states that “Information provided to the community without requiring a response”. It is proposed to provide written correspondence to the affected residents. Depending on the issue, this could either be to a small section of a Street, the whole Street or more than one Street.



CONCLUSION: There is currently clear direction within the Management of Street Trees Policy No 4.1.5 to program the replacement of trees that have been removed and to program the planting of trees on verges where no trees have previously existed. However it is difficult for the Administration to manage:- • new trees that are planted by residents on the verge; • mature trees that have been planted by residents on the verge in past years; • unauthorised removal of Council verge trees; • Non conforming shrubs on verges; • Repairs to Crossover / Driveways damaged by verge trees. The difficulty arises as an outcome of current Council policies not having clear direction and appropriate procedures to manage the issues. Effective Policy procedures in relation to street trees will assist in:- • The management of risk; • improving aesthetic values of streets and; • maintaining and improving the “Leafy Nature” Attribute of the Town for current and future

generations. It is recommended that the procedures identified within this report to assist with managing the issues described be adopted and the relevant policies be amended accordingly. Committee Meeting 18 July 2005 During discussion, Members requested information in relation to The Boulevard – Verge and Median Landscape strategy which was approved by Council in August 2003 (TS03.80). It was agreed that the Administration would review the strategy and a report be submitted to Council. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) in cases where unauthorised street trees have been planted within the last 24

months and do not conform to the Town’s Treescape Plan and Policy No 4.1.5, a letter be sent to the adjacent resident/property owner advising of the proposed removal/replacement action to be undertaken by Council;

(ii) in cases where unauthorised street trees have been planted within the last 24 months and conform with the Town’s Treescape Plan and Policy 4.1.5, no action is required other than to notify the resident that the tree will be managed by Council;

(iii) in cases where unauthorised mature street trees were planted more than two years ago they are to be managed in accordance with the implementation program of the Treescape Plan in section 3.3 and may be removed if they are assessed to be unsafe;



(iv) when a mature Council street tree is removed without Council knowledge/approval, recovery of costs may be pursued by Council which may include tree replacement costs;

(v) the unauthorised removal of new trees planted by Council will be managed by

replanting. If the problem persists, Council may seek to recover costs if those responsible are identified;

(vi) shrubs planted on the verge by residents are to be managed by the adjacent

resident/property owner and in accordance with Policy No. 4.2.24 Road Verges – Development and Maintenance. Council is to initiate removal requests to residents if shrubs create unsafe situations and do not conform to this Policy;

(vii) repairs to crossovers/driveways are the responsibility of residents/owners of the property if:-

• damage to the crossover/driveway is caused by an unauthorised verge tree; • damage caused to the crossover/driveway is due to non-conformance of the

Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy No 4.2.8;

(viii) the recommendations in (i) to (vii) above be included in the following relevant Council policies:

• Management of Street Trees Policy No 4.1.5; • Vehicle Crossovers – Specification Policy No 4.2.8; and • Road Verges – Development and Maintenance Policy No 4.2.23.

Carried 9/0


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\C PA.doc 42

POLICY AND ADMINISTRATION COMMITTEE The report of the Policy and Administration Committee meeting held on 12 July 2005 was submitted as under:- 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Policy and Administration Committee open at 7.45 pm.

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr John Gow (Presiding Member) 7.45 pm 8.25 pm Mayor Marlene Anderton 7.45 pm 8.25 pm Cr Penny Huxtable 7.45 pm 8.25 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley 7.45 pm 8.25 pm Cr Pauline O’Connor JP 7.45 pm 8.25 pm Officers: Neil Costello, Manager Policy and Administration Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 8.25 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Apology - Crs Alan Langer and Cr Corinne MacRae


Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

Nil




Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Huxtable That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Policy and Administration Committee held on 14 June as contained in the June 2005 Council Notice Paper, be confirmed. Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS

Nil 7. REPORTS



PA05.20 PAYMENT OF ALLOWANCES IN LIEU OF REIMBURSEMENT (File Reference: FIN0048) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To provide the Council with an alternative means of disbursement of funds to Elected Members to cover telecommunications and information technology costs. BACKGROUND: Current procedures in relation to meeting attendance fees, expenses and local government allowances paid to members of Council are in accordance with the provisions of Sections 5.98 and 5.99 and the relevant Administration Regulations made under the Local Government Act 1995. Elected Members are paid the following fees and allowances in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act and Council Policy 1.1.10:- (i) An annual fee to the maximum allowable under the Local Government Act 1995 for

attendance at Council and Committee meetings. This has been $6,000 for Councillors and $12,000 for the Mayor paid in quarterly instalments. Recent changes to the Local Government (Administration) Regulations introduced increases to $7,000 and $14,000 respectively, applicable from 1 July 2005.

(ii) Reimbursement for prescribed expenses incurred in carrying out official Council duties

in accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 and relevant Council policies. This reimbursement covers expenditure on providing care for dependant relatives when attending Council meetings, parking fees, minor stationery purchases etc.

(iii) The office of The Mayor and Deputy Mayor are paid a Local Government Allowance in

accordance with the provisions of the Local Government Act 1995 at an annual amount that the Council shall determine from time to time. This is currently $10,000 for the Mayor and the prescribed 25 percent ($2,500) for the Deputy Mayor.

(iv) In addition to other equipment provided to enable the duties of their office to be carried

out, each Elected Member is furnished with a telephone/facsimile machine on a separate telephone line at their home address for which the Council pays all expenses. The line rental for each Elected Member’s existing home telephone is also reimbursed annually, in arrears ($359.40 for 2004/2005).

In respect to (iv) above, Section 5.99A of the Act provides that a local government may decide that instead of reimbursing Council members under Section 5.98(2) for a particular type of expense, it can instead pay all Council members an annual allowance in lieu of reimbursement of expenditure. The Local Government (Administration) Regulations now allow the specific payment of two separate allowances to Elected Members, in lieu of reimbursement of expenditure. The first, Regulation 34A, covers a maximum total annual allowance for telephone and facsimile machine rental charges and any other telecommunication expenses (call charges etc) of $2,400. Regulation 34AA, recently introduced, provides a maximum total annual allowance for information technology expenses of $1,000.



DETAILS: Now that the Regulations allow, it may well be beneficial from an Administration perspective to provide an annual allowance to each Elected Member to cover all telecommunications and information technology expenditure. The introduction of the allowances could be staged to initially cover telephone related expenses, with the information technology allowance being triggered when circumstances require it. If the Council is to allow the maximum in each category, expenditure of 9 x $3,400 per annum for a total of $30,600 would require inclusion in the Budget for 2005/06. The advantages of this would be that:- (i) Elected Members would be paid a set amount to enable payment of their

communications and (future) information technology expenditure. The Council would only provide the phone/fax unit for home installation (standardised to enable bulk procurement of consumables). Ongoing expenses could then be accommodated under the proposed expenditure limit, inclusive of any mobile telephone purchase and call costs and home telephone/facsimile call cost. Elected Members would be billed directly by the relevant service provider;

(ii) expenditure each year would be a known amount, paid quarterly in arrears so that

settlement of any terminations or retirements can be easily calculated; (iii) there would no longer be the requirement for Administration to “vet” and process

telephone accounts for all Elected Members on a monthly basis, nor to act as the organiser or go-between in arranging individual telephone services and requests for equipment as is currently experienced. Elected Members could deal first hand with the telecommunication companies, advising them of any personal preferences for equipment, systems or call plans.

Should access to the internet be required for provision to Elected Members at some future time, an allowance of up to $1,000 can be made available so that individual home communication services can be integrated and coordinated. Elected Members would need to be made aware of and agree to the terms and conditions of the proposed allowances, and that any expenditure over the maximum amount must be claimed as an individual expense, to be approved by the Council. Insofar as comparative expenditure is concerned, the following would apply:- Telecommunications Allowance Total expenditure on proposed telecommunications allowance (if the maximum amount is applied) would be $21,600 (9 x $2,400). At present, the Town is spending the following on communications equipment and call costs:- Reimbursement of home telephone rental: 9x $360 $ 3,240 Phone/Fax Expenditure (Average over past 2 years) $ 9,600 $12,840 Should mobile telephones be required or requested by Elected Members in the future, further cost estimates would be as follows:- Mobile telephone equipment and call costs ($50 plan x 9) $5,400 * Plus any expenditure on calls over the $50 limit.



This provides for a potential total of over $18,000 per annum, plus administrative overheads incurred with the Town providing or organising the equipment purchase and installation and all processing of subsequent accounts. Information Technology Allowance The information technology allowance of $1,000 (maximum) would provide for additional expenditure of $9,000 per annum to have Elected Members responsible for self organising their internet access. It is anticipated that at some future time, the Town will purchase a notebook computer for each Elected Member. Ongoing call costs will be the responsibility of the individual, to be paid from the proposed IT allowance. The Council provided line currently used for the telephone/facsimilie machine could also be utilised for internet service provision. Suggested costs to be incurred by Members would be up to $80 per month for ADSL access and download, providing for an annual cost of 9 Elected Members x 12 months @ $80 = $8,640. SUMMARY: As can be seen from the above, expenditure on telecommunication services would increase from approximately $12,840 per annum to $21,000 per annum, however Elected Members and ratepayers would benefit from the increased accessibility offered by the provision of mobile telephones, and the Administration would be relieved of the processing of individual monthly telephone accounts and the expense of regulating and accommodating a multitude of personal preferences and situations. A further increase of $9,000 would be anticipated should the Council proceed with the introduction of notebook computers for use by Elected Members. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Policy 1.1.10 will require amendment to reflect the introduction of both the Telecommunications and Information Technology allowances. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Not applicable. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Fully implemented, this proposal will represent an increase in the Elected Members telephone allowances of approximately $8,000 and the introduction of further expenditure of $9,000 relating to the Information Technology allowance. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 23 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation. Level 1 (Score 0 – 40) No specific consultation required. Contact details for Elected Members will be published in Council documentation and on the Town’s website.



ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Huxtable That:- (i) in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.99A of the Local Government Act 1995

and Regulations 34A and 34AA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, Elected Members be paid two separate allowances, in lieu of reimbursement of expenditure, for:-

(a) telephone and facsimile machine rental charges and any other telecommunication

expenses (call charges etc) to the maximum allowable (currently $2,400 per annum);

(b) information technology expenses to the maximum allowable (currently $1,000 per

annum), should the Council introduce the requirement for notebook computers to be used at Elected Members’ residences;

Note: • the annual telecommunications allowance is expected to cover costs incurred

relating to Council business in operating the Council provided telephone and facsimile machine and the purchase and operating costs for a mobile telephone. Retiring Elected Members will be permitted to retain their telecommunications equipment;

• the annual information technology allowance is expected to cover costs associated

with the provision of internet services to each Elected Member’s residence; • any claims by Elected Members for expenses incurred over the maximum annual

telecommunications and information technology allowances detailed above are to be supported by receipted invoices for the maximum limit and the additional amounts claimed and submitted to the Council for approval;

(ii) Council Policy 1.1.10: Elected Members Meeting Fees and Expenses be amended to

incorporate the Telecommunications and Information Technology allowances detailed in (i) above;

(iii) an amount of $17,000 be included in the 2005/2006 budget to provide

telecommunications and information technology allowances for Elected Members. Committee Meeting 12 July 2005 During discussion, Members requested that a report be prepared detailing Elected Members’ entitlements to allowances, equipment and any other claims.



Amendment Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Huxtable That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) a further report be submitted to the next meeting of the Policy and Administration

Committee detailing Elected Members’ entitlements to allowances, equipment and any other claims.

Carried COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Huxtable That:- (i) in accordance with the provisions of Section 5.99A of the Local Government Act

1995 and Regulations 34A and 34AA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, Elected Members be paid two separate allowances, in lieu of reimbursement of expenditure, for:-

(a) telephone and facsimile machine rental charges and any other

telecommunication expenses (call charges etc) to the maximum allowable (currently $2,400 per annum);

(b) information technology expenses to the maximum allowable (currently

$1,000 per annum), should the Council introduce the requirement for notebook computers to be used at Elected Members’ residences;

Note: • the annual telecommunications allowance is expected to cover costs

incurred relating to Council business in operating the Council provided telephone and facsimile machine and the purchase and operating costs for a mobile telephone. Retiring Elected Members will be permitted to retain their telecommunications equipment;

• the annual information technology allowance is expected to cover costs

associated with the provision of internet services to each Elected Member’s residence;

• any claims by Elected Members for expenses incurred over the maximum

annual telecommunications and information technology allowances detailed above are to be supported by receipted invoices for the maximum limit and the additional amounts claimed and submitted to the Council for approval;

(ii) Council Policy 1.1.10: Elected Members Meeting Fees and Expenses be amended

to incorporate the Telecommunications and Information Technology allowances detailed in (i) above;

(iii) an amount of $17,000 be included in the 2005/2006 budget to provide

telecommunications and information technology allowances for Elected Members;



(iv) a further report be submitted to the next meeting of the Policy and Administration Committee detailing Elected Members’ entitlements to allowances, equipment and any other claims.

Carried 9/0



PA05.21 WASTE AND RECYCLE 2005 CONFERENCE (File Reference: TES0151) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To advise the Council in relation to the forthcoming Waste and Recycle 2005 Conference. BACKGROUND: The Council has received an invitation for representatives to attend the Waste and Recycle 2005 Conference to be held at The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle from 23 to 26 August 2005. DETAILS: This year’s conference theme “(Re) Defining Roles and Responsibilities” looks at whether there is room for improvement through a different way of thinking. Rural communities are a key focus in the 2005 conference. Keynote speakers will focus on the popular topics of contaminated sites, organics, government and education. Each keynote speaker will then be followed up by a local counterpart who will expand on the topic and provide specific reference to Australia and its conditions, regulations and requirements. In addition to the paper sessions, the conference will include visits to Mindarie Regional Council/Tamala Park, the Southern Metropolitan Regional Council’s in-vessel composting plant, the Water Corporation’s Woodman Point Wastewater Treatment Plant and to the Biowise Composting Facility. The Waste Management Association of Australia (WA Branch) will be hosting a pre-conference program on landfill issues. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Policy 1.1.5 - Conference Attendance – Representation and Related Issues. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The cost for attending the conference is as follows:- Registration: $625 (full delegate) $385 (per day). Funds are available from Budget Item “Members – Course/Conference Expenses”. Appropriate administration staff will be nominated for attendance by the Chief Executive Officer.



ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Huxtable That:- (i) interested Elected Members and Officer(s) nominated by the Chief Executive Officer be

authorised to attend the Waste and Recycle 2005 Conference to be held at The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle from 23 to 26 August 2005;

(ii) the expenditure in (i) be charged to Budget Item “Members – Course/Conference

Expenses”. Committee Meeting 12 July 2005 During discussion, Members agreed that, in future, only one Elected Member should be nominated to attend conferences. Amendment Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Huxtable That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) an interested Elected Member and an Officer nominated by the Chief Executive Officer be

authorised to attend the Waste and Recycle 2005 Conference to be held at The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle from 23 to 26 August 2005.

Carried COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Huxtable That:- (i) an interested Elected Member and an Officer nominated by the Chief Executive

Officer be authorised to attend the Waste and Recycle 2005 Conference to be held at The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle from 23 to 26 August 2005;


Expenses”. During discussion, Cr MacRae expressed an interest in attending the Conference. Amendment Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Huxtable That clause (i) of the motion be amended by deleting the words “an interested Elected Member” and inserting the words “Cr MacRae” Amendment carried 9/0



COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) Cr MacRae and an Officer nominated by the Chief Executive Officer be authorised

to attend the Waste and Recycle 2005 Conference to be held at The Esplanade Hotel, Fremantle from 23 to 26 August 2005;


Expenses”. Carried 9/0


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\D CCS.doc 53

CORPORATE AND CUSTOMER SERVICES COMMITTEE The report of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee meeting held on 18 July 2005 was submitted as under;- 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee open at 6.01 pm.


Present : Time of Time of

Entering Leaving

Members:

Cr Kate Barlow (Presiding Member) 6.01 pm 7.12 pm Cr David Berry 6.01 pm 7.12 pm Cr John Gow 6.01 pm 7.12 pm Cr Penny Huxtable 6.01 pm 7.12 pm Observers: Nil Officers: Jason Buckley, Executive Manager Corporate and Customer Services Cam Robbins, Manager Community Development John Bown, Acting Manager Customer Services Roy Ruitenga, Manager Financial and Business Services Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 7.12 pm

APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Apology – Mayor Anderton


Nil

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS Nil




Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Huxtable That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Corporate and Customer Services Committee held on 20 June 2005 as contained in the June Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ INTERESTS

Nil 7. REPORTS



CCS05.73 ACCOUNTS FOR PAYMENT (File Reference: FIN0049) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To confirm the payment of accounts to pay for expenses incurred by the Town to fund its operation. 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 for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Payments in accordance with Policy 2.3.4 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan and Plan of Principal Activities providing for the payment of accounts. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts as detailed below be confirmed and the list of payments, as attached, be included in the Minutes of the Council:- (i) Cheque Payments Municipal Account

Date From Date To Details Amount

6 June 2005 10 June 2005 V5315 – V5401 $305,987.48 13 June 2005 17 June 2005 V5402 – V5608 $546,500.10 20 June 2005 24 June 2005 V5609 – V5675 $587,429.27 27 June 2005 1 July 2005 V5676 – V5823 $540,476.44 4 July 2005 8 July 2005 V5824 – V5862 $604,935.77 Total Cheque Payments – Municipal Account $2,585,329.06



(ii) Electronic Fund Transfers (EFT’s)

No. Date Payee Details Amount

Investments Inv00033 6 July 2005 FirstMac Fiduciary Services Investment Municipal Fund $513,500.00 Sub Total $513,500.00 Supplier Sub Total - Payroll Pay 00053 14 June 2005 Commonwealth Bank Wages Transfer (10/6/05) $197,561.27 Pay 00054 16 June 2005 Australian Tax Office PAYG Tax Transfer (10/6/05) $65,361.30 Pay 00055 28 June 2005 Commonwealth Bank Wages Transfer (24/6/05) $245,651.02 Pay 00056 29 June 2005 Australian Tax Office PAYG Tax Transfer (24/6/05) $94,398.18 Pay 00057 29 June 2005 WALG Superannuation Superannuation Deductions (24/6/05) $71,617.10 Pay 00058 29 June 2005 City of Perth Super Superannuation Deductions (24/6/05) $19,716.93 Sub Total $694,305.80

Total EFT Payments $1,207,805.80 TOTAL PAYMENTS $3,793,134.86 Carried 9/0



CCS05.74 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE (File Reference: FIN0038) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To advise the Council of the amount of surplus funds invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment (i.e. interest earned) year to date. BACKGROUND: Council’s Investment Policy No. 2.3.6 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds. Investment products must comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy. Investment reports are to be submitted on a monthly basis and are to contain the details as stipulated in the policy for each of the three sources of Council funds, namely general, reserves and Endowment Lands. DETAILS: Council’s investments performed above the Bank Bill Index Benchmark for the month of June achieved a weighted average interest of 6.17%. Overall, Council’s investments performed extremely well for the financial year ended 30 June 2005, with total earnings of $1,055,994 being 46% above budget of $721,000. To strengthen and diversify the investment portfolio, another quality Floating Rate Note to the value of $513,500 has been purchased from Firstmac Fiduciary Services, a wholly owned Australian company which originates and manages prime mortgages. The FRN is a floating rate Residential Mortgage Backed Security comprised of a pool of over 2,000 Australian housing loans and has a credit rating of AA-. The Managed Cash Funds performance as at the end of June 2005 is as follows: Rating Average

Interest Rate

June 2005 Income

Total Amount Invested

% of Funds Invested

Managed Cash Funds Deutsche Cash Plus Fund “A” 6.02% $20,581.74 $3,548,552.22 30.92% Merrill Lynch Diversified Credit Fund “A” 6.51% $17,576.36 $3,219,952.27 28.06% ANZ Cash Plus Fund “AA” 6.18% $16,469.92 $3,161,232.27 27.54% Colonial Premium Cash Fund “AAA” 5.77% $73.72 $29,214.54 0.25% Sub Total $7,652.09 $9,958,951.30 86.77% Floating Rate Notes Bankwest Floating Rate Note “A” 6.05% $2,549.70 $505,455.41 4.40% Macquarie Floating Rate Note “A” 5.78% $2,518.22 $508,884.08 4.43% St George Floating Rate Note “A” 5.54% $2,584.17 $503,552.49 4.39% Sub Total $7,652.09 $1,517,891.98 13.23% Total Investments $62,353.83 $11,476,843.28 100.00%



Weighted Average Interest The weighted average interest is 6.17% compared against the Bank Bill Index benchmark which has been an average of 5.79% for June 2005. The Bank Bill Index is a measure of past performance opposed to the Bank Bill Swap Rate (BBSW) which is based on forward interest earnings. The investment reporting format from Oakvale Capital Pty Ltd is attached giving more detail. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: 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:-

Budget 2003/2004

Actual as at June 2004

%

Budget 2004/2005

Actual as at June 2005

%

General* $260,000 $343,195 132.0% $310,000 $413,579 133.4% Reserves $285,000 $379,539 133.2% $320,000 $437,281 136.7% Endowment Lands $75,000 $139,869 186.5% $61,000 $120,142 197.0% Wembley Golf Complex $30,000 $84,993 283.3% TOTAL $620,000 $862,603 139.1% $721,000 $1,055,994 146.5%

* Includes bank account interest and underground power instalment interest. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan or Plan of Principal Activities outlining the requirements for the investment of Council funds. However, the management of these surplus funds is consistent with the Town’s Mission for the “efficient, accountable and quality management of public assets and infrastructure.” COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Investment Schedule as at 30 June 2005, as attached to and forming part of the Notice Paper, be received. Carried 9/0



CCS05.75 DOCUMENTS SEALED (File Reference: ADM0039) PURPOSE OF REPORT: There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents. It is considered desirable, however, to provide the Council with relevant information relating to documents sealed. DETAILS: The following has been sealed with the Common Seal of the Town:-

Date Document Details No. of Copies

28 June 2005 Title: Restrictive Covenant – 135 – 139 Cambridge Street and corner Northwood Street, West Leederville

Purpose: Covenant placed by Planning Commission at the

time amalgamating the land, to prevent any structure or object being placed within an area of 3 x 3 metres from the corner of Cambridge and Northwood Street to maintain sightlines for pedestrians and motorists.

Council Decision: 18 November 2003 (DES03.196).

1

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Nil FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil STRATEGIC DIRECTION: There are no specific details in the Strategic Plan and the Plan of Principal Activities in relation to the sealing of Council documents. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the following:-

28 June 2005 Title: Restrictive Covenant – 135 – 139 Cambridge Street and corner Northwood Street, West Leederville

Purpose: Covenant placed by Planning Commission at

the time amalgamating the land, to prevent any structure or object being placed within an area of 3 x 3 metres from the corner of Cambridge and Northwood Street to maintain sightlines for pedestrians and motorists.

Council Decision: 18 November 2003 (DES03.196).

1

Carried 9/0



CCS05.76 CAMBRIDGE YOUTH CONSULTATION (File Reference: CMS0068) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To reconsider the 2003/2004 Youth Consultation, previously presented to Council at its meeting held on 28 June 2005. BACKGROUND: The Council considered a report on the Youth Consultation Project at its meeting held on 28 June 2005. At the Council meeting, when the matter was put for consideration, the entire recommendation was lost. However, the debate essentially related to whether or not to fund the operations of the Youth Centre on Saturday afternoons at a cost of $19,000. As a result of the manner in which the item was discussed and voted upon, none of the recommendations of the report have been accepted by Council. The motion that was put forward to Council at the June meeting and consequently was lost is as follows:- “That:- (i) the 2003/2004 Youth Consultation project be received and the recommendations

adopted; (ii) provision be made in the 2005/2006 Draft Budget for:-

(a) the Youth Centre Number 86 to be open to the general public on a Saturday afternoon at a cost of $19,000; and

(b) to implement a Youth Education/Support Program, at a cost of $2,300;

(iii) a further report be presented to Council 12 months following the implementation of the

expanded service in (ii) above.” The report that was considered by Council is attached, together with the full Youth Consultation report that was also distributed last month. DETAILS: The Youth Consultation Project was held in late 2003 and 2004 with a view to updating research into the needs of the youth within the Town and assist the Town to strategically plan for this target group. It is considered important that the recommendations of the Youth Consultation Project be considered by the Council and endorsed to provide direction for the Youth Service. Given the direction provided by Council at its June 2005 meeting, it is considered that all other recommendations should be endorsed with the exception of the recommendation in relation to funding the opening of the Centre on Saturday afternoons. Therefore, it is proposed, at this time, for the Council to receive the Youth Consultation Project report and the recommendations be adopted with the exception of the Saturday afternoon openings.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: An amount of $2,300 has been included in the draft 2005/2006 Budget towards a Youth Education/Support Program (refer Recommendation Number 6 of the Youth Consultation Report, under the heading of Stress, Depression and Youth Suicide). POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: The 2003/2004 Youth Consultation supports one of the main objectives of the Community Key Outcome area as outlined in the 2005-2009 Strategic Plan, namely: • Quality services to meet identified community needs and expectations. Furthermore, the 2003/2004 Youth Consultation project provides a strategic and reference document for the future provision of services and facilities for the Town’s youth. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The 2003/2004 Youth Consultation project has been assessed under the Town’s Community Consultation. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 40 points out of 100, which provides for Level 1 consultation. Level 1 (Score 0-40) No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council’s staff. Furthermore, extensive consultation has already been undertaken during 2003/2004 involving a questionnaire, targeted workshops, focus groups and other methods including information stalls at major Youth events. CONCLUSION: The 2003/2004 Youth Consultation is the culmination of over twelve months work and enabled young people to voice their ideas and thoughts to the Town in a highly effective way and across a broad spectrum of interests and circumstances. Many of the issues raised by the young people provided no surprises or new insights into young peoples needs, preferences and behaviours, but rather confirmed that the Cambridge Youth Service is providing a worthwhile community service. This service has grown significantly since the 1999 Youth strategy was adopted by Council and the finalisation and endorsement of the 2003/2004 Consultation, (encompassing a number of recommendations) should assist the Town in developing a future framework for Youth Services. Committee Meeting 18 July 2005 Members were advised that in order to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion to revoke a previous decision of the Council requires firstly a motion that the matter be considered by Council. This motion must be supported by at least one third of the Committee. If this motion is carried, the motion to revoke the previous Council decision must then be carried by an absolute majority.



Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Gow That in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion relating to the revocation of the Council’s decision dated 28 June 2005 (Item CCS05.61) be considered. Carried ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Gow That by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:- (i) the 2003/2004 Youth Consultation project be received and the recommendations therein

be adopted with the exception of the recommendation for the Youth Centre to extend its operations on Saturday afternoons;

(ii) a further report be presented to Council in May 2006 outlining the progress of the Youth Education/Support Program.

During discussion, Members requested that the Administration investigate the possibility of the hours of operation of the Youth Centre during weekdays being altered to enable its operations to be extended to Saturday afternoons. Amendment Moved by Cr Huxtable, seconded by Cr Berry That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) a report be presented to Council on the possibility, and consequences, of the hours of

operation of the Youth Centre during weekdays being altered to enable its operations to be extended to Saturday afternoons.

Carried Council Meeting 26 July 2005 The Mayor advised that in order to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion to revoke a previous decision of the Council requires firstly a motion that the matter be considered by Council. This motion must be supported by at least one third of the Council. If this motion is carried, the motion to revoke the previous Council decision must then be carried by an absolute majority. Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Huxtable That in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion relating to the revocation of the Council’s decision dated 18 May 2005 (Item CCS05.61) be considered. Carried For: Crs Barlow, Huxtable and MacRae



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:- (i) the 2003/2004 Youth Consultation project be received and the recommendations

therein be adopted with the exception of the recommendation for the Youth Centre to extend its operations on Saturday afternoons;

(ii) a further report be presented to Council in May 2006 outlining the progress of the Youth Education/Support Program;

(iii) a report be presented to Council on the possibility, and consequences, of the

hours of operation of the Youth Centre during weekdays being altered to enable its operations to be extended to Saturday afternoons.

Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



CCS05.77 QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE – REPORT ON OPERATIONS (File Reference: CMS0028) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To inform Council of the Quarry Amphitheatre operations, including the financial performance, for the period July 2004 to June 2005. BACKGROUND: The Quarry Amphitheatre is a Town Performing Arts venue comprising of a 644 seat open air Amphitheatre, a 100 seat performance/rehearsal space (underneath the main open stage) known as the ‘Cavern.’ The main auditorium is a functional, aesthetic alternative to traditional concert halls and theatres, whilst the ‘Cavern’ can accommodate specialised classes and small scale productions. This report has been prepared in accordance with the Council’s decision to be kept informed of the operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre. The management of the Quarry Amphitheatre - Starlight Theatre Lighting (STL), who are now in their fifth year of a five year and seven month management contract with the Town to manage the venue, have provided Administration with details of the following aspects of their operation: 1. Management 2. Bookings 3. Marketing and Promotion 4. Asset Management 5. Cafe 6. 2005/2006 Tentative Bookings 7. Financial Management DETAILS: Introduction This report summarises the activities undertaken during the major use period for the venue in the 2004/2005 season, by both STL and the Town’s Administration. A considerable number of changes and improvements have occurred at the venue during the past twelve months, including:- • Changeover of Management – Mr Daniel Alexander replaced Ms Anita Palmer as of 1

March 2005 as the Front Office Manager;

• Purchase of new Tarquet floor covering for the stage;

• Plans to improve railing in the Cavern to match building codes;

• Increased data base concerning users and patrons;

• Improvements to the exit road, undertaken by the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority have been completed, making it now a two-way system;

• The Outlook on Reabold Hill, undertaken by Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority has completed construction. This may allow for more tourist groups;

• Cavern vinyl has been stripped back and been coated with sealant to help preserve the floor.



1. Management

1.1 Staffing

The on-site Manager at the venue is Daniel Alexander who took over this role as of 1 March 2005 from Ms Anita Palmer, who had served in this role for nearly 4 years. Throughout the year, Anita and Daniel were assisted by Belinda Wahrman in her administrative and BOCS duties. Ian Ashton- General Manager (STL), numerous casual Front of House staff and cleaning and technical personnel have also assisted throughout the year. All STL staff continue to undertake training in the areas of first aid, liquor licensing and safe serving practices training, occupational health and safety emergency evacuation procedures and risk management. The Management Contract of the Quarry Amphitheatre is currently up for renewal as STL’s current management contract expires in May 2006. It is intended that a report will be prepared for Council within the next two months outlining various future management options for this facility. 1.2 Office Hours During the months from 1 October 2004 to 15 April 2005 (shoulder season/peak), the Quarry Office and administration hours were Monday to Friday 10.00am to 6.00pm, and an hour and a half-hour prior to the start of a performance for the convenience of patrons and hirers. STL management was also represented throughout each performance, and was responsible for the security and closing procedures each night. During the period from 16 April to 30 September (shoulder season/off peak) the operational hours are Tuesday to Friday 9.00am to 5pm, and an hour and a half prior to the start of a scheduled performance.

The total office hours “manned” during the year totals 1924 which represents an additional 517 hours over and above the minimum number as outlined in the contract between the Town and STL. These additional office administration hours are provided by STL at no additional cost to the Town.

2. Bookings 2.1 Main Auditorium During the past twelve months, the Quarry has facilitated a total of 43 performances by various organisations and community groups, 10 weddings and 3 corporate functions. There have been performances by Perth City Ballet including ”The Sound of Music” and “Giselle”, the highly acclaimed “Ballet at the Quarry” by the WA Ballet and the return of Helen Gowers Ballet Academy. Other performances included Lions Club “Carols”, Rotary Club’s “Starlight Rock”, a world music concert coordinated through Kulcha and a concert held by the W.A. Police Pipe Band. Presbyterian Ladies College (PLC) held their school concert which completely sold out.



STL has also approached a number of educational and ethnic communities with regard to broadening the appeal of the Quarry as an all round entertainment venue. This year has seen an increase in University students coming to study the venue, looking at different aspects of the Quarry, including Theatre Students, Architect Students and some Leisure Facility Design Students. STL also advise that bookings for the 2005/2006 season are already well advanced, with the months of December 2005 to March 2006 already filled with bookings. A complete list of bookings to date is outlined in Section 6 – Tentative Bookings 2005/2006 of this report. 2.2 Cavern Both STL and Administration consider that this facility continues to enhance its reputation as a true Studio theatre/rehearsal/performance space. It continues to receive favourable comments from all of the artists, dancers and patrons involved. It was further enhanced during the 2002/2003 financial year with installation of split cycle air-conditioners in the dressing rooms and two evaporative units in the main performance/audience area. Other users are somewhat restricted, particularly during peak times when this area is used as a dressing room for the main auditorium area. It is difficult to find users who are willing to lose the use of the venue for four to five months each year during the peak performance season. Even though management with the support of the Town has managed to find other suitable venues for these groups over the summer, the lack of continuity makes it hard for classes to be accommodated. As at 31 May 2005, the cavern has three regular hirers (use venue on a weekly basis). The table below provides an overview on the past six years income takings at the Quarry Cavern.

Table 1: Quarry Cavern – Income Takings

Year Amount 1999/2000 $2,6602000/2001 $7,0932001/2002 $9,4132002/2003 $3,3092003/2004 $5,2002004/2005 (Approx) $3,105 Total $30,780

As can be seen in the above figures, the income generated from this facility increased considerably during the 2000/2001 financial year. This can be attributed to use by the Perth International Arts Festival (PIAF), who used this facility as an accommodation base for one of its performers. In 2004/2005, the cavern was used for three shows. All were received well and allowed hirers to see how adaptable this area is. One wedding was held on a rainy day and had to be moved to the Cavern for cover. The hirer was happy with how the venue was presented in such a short period of preparation time. Management hopes to promote this option to hirers over the shoulder and off peak seasons. There are currently plans to actively seek hirers for the Cavern for when the venue is not in Peak Season. This includes targeting small theatre groups and drama students from around Perth.



2.3 Ticketing The BOCS Ticketing System is now operational from the office administration area and a second system has been installed in the ‘Quarry Café’ which allows patrons to book and pick up tickets for any BOCS promoted event or activity. The amount of sales generated for the 2004/2005 financial year is $75,290, which is $15,015 more than the previous financial year (2003/2004). A comparison table highlighting the monthly sales for the 2004/2005 and 2003/2004 financial years is highlighted below:

Table 2: 2004/2005 BOCS Takings

Month 2004/2005 2003/2004 Difference July $1,003 $1,003 NIL August $2,270 $2,405 ($135) September $1,254 $1,885 ($631) October $3,153 $4,157 ($1,004) November $6,626 $5,801 $825 December $4,294 $6,852 ($2,558) January $12,678 $7,961 $4,717 February $28,481 $10,852 $17,629 March $6,857 $9,099 ($2,242) April $3,505 $3,239 $266 May $4,195 $3,904 $291 June $974 $3,117 ($2,143) Total $75,290 $60,275 $15,015

The table above shows an increase in sales of approximately $15,015 from last financial year. In relation to the BOCS sales, the Town receives 30% of gross ticket commission for productions shown at the Quarry, plus it also receives $1.10 per ticket for tickets to any other venues or events purchased through the Quarry BOCS outlet. As at 31 May 2005, this commission equated to $10,605. Of the $10,605 commissioned, $9,894 was derived from Quarry productions. Whilst there has been a sales increase of $15,015, the commission received has decreased from $12,442 down to $10,605. This can be attributed to two things. • Firstly, customers are purchasing tickets to shows that are more expensive. This

way the sales improve significantly but the commission does not enjoy the same improvement. There have been a number of ‘big’ shows that have gone on sale through the BOCS system this past year, which directly affect the sales/commission ratio.

• Secondly, more customers are purchasing tickets for large groups of people. As the

Quarry charge the $1.10 fee up to a limit of six tickets, once patrons purchase further tickets no further commission is generated.



2.4 Review of Performances and Attendances throughout the 2004/2005 Summer Season

The following schedule outlines the performances held during the peak season at the Quarry – November 2004 to April 2005. It should be noted that, in addition to performance nights, technical and non-technical rehearsals are often held. Generally, no members of the public attend these events. A table highlighting the 2004/2005 performances are outlined below:

Table 3: 2004/2005 Performances

Company Production No of nights

booked

No of seats

available

No of seats actually

sold

% of House

Dance Fever 2004 Dance Concert 1 644 644 100

Phillip Shields Concert 1 644 451 70KULCHA / Jazz WA

Concert 1 644 414 64.2

Perth City Ballet Sound of Music

4 2576 1854 72

Helene Gowers

Dance Concert 2 1288 1285 99.7

Graduate School of Dance

Dance Concert 3 1932 1913 99

Lions Club Christmas Carols 2 1288 1288 100Perth City Ballet Giselle 5 3220 1613 50Jazz WA Jazz WA 1 644 215 33.3One Step Ahead Concert 1 644 394 61.1WA Ballet Ballet at the

Quarry 16 1030 9054 87.8

WA Police Pipe Band Rites of passage 1 644 644 100KULCHA

Cultural Concert 1 644 508 78.8

Rotary Club Starlight Rock 2 1000 997 99.7Jazz WA Funkdown 1 644 337 52.3Perth Ladies College School

Production 1 644 644 100

TOTAL

43 27,404

22,255 81.2%

Actual performances held at the Quarry Amphitheatre were 43, however, rehearsals held were 22, which represent a total of 65 actual night bookings. Total seats available were 27,404 of which 22,255 were utilised. This represents an utilisation rate of approximately 81.2%, a slight decrease of 2.8% to the previous financial year. However, it should be taken into account that there has been an increase of 2,506 patrons enter the venue from the previous financial year.

Additional bookings to those listed above are as follows:

Type Number Weddings 7Corporate events 3Total 10



Due to the private nature of these functions, all catering and license requirements are arranged by the hirer but vetted by management to ensure compliance is achieved. 2.5 Comparison with Previous Season The 2004/2005 season attracted 22,261 patrons attending performances at the Quarry Amphitheatre. This represents an increase of 2,506 patrons as compared to the 2003/2004 season. This figure does not include classes held at the cavern, and corporate and private event attendance.

A table highlighting a gradual increase in attendance figures at the Quarry since 1998/1999 is outlined below:

Table 4: Attendance Figures

Year Attendances 1998/1999 14,2441999/2000 14,0512000/2001 13,2332001/2002 15,8372002/2003 17,4982003/2004 19,7552004/2005 22,261Total 116,879

3. Marketing and Promotion

The venue has now consolidated itself as a pristine outdoor cultural arts facility, catering for a variety of events, activities and local community productions. This has been achieved by the use of a number of marketing vehicles, including the following: 3.1. Preparation of newsletters – ‘The Quarrier’ was distributed to over 11,000

residents and 2,000 at various Council facilities and local cafes. 3.2. Television coverage – There was commercial television coverage of the WA Ballet

and Kulcha on both the ABC and Commercial stations. 3.3 Website - regularly updating of www.quarryamphitheatre.com.au to keep the

program of performances and events in the electronic arena. This web site is linked to other entertainment-based web sites.

3.4 Other Advertising Sources - within industry journals including the Community

Business handbook, Arts WA Directory and the Western Suburbs Welcome Diary. 3.5 Articles - Numerous articles within the West Australian newspaper promoting the

performances of Sound of Music and performances by the WA Ballet. In addition various articles and advertisements also appeared in the Cambridge Post and Western Suburbs Weekly. Also, articles have been placed in Budget Travel Magazine and Instyle Magazine.

3.6 Promoting - Promoter performance posters advertising events at the Quarry have

been made at every BOCS Ticketing outlet throughout the Perth metropolitan area, clearly stating the Quarry Amphitheatre’s details, contact numbers and access information.



3.7 BOCS Ticketing – As the Quarry is a fully operational and endorsed BOCS ticketing system, a number of the general public are becoming aware of its location and various facilities it offers.

3.8 Word of Mouth – This year the Quarry Amphitheatre has hosted many new shows

and events. Every year we become better known within the local and surrounding communities. With a wider diversity of shows we appeal to a broader range of patrons.

4. Asset Management

The past twelve months has seen a number of major works being undertaken at the venue, these include the installation of: • Purchase of new Tarquet for the stage

Upgrade of lighting at the venue

• Improvements to the exit road completed, making it now a two-way system

• The Outlook on Reabold Hill has completed construction. May allow for more tourist groups;

• Cavern vinyl has been stripped back and been coated with sealant to help preserve the floor.

5. Cafe

As at 31 May 2005, gross sales for the past twelve months was approximately $15,200, and in accordance with the lease of this facility at the Quarry, the Town receives 10%, with the bulk of these monies being derived from the busy November 2004 – April 2005 period. In addition to this gross amount, the Town also receives an annual rental amount of $2,000. A comparison of sales recorded last financial year (2003/2004) is included in Table 5, which shows, Café income was down by approximately $1,500 from the 2003/2004 financial year.

Table 5: CAFÉ Takings

2004/2005 2003/2004 Difference July Nil Nil Nil August Nil Nil Nil September Nil Nil Nil October $10 Nil $10 November $1,556 $681 $875 December $4,075 $2,623 $1,452 January $1,489 $1,587 ($98) February $3,145 $7,041 ($3,896) March $3,170 $1,992 $1,178 April $269 $1,263 ($994) May Nil $26 ($26) June Nil Nil Nil TOTAL $13,714 $15,213 ($1,499)



6.0 Tentative Bookings

Tentative bookings for the 2005/2006 season are being taken. Tentative booking schedules are dynamic and can change almost weekly as the season draws closer. To confirm the booking dates the hirer needs to pay the required bond. To date, tentative bookings have been received, as detailed on a Confidential Attachment, and should be considered “Commercial in confidence”. Following the Council adoption of the 2005/2006 Budget, review letters will be forwarded to the potential hirers seeking confirmation of these dates and informing them of the 2005/2006 fees and charges. Payment of the performance bonds are also sought at this time. It is anticipated that this process will be completed in August 2005.

7. Financial Management Although the June 2005 financial figures have yet to be finalised, it is envisaged that the facility will come in narrowly under projected figures. This was a pleasing result given that there are two other Amphitheatre spaces in the Metropolitan area competing for the same style of product, these being the Kwinana Federation Amphitheatre and the Somerville Auditorium. With strong bookings for the 2005/2006 season it is expected to improve on this result in the next financial year.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil, although there are a number of hire agreements that must be signed by users of the facility. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil STRATEGIC DIRECTION: The Quarry Amphitheatre assists the Town in supporting its vision as outlined in the 2005-2009 Strategic Plan, namely:-

“To promote the Town of Cambridge as a progressive community, providing a quality living environment.”

Furthermore, it supports one of the Town’s Community Key Outcomes of the 2005 – 2009 Strategic Plan; “Strong social and cultural interaction, sense of place and local identity.” COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The 2004/2005 Quarry Amphitheatre Operational report has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it has rated at 20 points out of 100, which provides for level 1 consultation Level 1 (0-40) No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council staff.



SUMMARY: The past twelve months at the Quarry Amphitheatre have been productive with marginal growth being recorded in BOCS operations and the projected 2004/2005 net cost likely to be met. The forthcoming 2005/2006 season also looks very strong with 55 shows, 13 weddings, and 1 corporate function already been programmed. This does not take into account rehearsals and set-up dates. With the current management contract of the Quarry Amphitheatre between the Town and Starlight Theatre Lighting expiring in May 2006, the Administration is intending to prepare a report to Council within the next two months outlining various management models. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That:-

(i) the report relating to the operations of the Quarry Amphitheatre for the period from

July 2004 to June 2005 be received; (ii) a further report be presented to Council within two months outlining future

management options of the Quarry Amphitheatre. Carried 9/0



CCS05.78 CLASSICS IN THE PARK EVENT (File reference: CMS0164) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To seek Council’s approval for the conduct of a classic car event ‘Classics in the Park’ at Perry Lakes Reserve to be held on Sunday 4 December 2005. BACKGROUND: Automotive Events Management (AEM) has written to Council seeking support once again for the conduct of ‘Classics in the Park’ to be held at Perry Lakes Reserve on Sunday 4 December 2005. AEM was established in 1992 and have been coordinating and managing automotive events for the past twelve years. Past events include the Classic Rally (held annually since 1992), the Classic Challenge (from 1993), Symphony for the Car (1993 -1996 and the Celebration of the Motor Car (held annually since 1994). In addition, AEM are also sub-contracted to complete a number of tasks associated with the well known and highly regarded rally event, Rally Australia. For the proposed event, two days set up– Friday and Saturday, and one day pack up- Monday are required which could impact on regular family users of Perry Lakes Reserve and the general public who would normally access the area surrounding the children’s playground. Approximate hire costs are $3,900 ($1,297 heavy commercial charge per day) and a bond would also be applicable. Due to the nature of the event and the potential to cause damage to the reserve surface, a bond fee of $1,000 as set for their event held in February 2005 (required 14 days prior to the event) would be appropriate. An entry fee is being imposed by AEM, however, the price is yet to be determined. ‘Classics in the Park’ would be organised by AEM with assistance provided by car club patrons. The insurance for the event is to be covered by the Australian Auto-Sport Alliance (Inc) which covered the event when it was previously held at Perry Lakes reserve in February 2005. DETAILS: In May 2005, AEM wrote to the Town seeking permission to once again conduct ‘Classics in the Park’ on Sunday 4 December 2005 at Perry Lakes Reserve. The event would be similar to what was conducted in February this year, which incorporated static displays of various cars, charity rides through the internal roads of Perry Lakes Reserve and mobile food vendors. Once again the beneficiary of the charity ride component will be the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre. They were very supportive of ‘Classics in the Park’ and sent correspondence to the Town following the event praising the charity ride component, which raised in excess of $1,000 for the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre. Minor issues arose during the February 2005 event, including two complaints from the public which were discussed at a de-brief meeting held with the Town’s Administration and AEM. The first complaint was in relation to the speed that some cars were driving at through the charity ride course. The event organiser confirmed that a person driving a Lotus vehicle attempted to display the vehicle at the event and when he was told that it could not be accommodated, he became angry and proceeded to speed through the charity ride course. To ensure that no similar problems occur at the December 2005 event, additional marshals will be positioned throughout the course with ‘slow’ signs. The second complaint alleged that there



were burn-out marks on the reserve following the event. The Administration inspected the reserve and reported that no physical signs of burn-out marks could be found. As per the previous February 2005 event, AEM would need to comply with the various Town policies and procedures pertaining to the conduct of Special Events (discussed later in this report). Furthermore, notification to all residents in the surrounding area would be implemented by AEM 14 days prior to the event with the Town’s logo appearing on the notice. Any advertisements that are placed in local media outlets by AEM will also have the Town’s logo on them ensuring that the support of the Town is recognised. Local authorities including the WA Police Service (Wembley branch) and Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority will also be notified regarding the proposed event. Planned events being held by other organisations within the surrounding area include a basketball competition at Perry Lakes Basketball Stadium. A basketball competition was also held in February 2005 and did not impact significantly on ‘Classics in the Park’. Challenge Stadium may have a large event scheduled at their venue which is yet to be confirmed, however Challenge Stadium no longer use AK Reserve for overflow parking as they have sufficient parking within their own venue. Policies and Procedures As in February 2005, AEM would provide the Town with a thorough Safety and Risk Management Plan particularly in regard to spectator safety and control of the charity ride component. Furthermore, the Australian Auto-Sport Alliance would issue the insurance for the event with $10 million cover. The documentation prepared by AEM in February 2005 was very thorough and covered all risk aspects of the event, with any minor issues that arose in February to be addressed in the December 2005 risk management plan. In addition to risk management issues, a number of other aspects would need to be arranged by AEM including:- • Site map indicating where all spectators, cars and associated displays would be located;

• Charges, including a bond;

• Development of event specific risk management arrangements;

• Organisation of toilet facilities;

• Additional cleaning and bins;

• Provision of Structural Compliance and Electrical Compliance Certificates;

• Noise Management procedures;

• Liquor Licence requirements;

• Traffic Management Plan;

• Letter Box Drop to nearby residents;

• Notification to Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority and WA Police Service.

The Administration suggests that if Council approve the event, the Town and AEM again enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clearly outlines the above requirements and responsibilities. A similar process is undertaken in relation to a number of other Special Events that are held within the Town, including Relay for Life, City to Surf and Garden Week. Furthermore, regular meetings should be held with the Administration and AEM leading up to the proposed December 2005 event.



Benefits The benefits associated with having an event of this nature occurring within the Town include:- • An estimated attendance of between 2,000 and 3,000 people from all over the

Metropolitan Area; • The Town will charge AEM at the heavy commercial rate of $1,297 per day which will

include the 2 days of set-up, with the total revenue being approximately $3,900. A bond of $1,000 in line with the bond set for AEM’s initial ‘Classics in the Park’ in February 2005 will be due and payable 28 working days prior to the event;

• Automotive Events Management believes this event creates considerable interest with

the media, and this was proven with many papers and automotive magazines running stories prior to the February event and following after. National classic car magazines also ran reports on the event and Channel 10 reported on it in its nightly news bulletin;

• The event will again involve the Telethon Speech and Hearing Centre, where there will be

an opportunity for them to participate as well as raise funds. Negatives A number of potential negatives that could occur include:- • The actual set-up for the event is very large, they will require access to the reserve for 2

days prior to the event to install infrastructure also impacting on the access by other potential clients or users of the reserve;

• The internal roads on the western side of the reserve will be closed to accommodate the

charity ride course, which will limit access by the public on the day of the event. The proposed ‘Classics in the Park’ will have both positive and negative connotations, however, if the event is well managed, it would provide local residents and car enthusiasts the opportunity to experience an exciting event. POLICY IMPLICATIONS Policy No. 2.1.24 – Conduct of Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS Approximate Hire Charges Applicable is approximately $3,900 and a considerable bond will be requested to be paid prior to the event to cover for any damages that may occur to the reserve during the event. A bond fee of $1,000 would be applicable. A stall holder fee of $55 would also be applicable to each of the various display stands and vendors. COMMUNITY CONSULATATION Due to concerns raised by some residents last year, it is important that residents close to Perry Lakes be informed of the event.



The AEM proposal has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 20 points out of 100, which provides for Level 1 consultation. Level 1 (Score 0-40) It is recommended that the following Consultation methods are undertaken to include but are not limited to:- • Regular meetings with the Town’s Administration; • Letter Box drop to nearby residents 14 days prior to event; • Statutory compliance; and • Advertisements in local newspaper. SUMMARY: The amount of co-ordination and organisation required when conducting an event of this kind as the one proposed by AEM (Classics in the Park) requires careful planning, coordination and management. With AEM’s previous experience in car event organisation, the positive outcome from the same event held in February 2005 coupled with the various specific conditions required by the Town should ensure the event is a success. Committee Meeting 18 July 2005 During discussion, Members requested that AEM include in its letter box drop to nearby residents a note advising that no racing will be conducted during the event. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) the conduct of the ‘Classics in the Park’ at Perry Lakes Reserve on Sunday 4

December 2005 be approved subject to the following terms and conditions:-

(a) all documentation required by the Town, is to be received 28 working days prior to the event including:-

• $10 Million Public Liability Insurance Certificate; • Risk Management Plan; • Emergency Evacuation Plan; • Traffic Management Plan; • Structural Compliance Certificate; • Electrical Compliance Certificate; • Liquor Licence Requirements; • Site Maps; • Signed Memorandum of Understanding;

(b) 14 days prior to the event, Automotive Events Management (AEM) inform

nearby residents of Perry Lakes Reserve of the proposed ‘Classics in the Park.’

Carried 9/0



CCS05.79 TENDER NO. T38-04 – BEACH INSPECTION AND LIFEGUARD SERVICES (File Reference: TAC3804) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To award the contract for the provision of Beach Inspection and Lifeguard Services at City and Floreat Beaches. BACKGROUND: Since 1995/1996, Surf Life Saving WA has been contracted by the Council to undertake a comprehensive beach inspection and patrol service. Surf Life Saving WA was established in 1925 and is recognised by the industry as the benchmark for beach safety and management in Western Australia. Apart from the Town, Surf Life Saving WA currently coordinates lifeguard services for eight local governments, namely: • Town of Cottesloe - Cottesloe Beach; • City of Joondalup – Mullaloo, Hillary’s and Sorrento Beach; • City of Wanneroo – Quinns and Yanchep Beach; • City of Geraldton – Mahomet’s Beach; • City of Rockingham – Secret Harbour; • City of Albany – Middleton Beach; • Shire of Denmark – Ocean Beach; and • Shire of Busselton – Yallingup and Smith’s Beach. The Town’s Beach Inspection Service covers City and Floreat Beach seven days a week for twelve months of the year. City Beach is the main swimming area and the original beach inspection service consisting of a Beach Inspector and a Lifeguard are stationed at City Beach. There was no lifeguard stationed at Floreat Beach, however, patrols were carried out by a vehicle approximately six times each day to Floreat Beach and surrounding car parks. Lifeguard services have been provided at Floreat Beach since 1 December 2003. The Town currently has a contract with Surf Life Saving WA to undertake the beach inspection service of the Town’s beaches which commenced on 1 September 2000 for a period of five years and will expire on 31 August 2005. The contract price commenced at $125,000 per annum and is reviewed on each anniversary of the commencement date and increased as per the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Due to facilities having been upgraded at Floreat Beach, this area became very popular with young families and following a report being presented to Council in April 2003, provision was made to include a Lifeguard service at Floreat Beach from 1 December to 28 February until the expiry of the contract on 31 August 2005. This additional staffing resource, coupled with annual CPI increases resulted in an amount of $153,000 been incurred in 2004/2005. The Beach Inspectors also assist the Council with local law enforcement, the control of parking, and through their involvement with the Cambridge Law Enforcement Working Group, play an active role in endeavouring to keep the sand dune areas a safe environment. Furthermore, Surf Life Saving WA was instrumental in undertaking the Beach Safety Audit which was presented and endorsed at Council in June 2002. As the contract expires on 31 August 2005, and in accordance with Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995 and the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996, tender documents were prepared and advertised in the West Australian on Saturday 14 May 2005. The tender, for a period of five years closed on Tuesday 14 June 2005 with only one tender being received, from Surf Life Saving WA.



DETAILS: The submission received from Surf Life Saving WA is of a high standard and meets all the necessary requirements of the tender documents. The contract price submitted is $175,800 (excl GST) and involves the engagement of accredited and qualified staff at both City and Floreat Beach seven days per week for the whole year. Adequate funds have been included in the 2005/2006 Draft Budget to meet the tendered price submitted by Surf Life Saving WA. The table below highlights the minimal number of hours covered by Surf Life Saving WA and any hours performed over and above (usually during the busy summer months) incur the following hourly charges: • Beach Inspector $34.25 (excl GST) • Life Guard $29.18 (excl GST) Table 1: Minimum Hours of Operation

Months Location Staff Days Hours October- March Floreat and City

Beaches Beach Inspector

Monday – Sunday 6.00am – 7.00pm

December – February Floreat Beach City Beach

Lifeguard Lifeguard

Monday- Friday Monday- Friday

9.00am - 3.00pm 6.00am – 7.00pm

April Floreat and City Beaches

Beach Inspector

Monday – Sunday 6.00am – 2.00pm

May- September Floreat and City Beaches

Beach Inspector

Monday – Sunday 6.00am- 2.00pm or

7.00am – 3.00pm In addition to the above hours, the City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club and the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club also assist with beach patrols on weekends during the period September to March. Both the Beach Inspectors and Lifeguards are qualified in the area of first aid, use of Oxy-viva, spinals, lifeguard law and various beach rescue techniques. All necessary equipment to perform the various duties are supplied by Surf Life Saving WA. Furthermore vehicles and uniforms (prominently displaying the Town’s logo) are also supplied by Surf Life Saving WA. A comprehensive list of duties/responsibilities provided by the Beach Inspector and Lifeguard are available on request from the Administration but generally encompass the following:- • Ensure bathers have access to safe swimming areas, adequately patrolled and fully

manned;

• Control of surf craft and the use of surfing appliances in designated swimming areas;

• Emergency response in the patrolled area and beach in general;

• Rescue and Resuscitation;

• First Aid for beach and surf related injuries;

• Advice to beach users on water and beach safety. Other duties forming part of the service ranges form local law enforcement, confiscation of surf equipment used inappropriately, assistance with the control of parking in access ways and an active participant in the Cambridge Law Enforcement Working Group.



Surf Life Saving WA during their tenure with the Town for Beach Inspection and Life Guard services (1995/1996-present) have developed a good rapport and relationship with the Administration, Council, City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club and the Floreat Surf Lifesaving Club and general beach users. Comparison to in-house service If the Town was to investigate the possibility of providing a similar service-in house a number of problems have been identified. These include:- • Employment would only be offered to qualified personnel, so the Council would be

attracting offers from the same ‘pool’ of prospective employees as those used by Surf Life Saving WA;

• Limited coverage of staff during periods of sick leave, annual leave and long service leave;

• Council’s salary rates (based on the Town of Cambridge Local Government Officers Certified Agreement 2002) are higher than that offered by Surf Life Saving WA;

• The Council would assume responsibility for all normal administrative overheads associated with additional staff employment, training, payroll, IT etc;

• Additional costs absorbed by Council in the area of vehicles, uniforms, mobile phones;

• The provision of a Beach Inspection Service is more related to the core business of Surf Life Saving WA rather than the Council.

POLICY IMPLICATIONS: Nil, however, from a statutory compliance perspective, Surf Life Saving WA has provided details of nominated Beach Inspectors and Lifeguards who are authorised under the Local Government Act 1995, the Dog Act 1976, the Litter Act 1979 and the various Town’s applicable Local Laws. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Surf Life Saving WA has tendered an amount of $175,800 for Beach Inspection and Lifeguard Services for the first year of the contract, and the remaining four years of the contract this figure will be adjusted in accordance with CPI. Additional hours required over and above the designated minimal hours, will be charged at $34.25 per hour for Beach Inspectors and $29.18 per hour for Lifeguards. There are adequate funds in the 2005/2006 Draft Budget to accommodate the price tendered by Surf Life Saving WA. STRATEGIC IMPLICATIONS: The appointment of Surf Life Saving WA (Inc) to provide Beach Inspection and Lifeguard services for the Town is in accordance with the vision statement of the 2005-2009 Strategic Plan and supports the following key outcome areas:- “Community Quality services to meet identified community needs and expectations. Governance Sound management practices.



Natural and Built Environment A clean, safe and vibrant environment.” COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: The project was assessed under the trial Community Consultation Policy and, in accordance with the assessment criteria, was rated at 35 points (out of 100) for which no community consultation is required. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That:- (i) subject to compliance with all tender requirements, Surf Life Saving WA (Inc) be

awarded the contract for Tender No. T38-04 (Beach Inspection and Lifeguard Services) for a period of five years commencing 1 September 2005;

(ii) the cost for the services will be $175,800 (GST exclusive) for the first year and

adjusted by CPI for each year thereafter. Carried 9/0



CCS05.80 LEASE OF PAT GOODRIDGE PAVILION – WEMBLEY ATHLETIC CLUB (CRICKET) (File Reference: PRO0514) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To consider formalising a lease with Wembley Athletic Club to use the Pat Goodridge Pavilion. BACKGROUND: The Pat Goodridge Pavilion was built in 1974/75 under tripartite funding from the Western Australian Hockey Association, Ministry for Sport and Recreation and the former City of Perth. Since its completion the pavilion was solely used and managed by the Western Australian Women’s Hockey Association, which recently amalgamated and is part of Hockey WA. Over the past four years, the WA Women’s Hockey Association has continued to hire the reserve to play hockey during winter but their use of the pavilion has reduced significantly to the stage where last season it was only hired to a private company that conducts driver teaching. Hockey WA confirmed verbally that they no longer need to hire the oval or have continued need to use the pavilion. They did request that the facility name “Pat Goodridge Pavilion” be retained. The Town and the Wembley Athletic Club (Cricket) have worked together over the past two financial years to improve the cricket facilities at Pat Goodridge Reserve. New practice cricket wickets were provided at a cost of $107,026 and the Town also contributed a further $22,000 towards improvements to the Pat Goodridge Pavilion. The improvements were completed just prior to the commencement of the Wembley Cricket Club’s 2004 season. DETAILS: The President of the Wembley Athletic Club has requested that the Club be granted exclusive use over the pavilion and a lease formalised rather than tenure continue on a seasonal licence arrangement. In the past, approval was not granted because Hockey WA indicated that they required the use of the pavilion during their winter season. This situation has now changed with Hockey WA confirming that they do not require the use of the reserve or pavilion. It is now recommended that the Wembley Athletic Club (Cricket) be granted a lease commencing from 1 October 2005 until 30 June 2006, which will give the club exclusive use of the pavilion. The suggested lease term is short and corresponds with the time frame set by Council at its meeting held on 27 May 2003, where it was decided to review and consider a decision on the establishment of a policy for “Council Leased Premises”. The rent charged for a six month seasonal licence is $1,600, which is consistent with that paid by Subiaco/Floreat Cricket Club and Wembley Lacrosse Club at Floreat Oval. If this rate was applied to the lease term of nine months, the amount of rent payable is $2,400 plus GST. The Club is encouraged to hire the pavilion to other community groups to use for meetings as a means of generating revenue to offset costs. All other terms and conditions would be the same as the Town’s standard lease document for clubs. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Town will receive $2400 revenue from the club for the leasing of the facility in the 2005-06 financial year.



STRATEGIC DIRECTION: One of the Town’s objectives is to encourage an active, healthy and quality lifestyle, which can be achieved by encouraging and supporting community group activities. The leasing of this facility to the Wembley Athletic Club to be used by Wembley Cricket Club will assist in achieving the Town’s key outcomes of its strategic plan. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS: In accordance with Local Government Act 1995, Regulation 30(2)(b)(i), the Town is exempt and is not required to advertise the proposed lease and call for submissions under section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 if the premises is leased to the following:- • a body, whether incorporated or not if the applicant is of a charitable, benevolent,

religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: There are no policies that relate directly to this matter. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This project has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy and in accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at 10 points (out of 100) which provides a level 1 consultation. Level 1 (Score 0 – 40) No specific consultation is required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council staff. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Gow That in accordance with Section 3.58(5)(d) and Regulation 30(2)(b)(i) and (c)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1995, Wembley Athletic Club be offered a lease at the Pat Goodridge Pavilion under the following terms and conditions:- Lease Term: for a period of nine months commencing from 1 October 2005 and

expiring on 30 June 2006 and continuing on a monthly tenancy thereafter until Council decides on a leasing policy or alternate leasing procedure.

Rent: that a rent of $2,400 plus GST apply for this period. Terms & Conditions: All other lease terms and conditions are in accordance with Town’s

standard lease.



Committee Meeting 18 July 2005 Amendment Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Huxtable That the motion be amended by adding the words “an exclusive use” following the word “offered”. Carried COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Bradley That in accordance with Section 3.58(5)(d) and Regulation 30(2)(b)(i) and (c)(ii) of the Local Government Act 1995, Wembley Athletic Club be offered an exclusive use lease at the Pat Goodridge Pavilion under the following terms and conditions:- Lease Term: for a period of nine months commencing from 1 October 2005

and expiring on 30 June 2006 and continuing on a monthly tenancy thereafter until Council decides on a leasing policy or alternate leasing procedure.

Rent: that a rent of $2,400 plus GST apply for this period. Terms & Conditions: All other lease terms and conditions are in accordance with

Town’s standard lease. Carried 9/0


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\E DES.doc 85

DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES COMMITTEE The report of the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on 19 July 2005 was submitted as under:- 1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development and Environmental Services Committee open at 6.04 pm.


Present: Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Pauline O’Connor JP (Presiding Member) 6.04 pm 6.10 pm

Cr Rod Bradley (Presiding Member) 6.11 pm 9.15 pm

Cr David Berry 6.04 pm 9.15 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.04 pm 9.15 pm Cr Pauline O’Connor JP 6.11 pm 9.15 pm Observers: Cr John Gow Officers: Ian Birch, Executive Manager Development and Environmental Services Pas Bracone, Manager Planning Serviced Denise Ribbands, Administration Officer (Governance) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 9.15 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Apology – Mayor Anderton

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME Nil



4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS Deputations: Item DES05.128 – Justin Quinlan, applicant Item DES05.131 – Marc Fimeri, neighbour Tani Richards, owner Item DES05.135 – Dennis Bartulovic, neighbour Item DES05.140 – Rod Piller, applicant Item DES05.147 – Paul Foran, owner


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development and Environmental

Services Committee held on 21 June 2005 as contained in the JUne Council Notice Paper be confirmed.

Carried 6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS INTERESTS Nil 7. REPORTS



REFERRED BACK DES05.120 GAMES VILLAGE COMMEMORATIVE FEATURE (File Reference: PLA0033) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To adopt a preferred concept for a Games Village Commemorative Feature in Beecroft Park and to proceed with detailed design of the preferred concept. BACKGROUND: In September 2004, Council decided to engage Landscape Architects, Ecoscape (Australia) Pty Ltd, to prepare concept drawings for an entry feature which would suitably commemorate the Games Village. The development of the plans was to be undertaken in consultation with The Heritage Council of WA, the local community and appropriate persons associated with the 1962 Empire Games. CONCEPTS: The Landscape Architects prepared three concepts for consideration. Plans outlining these concepts are circulated with the agenda. Each concept records and displays the history of the Games and in particular, the Games Village, in different ways. Concepts 1 and 2 are three dimensional, with vertical elements reflecting the architecture of the Games Village. Concept 3 is, essentially, two dimensional, with the historical displays contained primarily within a paved area. The Landscape Architects describe the three different designs as follows: Concept 1 The design creates a sequence of different landscape experiences. The archway represents the appearance of one of the houses that formed the athletes village. The planting boundary represents the size of a typical block within the athletes village while the paved area represents the length and width of a typical house. This will create, for the visitor, the feeling that the space that they inhabit is as if it had been one of the original houses. Materials and colours common with the homes such as the ‘breeze – block’ wall were also used to further create this feeling. The major access follows the original administration centre axis into the park. The Commonwealth and Empire Games mosaic logo is set into a standing plaque at the end of this axis. The walls in the design are devoted to different aspects of the Village. One represents the architecture of the Village and the competition winning architects who designed it. The other represents the athletes themselves and lists their achievements. The existing palm tree becomes a feature in the new design. It represents the style of planting in the area at the time as it was a popular tree for the front garden and can be seen around many of the existing homes in the Village area today. Outside rooms are created using peppermint trees and hedges. Two axes direct the view to Beatty Park and Perry Lakes. These axes have plaques set into them to commemorate the Games played at each venue and the medal winners in each sport.



Estimated cost: $47,800 Concept 2 The design is set along the original axis between what was the central node of activity in the Athletes Village, a collection of temporary dining and recreation halls, kitchens and gate house buildings. This axis is currently a pedestrian crossover between the shopping centre and Beecroft Park and the design continues it on into the Park towards the playground. The axis design is modelled on the form of the central pedestrian route of the administration building. The two walls are designed and devoted to different aspects of the Village. One represents the architecture and the competition architects who designed it. The other represents the athletes themselves listing those who stayed in each house and their achievements at the Games. These would be portrayed with plaques and images set into the walls. The planting of hedges allows people to freely move off the axis however they are directed to a standing plaque with a Games logo commemorating the Athletes Village. The roof references the roof that covered the pedestrian route, in form and material, and follows the axis drawing further attention to and casting shadows along the path. Estimated Cost: $25,000 Concept 3 The design represents the street plan layout of the original Athletes Village and contains images of each house plan including street names. These will be shown using brass lining that would be set into milled concrete pavers. The paving would have annotations describing which architects designed each house and which athletes lived there. The Commonwealth and Empire Games logo is also set into the paving. Further plaques could also be shown to commemorate various significant events associated with both the Games and the Village. Two axes are placed in the design to direct the view to the two sporting centres of the Games, Beatty Park and Perry Lakes. These axes become seating walls under the shady trees and have plaques set into them to commemorate each of the games played at each venue and the medal winners in each of these sports. The existing palm tree becomes a feature in the new design. It represents the style of planting in the area at the time as it was a popular tree for the front garden and can be seen around many of the existing homes in the village area today. Estimated Cost: $43,000 WORKSHOP/COMMUNITY COMMENT: Residents and owners of properties in the Games Village area were contacted by post and invited to attend a workshop to consider the concepts prepared by the Landscape Architects. The Heritage Council of WA was also invited to attend. All Elected Members were advised of the workshop and provided with a copy of the concept plans and the resident’s invitation letter. Council conducted the workshop on the evening of 9 March 2005. The following were in attendance:- 13 Games Village residents Architect for City Beach Shopping Development



Mayor Marlene Anderton Councillors O’Connor, Pinerua, Barlow and Bradley Executive Manager Development and Environmental Services Ecoscape-2 persons (Director and Landscape Architect) The Heritage Council of WA tendered an apology, however, they did take the opportunity to view the concept plans and put forward a submission to the Town. Their comment was as follows: ”The concept designs by Ecoscape all respond to various aspects of the Games Village significance. The concepts are well represented and offer a range of opportunities for interpretation. The axial reference to two of the sporting venues, Perry Lakes and Beatty Park is a feature that is supported. Option 3 proposes the street plan layout be set into the paving. Whilst this concept encompasses the whole village, the interpretative impact and value may not be as clear and direct as Option 1. In our opinion, Option 1 is a strong and visual interpretation that incorporates many of the features of Options 2 and 3. Whilst supportive of all Options, we would suggest Option 1 provides an opportunity to engage with a broad range of people and interpret key aspects of the British Empire and Commonwealth Games Village.” At the workshop the Landscape Architects explained the concepts and then attendees broke into groups to discuss the different options. Copies of the plans were provided at each table and the Landscape Architects took the opportunity to circulate amongst the tables to respond to any queries. The groups assessed the options and recorded their comments. These comments were collected at the end of the meeting. Responses were received from 13 of those present, either by groups or individually. In collating and assessing the responses, it was found that the majority favoured Option 3, primarily because it was seen as best retaining the ‘open space’ character of Beecroft Park. There was some support for Option 1 and a combination of Options 1 and 3 was also suggested. No one supported Option 2. Other comments put forwarded included:- • Locate in Tilton Park not Beecroft Park • Consider alternative locations in Park • Reduce size of house profile • Brass plaque in front of shopping centre A summary of group and individual responses is circulated with the Agenda. A resident couple from the Games Village who were unable to attend the workshop, submitted a written comment, favouring the pavement style display of Option 3 (copy also circulated). DESIGNER’S RESPONSE TO COMMUNITY COMMENT Outlined below are comments which came out of the workshop. The designer’s response is in italics. “Locate in Tilton Park, not Beecroft Park” The location of Beecroft park is significant as it was the focus of games village and its administration center. Removing the entry feature from this location to another park would render the designs meaningless.



“Consider alternative locations in park” The location in front of the shopping center at Beecroft Park is significant as it was the central spine of the athletes village and its axis is important. Removing the entry feature form this location would lessen the significance of the axis in the design and this axis is an important part of the design interpretation. ”Reduce size of house profile” The size of the house profile is important as this design attempts to recreate or reference one of the original houses. The feeling that you are occupying the house space is essential for the design to work. “Brass plaque in front of shopping centre” The designs will incorporate plaques describing information relevant to the village. A single brass plaque would create little interest. “We are not so keen on wall which invite vandalism and damage and graffiti and could constitute a safety risk.” Vandal-resistant paints and covers are available for walls to protect from vandalism. “The first design will, in my opinion, need more upkeep and could look shabby quite quickly.” The upkeep should become part of the park maintenance and should not become shabby if the materials and construction are adequate. “Security is also a problem with high walls near to a children’s play area.” The addition of breezeblocks to parts of all walls will provide views through to the child’s play area. a view down the axis will be maintained to the play area. “This design, in my opinion, will also block the beautiful vista of the park and play area from those people enjoying a meal at the cafes opposite.” A beautiful vista will be created with the Empire games entry feature- The addition of breezeblocks to parts of all walls will provide views through to the child’s play area. “The second design, in my opinion, will have similar problems to the first design. Also, with both of these designs, being high wall can (may) create wind tunnels in our somewhat of a wind barrier and draughts.” The gaps and holes in the walls will let winds pass through freely. The placement of walls will not create a wind tunnel. “I would suggest the pavers have inserts showing the flags and names of the countries that participated in the Games.” Flags and countries as well as other information will be incorporated into the design of the walls. “Consider sitting this memoriam in other parks less ‘developed’ an example being the park bound by Tilton, Esk and Empire Avenue.” The location is important in commemorating the site and many of the elements of each design were created site specifically. “Consider an amalgamation of concept 1 and 3. Shows the architecture and provides the information of the layout of the wall of concept 1, provides a site to enhance information referenced on Concept 3.” Information will be placed in the design of the walls for Concept 1. “Ensure area has lighting available.” Lighting will be an important part of the detailed design stage.



“A small ie knee table high model of Concept One with information to bring people across from the shops to explore the park. The size of Concept 1 is important as the aim is to create the feeling of being inside one of the athletes houses. A small Knee-high model would not create this feeling. GENERAL COMMENT: “Security is a concern (don’t want to screen view of children in playground)” The addition of spaces in the walls with the use of more breezeblocks will provide views through to the playground. Other options? House shape is important • This is what Heritage Council was on about • The road layout is also important to Heritage Council “Garden Suburb” concept COMMENT: It is considered that all three Concepts prepared by the Landscape Architects would provide a suitable and meaningful commemorative feature of the Commonwealth Games and, in particular, the history of the Games Village. Of the three Concepts submitted, Concept 2 has not received any expressed support through the community consultation process. Concepts 1 and 3 have both had some support, however, most support has been for Concept 3. Purely on the basis of numbers, notwithstanding that there was not substantial participation in the consultation exercise, Concept 3 could be selected as the preferred Option. Its largely two dimensional nature will retain the openness of Beecroft Park and the story of the Games and the Games Village can be suitably depicted within the paving. The concept, however, will not serve as a feature when viewed from outside the park and will not necessarily draw people into the park to view the feature. Concept 1 on the other hand will provide a prominent feature within the Park, easily viewed from outside, drawing public attention. The profile of the typical Games Village house will be very readily recognised. The vertical elements will also provide a complementary counter point to the shopping centre entrance. Concerns raised during the community consultation period with regard to blocking of views, interrupting the open space character of the Park and concerns for vandalism and graffiti are noted. The Landscape Architects have indicated that their design could be revised to respond to these concerns, making the feature more permeable, retaining it as a focus, but, ensuring that it doesn’t unduly block the overall view of the Park. WAY FORWARD: To progress this matter, Council needs to agree upon a preferred Concept, which can then be designed in detail and fully costed. Once the detailed design and cost is available, the Town will be in a position to seek grant funding to construct the feature. Preliminary enquiries with possible grant sources, such as the Lotteries Commission and Heritage Council, indicate that there is a strong chance that the Council would receive funding for this proposal. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The Landscape Architects who have prepared the Concepts have indicated that detailed design and costing of a preferred Option would cost in the order of $7,000. An amount of $7,000 has been included in the draft budget for 2005/2006 to cover this cost.



No money has been allocated in the 2005/2006 budget for the erection of the commemorative feature, however as mentioned above, it is reasonably likely that the town will be able to substantially fund this through grants. Estimated costs for the three options range from: Option 1 $47,000, Option 2 $25,000 and Option 3 $42,000. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: This proposal is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Direction in relation to the promotion of a sense of identity and community in the Town, preservation of the Town’s heritage and enhancement of the built environment. CONCLUSION: Concept 1 provides the most prominent commemorative feature and most readily depicts the Games Village by way of its representation of a typical Games Village house. It is the Concept favoured by The Heritage Council of WA. Concept 3 is probably a more conservative approach in that it will be a far less prominent feature in the Beecroft Park, however, it does provide for informative and meaningful information on the history of the Games and the Games Village. It was the concept most favoured through the Community Consultation. Notwithstanding the favoured sentiments through the Community Consultation process for Concept 3, having regard to the above comments, it is considered that Concept 1 will be a bolder and more suitable commemorative feature. Concerns over this Concept, raised through the Community Consultation process can be taken into consideration in the detailed design (as outlined in the designer’s response). On this basis, it is recommended that Concept 1 be adopted and that the Landscape Architects be engaged to prepare a detailed design. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) Concept 1 prepared by Landscape Architects, Ecoscape, as depicted on plan Figure 1,

December 2004, Empire Games Entry Arch/Feature, be adopted, as the preferred option for the erection of an architectural feature in Beecroft Park to commemorate the Games Village;

(ii) an amount of $7,000 be considered for inclusion in the 2005/2006 budget for the

preparation of detailed design drawings and costings for (i) above. Committee Meeting 22 June 2005 During discussion, some members expressed concern that the recommended proposal, Concept 1, could be the subject of vandalism and could provide concealment for anti-social behaviour. In these circumstances, and having regard to the preferences expressed by the community at the workshop, Concept 3 is preferred. Cr MacRae said that Concept 1 is a bolder and more suitable commemorative feature.



Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry That clause (i) of the motion be amended by adding the words “as it is a bolder and more suitable commemorative feature.” Amendment lost For: Crs Berry and MacRae Against: Crs Bradley and O’Connor As the votes of the Members present were equally divided, the Presiding Member cast a second vote against the amendment. Amendment Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That clause (i) of the motion be amended by deleting the words “Concept 1” and inserting the words “Concept 3” Amendment carried For: Crs Bradley and O’Connor Against: Crs Berry and MacRae As the votes of the Members present were equally divided, the Presiding Member cast a second vote in favour of the amendment. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Gow That:- (i) Concept 3 prepared by Landscape Architects, Ecoscape, as depicted on plan Figure 1,



preparation of detailed design drawings and costings for (i) above. COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Cr Huxtable, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the item relating to the Games Village Commemorative Feature be referred back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee for further consideration. Carried 8/1 Against: Cr MacRae



REFERRED BACK RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) Concept 3 prepared by Landscape Architects, Ecoscape, as depicted on plan Figure 1,



preparation of detailed design drawings and costings for (i) above. Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, Members agreed that prior to committing further funds to the project to carry out the detailed design, Council should seek to secure grant funding. The referred back recommendation was then voted upon and lost. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That grant funding be sought from appropriate bodies for the detailed design and construction of a commemorative feature for the Games Village, as depicted by Landscape Architects, Ecoscape, ‘Concept 3’. Carried 9/0



DES05.105 LOT 6 (NO. 140) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE – SHOWROOM TO MOTOR VEHICLE SALES PREMISES (File Reference: PRO1000) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for planning approval for a proposed change of use seeking variations to Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 33DA-2005 LANDOWNER: Glenn Smith APPLICANT: Glenn Smith ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Commercial POLICY: Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 – Policy Manual: Policy 7.5: P5 – West Leederville Precinct Policy 6.1 Off Street Parking COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Car Parking 11 car bays required

(8 for showroom area, 3 for office area)

5 car bays provided

DETAILS: Approval is sought for a change of use from a showroom (currently vacant) to a motor vehicle display and sales room at the property at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville. The plans submitted indicate that the building will have a showroom floor for display of vehicles of approximately 300 square metres and three offices and a reception area at the front of the building of approximately 76 square metres. There is room for two cars to park in front of the building and three cars to park behind the building on the subject site. The applicant owns the neighbouring car yard on the corner of Railway Parade and Oxford Close. Applicant’s Grounds for Request The premises will be staffed by one person. This salesperson has a motor vehicle supplied which would be parked inside the showroom. This allows 7 car parking bays externally.



COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 as the proposed use (motor vehicle sales) is an “SA” use within a Commercial zone. All surrounding landowners were written to, a sign was erected on the site and a newspaper advertisement placed in the “Post” newspaper. At the time of writing this report, no submissions had been received. The advertising period finishes on 21 June 2005. COMMENT: West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy Within the areas zoned Commercial in West Leederville, the aim is as follows:- • The land zoned Commercial in West Leederville can be divided into three identifiable

areas, being the ‘Southport Street Commercial Area’, ‘Rosslyn Street Commercial Area’, and ‘Vincent Street West Commercial Area’. There is also land that does not form part of these areas but is located along Cambridge Street which can be identified as ‘Other Commercial Areas’.

• These areas will continue to accommodate a range of small to medium scale commercial

uses. Community facilities will also be permitted as will local shopping uses in selected locations. Mixed use (residential and commercial) developments are also encouraged.

• Careful control will be exercised over the nature of the uses, and their design and layout

in all commercial areas, to minimise the impact on any adjacent residential uses and to ensure a high standard of design appropriate to such locations.

The subject property forms part of the Southport Street Commercial Area. The Policy has a number of development standards for commercial development in this precinct, including a maximum plot ratio of 1:1, nil street and side setbacks, provision of awnings/verandahs over the footpath and vehicular access to the site being from a road or laneway other than Railway Parade. These development standards are not relevant in the assessment of this change of use application as it is an existing building and vehicular access is via Bamford Lane. The Southport Street Commercial Precinct Study promotes the commercial area as a predominantly commercial/service retail precinct and the proposal is consistent with this. The main issue with change of use applications is car parking. In this case, the previous uses would be classified as a ‘Showroom’ under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The proposed uses of the tenancy for motor vehicle display and sales are considered to be similar to a ‘Showroom’ use. Under Policy 6.1 ‘Off Street Parking’, a ‘Showroom’ requires 1 car bay per 40 square metres of net floor area. The area of the proposed tenancy is approximately 300 square metres and if assessed as a ‘Showroom’, 8 car bays are required. The office component of the motor vehicle display and sales use requires an additional 3 bays to be provided. Therefore a total of 11 car bays are required for the proposed use.



In considering this shortfall, it should be noted that the proposal could also be considered to be similar to an “open air display” use which is a more typical type of car sales premises. The parking requirement for this type of use is one bay per 100 square metres of tenancy which would require the provision of 3 bays. In addition, the office space is incidental to the car sales use and the provision of 3 bays for the office component also increases in the shortfall in bays. There are five car bays available on site with two existing at the front of the building and three at the rear. The seven car bays suggested by the applicant would be if two cars parked in tandem behind the two front bays. It is not considered there is adequate space for vehicle manoeuvring for this to occur. There is no opportunity to provide further carparking, however, it is considered that existing parking will be adequate and it is also anticipated that staff will be driving display cars which will be parked within the building. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with the intent of the Commercial zone in Southport Street Commercial area. The proposed car sales premises are within an existing building and will not result in a significant change in the streetscape, is located away from residential development, and do not impact on the existing commercial uses in the Centre. In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed use can be supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town's natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposed motor vehicles sales and display use meets the intent of the Commercial zone for West Leederville. Situated within a commercial centre with other low key operations, the car sales premises should complement existing commercial uses and should not have adverse impacts on residential development. The shortfall in carparking for the proposed use (as a ‘showroom’) is considered acceptable. In view of the above comments, it is recommended that the application be supported. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council, in the event of no objections being received at the conclusion of the advertising period, APPROVES the application for a change of use – showroom to motor vehicles sales and display at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville, noting a variation to car parking requirements, as submitted by Glenn Smith and shown on the plans dated 11 May 2005.



Committee Meeting 21 June 2005 During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application due to the shortfall in carparking for the proposed use. It was considered that the shortfall in car parking would exacerbate the existing parking problem in the area. In this regard, concern was expressed that the proposed use has the potential to generate significant parking demand and further that the two parking bays in front of the building would be used for vehicle display rather than visitor parking. The Administrations’ recommendation was then voted upon and lost. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, and matters required to be considered under this Scheme generally, and in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, the Council REFUSES the application for a change of use - showroom to motor vehicles sales and display at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as submitted by Glenn Smith and shown on the plans dated 11 May 2005 for the following reasons:- (i) non compliance with the car parking requirements of the Town Planning Scheme; and (ii) the parking shortfall in (i) above, could result in the exacerbation of the existing parking

problems in the area. In this regard, the proposed use has the potential to generate significant parking demand and further that the two parking bays in front of the building would be used for vehicle display rather than visitor parking.

Council Meeting 28 June 2005 The Council agreed to refer the application back to the Development and Environmental Services Committee for further consideration. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 28 June 2005) The applicant submitted further additional information in support of the application on 7 July 2005 as follows:-

(i) The ‘warehouse’ will hold 16 vehicles. There will be one salesperson on site. (ii) The warehouse is a secondary holding space as the open car yard (on the corner of

Railway Parade and Oxford Close) is the major place of business. (iii) The stepped up area at the front of 140 Railway Parade will be paved and levelled

to enable off street parking for 4 visitor vehicles on the front courtyard. (iv) The applicant guarantees not to display vehicles in the front visitor space area by

having a condition placed on any Council approval that only space within the building is to be used to sell and display vehicles. The Council approval would then go to the Motor Vehicle Dealer Licensing Board who would then license the premises for the internal areas only. If the applicant did display vehicles in an unlicensed area, this carries a substantial fine and continued abuse could result in taking away of the Dealer’s licence.

COMMENT: The applicant has provided additional information which demonstrates that the proposed motor vehicle sales space will only be within the building envelope and that it is mainly to operate as a secondary holding space for the existing car sales premises on the corner of Oxford Close and Railway Parade.



On this basis, there is some argument for applying the car parking provisions of ‘warehouse’ to the proposed use, whereby one car bay is required for every 75 square metres of storage space. Based on the floor area proposed for storage of vehicles, 6 car bays are required. (it is noted that the amended plan has also deleted the original office space at the front of the building with the retention of one office space of approximately 24 square metres for the one employee who will operate from the site. With the redesign of the front parking area and the two car spaces available at the rear of the site, it is considered that there is sufficient parking available for the proposed use. Should the Council agree to support the application on the basis of the additional information provided, the following recommendation is proposed: That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council, in the event of no objections being received at the conclusion of the advertising period, APPROVES the application for a change of use – showroom to motor vehicles sales and display at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville, noting a variation to car parking requirements, as submitted by Glenn Smith and shown on the amended plans dated 7 July 2005 subject to:- (i) the parking area in front of the building is to be used for visitor parking and no display of

vehicles is to occur in this area. REFERRED BACK RECOMMENDATION Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, and matters required to be considered under this Scheme generally, and in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, the Council REFUSES the application for a change of use - showroom to motor vehicles sales and display at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as submitted by Glenn Smith and shown on the plans dated 11 May 2005 for the following reasons:- (i) non compliance with the car parking requirements of the Town Planning Scheme;

and (ii) the parking shortfall in (i) above, could result in the exacerbation of the existing

parking problems in the area. In this regard, the proposed use has the potential to generate significant parking demand and further that the two parking bays in front of the building would be used for vehicle display rather than visitor parking.

During discussion, Cr Berry foreshadowed that should the motion presently before Council be lost, he intended to move that the application be approved. The motion was then put and lost 2/7 For: Mayor Anderton and Cr O’Connor Against: Crs Barlow, Berry, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and MacRae Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr Barlow That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council, in the event of no objections being received at the conclusion of the advertising period, APPROVES the application for a change of use – showroom to motor vehicles sales and display at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West



Leederville, noting a variation to car parking requirements, as submitted by Glenn Smith and shown on the amended plans dated 7 July 2005 subject to:- (i) the parking area in front of the building is to be used for visitor parking and no

display of vehicles is to occur in this area. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows: (i) the parking area in front of the building is to be used for visitor parking and display

of vehicles is to be restricted to the inside of the building. Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council, in the event of no objections being received at the conclusion of the advertising period, APPROVES the application for a change of use – showroom to motor vehicles sales and display at Lot 6 (No. 140) Railway Parade, West Leederville, noting a variation to car parking requirements, as submitted by Glenn Smith and shown on the amended plans dated 7 July 2005 subject to:- (i) the parking area in front of the building is to be used for visitor parking and display

of vehicles is to be restricted to the inside of the building. Carried 9/0



RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL DES05.127 LOT 400 (NO. 7) LARUNDEL ROAD, CITY BEACH – RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR CABANA AND DECK (File Reference: PRO 1379) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for retrospective approval for a cabana and deck, seeking a variation to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 49DA-2005 LANDOWNER: Mr C Mainwaring APPLICANT: Mr R Stewart ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 A building licence for additions and alterations to the existing house, including an additional storey, was issued on 16 November 2004. The works have been completed and the dwelling is occupied. On inspections of the site on 18 March 2005 and 4 April 2005, Council officers noted that timber decking and a cabana, which were not shown on the approved plans, had been constructed at the rear of the dwelling. The applicant seeks retrospective approval under Clause 34 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. POLICY: − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Side Setback (R Codes)

1.5 metres from the western side boundary

1.35 metres to the cabana posts

DETAILS: Lot area: 809 square metres Open space: 60% Retrospective planning approval is sought for the construction of a cabana and timber decking at the rear of the dwelling located at No. 7 Larundel Road, City Beach. The main private outdoor living area of the dwelling is at the rear of the dwelling. The timber decking is less than 0.5 metres above natural ground level and extends for the full width of the rear of the dwelling. As the timber decking is less than 0.5 metres above natural ground level, the decking does not require planning approval.



The cabana is attached to the rear wall of the dwelling and covers an area of the timber decking to the western side of the property. The posts are set back 1.35 metres from the western side boundary and more than 10 metres from the rear boundary. The retrospective application requires a Council determination as the cabana does not comply with the side setback acceptable development requirements of the R Codes. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes and the owners of the adjoining property to the west (No. 9 Larundel Road) were contacted for their comments on the side setback variation. The following submissions were received:- Submission 1

I assume that the Cabana referred to is the structure that has already been constructed. Surely it is Council’s responsibility to ensure that structures are built within the Town’s residential planning requirements. By asking neighbours to approve or object to such issues can only bring disharmony amongst neighbours.

Comment: the letter from the Town invites neighbours to comment on the proposed variations, in accordance with Clause 2.5 ‘Neighbour Consultation’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.

1. Has the boundary been surveyed to ensure that the setback is as shown on the plans (refer to my previous letters)? I believe the structure’s posts are closer than 1.35 m.

The Town assumes that the plans submitted show the correct boundaries and setbacks from the boundaries and does not survey boundaries. On an inspection of the cabana, the setback of the cabana posts from the western dividing fence measures at approximately 1.38 metres. If this is an issue between the neighbours, then a licensed land surveyor should be engaged by the owner to peg the location of the side boundary.

2. The roof structure is much closer than the 1.35m as mentioned in your letter. The plans submitted show that the roof is set back approximately 0.8 metres from the western side boundary. The building setback requirements relate to the setback of the cabana posts rather than the roof.

3. During the recent rains, water from the roof of the structure flowed onto our property – refer Local Government Act 1995 Schedule 3.1.



This issue is discussed in the comments below.

Your letter refers to “where the proposed development satisfies certain performance criteria”. Please confirm in writing prior to Tuesday 7 June 2005, what these criteria are.

A copy of the performance criteria was sent to the owners of No. 9 Larundel Road.

Submission 2

Thank you for your prompt advice on “certain performance criteria” in reply to my letter of 26 May 2005. In my letter I also asked a question on the survey of the boundary. I have asked this question of Council on several occasions, but to date have not received a reply.

See above. COMMENT: Retrospective Approvals The authority to issue retrospective approvals is provided for within Clause 34 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. This clause states, in part, that a person may apply to Council for planning approval for a development that has not obtained approval prior to commencement. It is noted that by granting approval, the planning approval does not prevent Council taking action in respect to unauthorised development before the date on which Council resolved to grant planning approval. Any enforcement action is at the discretion of the Council. When considering whether or not retrospective approval can be granted, the following matters need to be considered. Side Setback The acceptable development requirements of the R Codes (Clause 3.3.1 A1) require a minimum setback of 1.5 metres for the cabana from the western side boundary. The plans submitted show the cabana set back 1.35 metres from the western side boundary. If a proposed development does not comply with the acceptable development requirements, Council may still approve the development if it meets certain performance criteria. In relation to side setbacks, the performance criteria (contained in Clause 3.3.1 P1 of the R Codes) are as follows:

Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:-

- provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; - ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining

properties; - provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; - assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; - assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and - assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.



In reference to the above performance criteria, the cabana is to the east of the adjoining property and therefore will not affect the neighbour’s access to direct sun. The cabana is open on all sides except where attached to the dwelling and therefore will not affect the neighbour’s ventilation. The cabana will not affect access to direct sun and ventilation for the dwelling at No. 7 Larundel Road. The dividing fence (wall) assists in providing some privacy between No. 7 and 9 Larundel Road. In relation to building bulk, the cabana is 2.4 metres high above the timber decking so the dividing fence will only partially screen the cabana. The cabana is, however, open on all sides except where attached to the dwelling, and has a low pitched roof and an overall height of 3.5 metres above the timber decking. If the cabana was not attached to the dwelling, a setback of 1.0 metre from the western side boundary would comply with the acceptable development requirements. Overall it is considered that the cabana satisfies the above performance criteria and can be supported. One issue, however, is that the cabana does not have gutters installed, and so stormwater is being disposed of into the neighbour’s property. This is in contravention of Clause 3.9.2 of the R Codes and the Building Code of Australia, which require stormwater to be contained within/disposed of on site. The neighbour has raised concerns that this may affect the long term structural integrity of the wall. It is considered that a condition should be imposed requiring stormwater to be disposed of on site. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: In consideration of the above and notwithstanding the neighbour’s submission, it is recommended that Council grants retrospective approval to the cabana and decking, subject to a condition requiring gutters to be installed on the cabana, to ensure stormwater is disposed of on the site. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, the Council APPROVES the application for retrospective approval submitted by Mr R Stewart for the unauthorised constructed cabana and timber decking at Lot 400 (No. 7) Larundel Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 9 May 2005 noting a variation to the side setback requirement, subject to the following condition:- (i) gutters shall be installed on the cabana to the satisfaction of the Town within 28

days of the date of this decision, to ensure that all stormwater is disposed of on site in accordance with Clause 3.9.2 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.



Footnote: The Owner and Builder are advised that it is an offence to commence or carry out any development without first having applied for and obtained the relevant approval of the Council. Carried 9/0



DEVELOPMENT DES05.128 LOT 1 (NO. 36-40) SOUTHPORT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT (NINE OFFICES AND EIGHT GROUPED DWELLINGS) (File Reference: PRO 0416) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for planning approval seeking variations to Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 37DA-2004 LANDOWNER: Mr R and Mrs P Frame and Sircourt Nominees APPLICANT: Justin Quinlan ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No. 1: Commercial POLICY: Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 – Policy Manual:

− Policy 4.1: Design of Non-Residential Development − Policy 6.1: Off-Street Parking − Policy 7.5: P5 – West Leederville Precinct Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) COMPLIANCE: Use Class Permissibility Offices Grouped Dwellings

“AA” use (use is not permitted unless the Council has granted planning approval)

Required

Proposed

Off-Street Car Parking

Office/administration: 1 bay for every 30m2 net floor area, minimum 3 bays for each tenancy (Policy Manual) Commercial Tenancy 1: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 2: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 3: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 4: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 5: 4 bays Commercial Tenancy 6: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 7: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 8: 3 bays Commercial Tenancy 9: 6 bays = sub total of 31 bays

34 bays (shortfall of 5 bays)



Grouped dwellings: 1 bay per dwelling in

a mixed use development (Clause 4.2.1 A1 of the R Codes) 8 dwellings, therefore sub total of 8 bays = TOTAL of 39 bays required

34 bays (shortfall of 5 bays)

Plot Ratio Maximum 1.5: 1 for a mixed use development

1.6:1 (113.23 m2 more than permitted)

DETAILS: Lot area: 1073 square metres Approval is sought for the construction of a new mixed use (commercial and residential) development at Lot 1 (No. 36-40) Southport Street, West Leederville. The lot is triangular in shape, and is currently vacant of buildings but used as an informal parking area for surrounding commercial uses and the nearby Leederville train station. The lot is bounded by Southport Street to the west, Mitchell Freeway to the north-west, and Hawkes Lane to the south. The proposed development comprises a basement carpark with two buildings above. The northern building is proposed to contain two levels, with two commercial tenancies on the ground floor and two commercial tenancies on the upper floor. The southern building, which abuts Hawkes Lane, is proposed to contain three levels, with five commercial tenancies on the ground floor, the first level of the eight apartments on the first floor, and the second level of the eight apartments on the second floor. The basement carpark is proposed to contain 33 bays with 10 of these bays as tandem car bays. The basement car park is proposed to be accessed off Hawkes Lane. One car bay for persons with a disability is proposed on the ground floor, accessed off Southport Street. Open space is proposed as a triangular grassed area with bench seating and landscaping on the ground level, accessible from both buildings. In addition, private terraces are proposed on the first floor of Apartments 2 to 8 and on the second floor of Apartments 1, 2 and 8. Applicant’s Comments The applicant has submitted the following information in relation to the proposed development: 1.0 Location

The site in question is a large vacant lot situated in the Southport Street Commercial Precinct of West Leederville.

2.0 Existing Site

The site is a wedged shaped site between the Mitchell Freeway and Southport St in West Leederville, Perth. It is currently a vacant lot and is adjoined, on its southern boundary, by 2 residential blocks and one industrial/factory building. The site is zoned commercial/mixed use and boasts city skyline views to the south-east. There is an overall cross fall of 2.56m to the east/south-east. The site is irregular in shape and is 1079 sqm in area.



3.0 Extent of Work

The extent of work proposed in this Development Application involves a mixed use development, comprising of 9 commercial tenancies and 8 residential apartments with underground parking. The northern wing of the development would consist of a two storey pod, housing 4 of the commercial tenancies whilst the southern wing of the building would be made up of ground floor commercial with two-storey residential loft style apartments on the first and second floors. The podium consists of functional outdoor spaces for the commercial employees with a combination of hard and soft landscaping. Each residential apartment is provided with a complying outdoor area, in most cases, on the northern side of the building. There is also a large roof terrace off apartment 1.

4.0 Surrounding Context

The site lies within Southport Street Commercial Area as outlined on page 6 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, and related to the West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy. To the south of the property are two two-storey face brick apartment buildings, and one steel and brick factory building. The Mitchell Freeway sits to the east of the site. This is classified as one of the main arterial roads leading into and out of the city, therefore raising the notion that this site should be used for a key commercial development, acting as a landmark building and having a strong connection to the city beyond. Southport Street, to the west, is made up of mainly commercial and industrial buildings. It is an off shoot of the Mitchell Freeway and thus also has a high volume of traffic, particularly during peak commuter hours of the day.

5.0 Urban Design Issues Building Massing When travelling along either the Mitchell Freeway or Southport Street, there is a need for the site to promote a strong urban form and to mark the edge of the commercial precinct. Thus in responding to the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 the design presents a contemporary and sympathetic urban form. It proposes 2 stories fronting the street and 3 stories towards the corner of the block as suggested in the Southport Street Planning Policy. Street Façade An articulated and contemporary street façade presents itself to both The Mitchell Freeway and Southport Street. Expressed entry pods in to the commercial and residential tenancies provide both colour and a sense of layering to the building. A large blade wall intersects the Mitchell Freeway façade, acting as both a grounding element as well as a form that directs the user into the centre of the development. Distinguished by the use of a Vitra panel, or similar, cladding system, the blade wall signifies the pedestrian entrance to the building.



Privacy Each residential apartment is separated by a white masonry frame that acts as fire separation as well as a privacy mechanism. The apartments are oriented predominantly to the north, away from the two-storey residential blocks to the south, minimising overlooking. Solar Access and Ventilation The building as a whole takes full advantage of the north-south site orientation with single stack apartments that allow northern light, cross ventilation, access to the views, a reduction in circulation/ corridor space and an efficient response to fire access and egress. Each apartment and tenancy (except for one) has a northerly or north-west aspect, providing ample natural sunlight and opportunities for thermal mass. Where spaces also orient due east or west, they are provided with mesh sun shading devices in order to minimize the need for artificial heating and cooling of such spaces. Access Entry to the car park is via the existing right of way along the southern boundary. Pedestrian and disabled parking is via the entry on Southport Street. These solutions reduce any impact on the existing flow of traffic on Southport Street.

6.0 Compliance Issues

The site is subject to the following design guidelines:

• Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme no. 1 • Southport Street Commercial Precinct Planning and Land Use Study • West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy • R-Codes – R60 Mixed Use Development.

Plot Ratio The Planning Scheme No.1 requires that the maximum plot ratio for a mixed use development site may be increased to 1.5:1; “provided that not more than 25% of the additional floor space that has been allowed will be used for non-residential purposes.” Therefore: Existing Site area: 1079 sq.m Allowable plot ratio: 1.5:1, which is 1618.5 sq.m. Proposed plot ratio: 1.5:1, which is 1615.7 sq.m Car parking As previously stated, the site is zoned mixed use and therefore the R-Code Special Provisions, part 4 is a relevant design guideline for this site. It states that; Onsite car parking may be reduced to one per dwelling where on-site parking for other users is available outside normal business hours.



8 Residential spaces – 1 per dwelling 25 Commercial spaces – 2.7 per tenancy 1 Disabled space 34 Total car parking spaces This calculation does not quite equal the desired 3 car parking spaces per commercial tenancy, however, we believe that this slight variation should be allowable due to the fact that the size of the commercial tenancies are relatively small. They are a series of small commercial suites as opposed to large commercial floor plates. Also, the site is in such close proximity to public transport routes. West Leederville train station and the Cambridge bus route are a close and convenient means to access the site.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. All uses proposed are “AA” (discretionary) uses under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (see Compliance Table above) and are therefore not required to be advertised. Council has previously advertised applications for “AA” uses where significant variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, such as the car parking requirements, were proposed and/or the subject site was adjacent to residential development. In this case, the application does not propose significant variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and was rated at below 40 points (out of 100) under the Trial Community Consultation Policy, and therefore was not advertised. COMMENT: Land Use Suitability The use classes of ‘Office” and “Grouped Dwelling” are classified as ‘AA’ (discretionary) uses within the Commercial zone under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The reason for this is to ensure that issues such as compatibility with adjoining land uses, or amenity issues associated with intensity of use, can be addressed in an application for Planning Approval. The uses proposed for the site are consistent with those envisaged in the statement of intent for Commercial areas in West Leederville as they will add to the diversity and attraction of the Southport Street commercial area and West Leederville in general. In addition, the proposed development is consistent with the recommendations of the Southport Street Planning Study. The study recommends that the Town encourages and promotes the Southport Street Commercial Precinct as a more urban, mixed use, but predominantly commercial area where residential use may be accommodated as a supplementary use. Furthermore, the proposed development could be described as a ‘Transit Oriented Development’ (TOD). TOD combines walkable access to public transport with a vibrant mixture of urban life, including shopping, entertainment, recreation, business and community facilities. Focussing development where public transport is most accessible creates new job and educational opportunities and helps create more vibrant community hubs and an alternative to car travel.



Due consideration should, however, be given to vehicular traffic movements as a result of the proposed development. This issue is further discussed in the ‘Traffic Issues’ section below. Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 Policies 4.1 Design of Non-Residential Development The purpose of this policy is to ensure that development is designed to achieve a high standard of safety and convenience for residents and visitors, and to enhance the amenities and environmental standards of the area. Matters of safety have been addressed through the submission of a traffic assessment, which has been subject to detailed consideration and is further discussed below. 6.1 Off Street Parking The aim of this policy is to ensure the provision of adequate, safe and convenient off street parking for development sites and to promote a high standard of design so as to complement the built environment. The policy states that "The Council's approach to the provision of off street parking is based on the need for adequate supply of parking to meet the realistic demand and to ensure that parking facilities are designed with reference to safety, amenity and convenience for users and the public." A shortfall of five bays is proposed. As highlighted by the applicant, the site is in close proximity to public transport routes (ie. bus along Cambridge Street and Leederville Train Station). In addition the site abuts the bike path along the Mitchell Freeway. The basement car park includes an area for bike storage, to promote bike travel. Furthermore, based solely on net floor area rather than tenancies, the car parking requirement is 26 bays for the offices. Including the 8 bays required for the residential component, the car parking provision complies (total 34 required, 34 provided). In view of these comments, it is considered that the car parking variation can be supported. 7.5 P5 West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy The statement of intent for the Commercial zone in West Leederville reads: − These areas will continue to accommodate a range of small to medium scale commercial

uses. Community facilities will also be permitted as will local shopping uses in selected locations. Mixed use (residential and commercial) developments are also encouraged.

− Careful control will be exercised over the nature of the uses, and their design and layout

in all commercial areas, to minimise the impact on any adjacent residential uses and to ensure a high standard of design appropriate to such locations.

The proposed development in general terms meets the objectives of the Precinct Statement as it will provide a mixed use development that accommodates small to medium scale commercial uses and architecturally designed two bedroom apartments for city living. The guidelines for development in the West Leederville Commercial Zone encourage contemporary building facades that are detailed to provide variety and interest, entrances to buildings that are distinct and clearly identifiable and awnings over the footpath. Specifically for the Southport Street Commercial area, buildings should be at least 6.0 metres (2 storeys) and corner buildings should preferably be 9.0 metres (3 storeys), and buildings should be built up to the street alignment and side boundaries. In addition, ground floor levels should preferably be set at the abutting footpath level at the street.



The building is contemporary and ranges in height across the site from two to four levels. Exterior finishes include rendered and painted brickwork and blockwork, Vitra panel, steel mesh sunshades. Numerous windows, doors and terraces are proposed. The building is proposed to be constructed up to the site boundaries. The pedestrian entrance to the development from Southport Street is defined by a large blade wall. On the ground floor, there is a walkway in front of the northern building, parallel to Southport Street. Due to the slope down to the north, the solid wall on the Southport Street boundary and, adjacent to the walkway, ranges in height from 1.7 metres to 2.4 metres. It is considered that to reduce the impact of bulk of this wall on the streetscape, the portion of solid wall acting as a ‘balustrade’ for the walkway (1.0 metre high and approximately 16 metres long) should be replaced with a more visually permeable material, for example metal railings. A condition can be included in this regard. The development guidelines for the Southport Street commercial area also state that plot ratio for mixed use developments should not exceed 1.5:1. The development proposes an overall plot ratio of 1.6:1, which equates to an additional 113.23 square metres of floor space than what is permitted. Plot ratio effectively controls the bulk and intensity of development on a site. It is considered that the development of the site for offices is acceptable. In addition, residential development is not an intensive use. The height and bulk of the proposed development is also acceptable. The site is in a prominent location and marks the edge of the Southport Street commercial area. In addition, the excess plot ratio can be justified by the fact that as part of the development, Hawkes Lane will need to be widened in part, and modifications to Southport Street will need to be undertaken, at the applicant’s expense, which will be to the benefit of the Town. Traffic Issues The Southport Street Planning Study identified that Southport Street is a major carrier and will continue to perform this function for the foreseeable future. As such, the Study further states that new development should be encouraged that reduces the number and width of crossovers to the street, and rear laneways should be used for access wherever possible. As part of the development application, Transport, Traffic and Design Consultants prepared a traffic report of the proposal. This report has been assessed and the following is a summary the main traffic issues for consideration: 1. Hawkes Lane access to the basement car park:

Hawkes Lane is 5.0 metres wide. Council officers advised the applicant that the entrance to Hawkes Lane should be widened to 6.0 metres to allow adequate two way traffic in the right-of-way. The applicant has submitted a revised plan showing an increased width of 5.6 metres for a length of approximately 14 metres along Hawkes Lane. Council officers have no objections to the revised plan in this regard, provided that the crossover is 6.0 metres wide.

2. Queuing in Southport Street to turn right into Hawkes Lane: Hawkes Lane is in close proximity to the Cambridge/Southport Street intersection.

Southport Street adjacent to Hawkes Lane is currently not wide enough to allow northbound vehicles to continue past Hawkes Lane whilst other vehicles wait to turn right into Hawkes Lane to access the car park. Without alterations to the road, northbound traffic could block Cambridge Street, due to vehicles queuing to turn right into Hawkes Lane. In addition, southbound traffic stacks across the entrance of Hawkes Lane in the morning and afternoon peak.



Various options to resolve this issue have been discussed, including constructing a right turn lane for northbound traffic. The traffic report concluded, however, that Southport Street was not wide enough to accommodate a right turn lane and that such a lane would more than likely stack up back into the Cambridge Street intersection. Another option is to prevent right turning from Southport Street into Hawkes Lane by the construction of a continuous median or no right turn sign. A proposal to construct a continuous median would require the approval of the owners of the properties on the western side of Southport Street that would be affected by the construction of this median. This is because the median would prevent entering and exiting these properties with right turn.

3. Car bay for persons with a disability The Building Code of Australia requires the provision a car bay for persons with a

disability. To avoid the installation of a lift from the basement car park to the ground floor, the applicant proposes to locate this bay adjacent to the pedestrian entrance to the development, directly off Southport Street. The original plans would have required vehicles using this bay to exit the site in reverse, rather than forward, gear. Council officers had safety concerns with vehicles reversing onto Southport Street, as it is a District Distributor (B) road. A revised plan was submitted proposing the installation of a parallel bay with a median strip, which maintained a clear footpath width of two metres throughout. The revised proposal is not supported by Council officers, as the parallel bay is in the verge and the car bay should be provided within the boundaries of the site. Another alternative of providing a reversing bay in the verge is also not supported as there is not enough space.

4. Alternative access to the car park:

Council officers have suggested that consideration should be given to accessing the proposed car park further north along Southport Street, from a right turn lane where the merging lanes for northbound traffic are narrower, if the sightline distance is adequate. The applicant has advised that this option would require either lifting the ground floor level to provide headroom to the carpark which would cause serious problems with disabled access to any point of the site, or substantial ramping within the car park, which would require the deletion of several carbays and most of the ground floor of the commercial wing.

Overall, modifications to Southport Street will be required, which could be the construction of a median or widening of the road. Such options will require consultation with the owners of the properties on the western side of Southport Street who would be directly affected by these proposals. In addition vehicles exiting the car bay for persons with a disability must be in forward gear. The parallel car bay is not considered acceptable and an alternative that is to the satisfaction of the Town must be agreed to, prior to issuing an approval to this development. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town's Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town's natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. Any road modifications that are required as a direct result of the development would be at the developer’s cost.



CONCLUSION: In many respects, this proposal is positive for the area. It comprises mixed use development (commercial with residential above) which is something that the Town Planning Scheme encourages and will introduce a significant investment into the area and is in keeping with the objectives of the Southport Street commercial zone and the recommendations of the Southport Street Planning Study.

The concept of a mixed-use development on the subject site is consistent with Council’s intentions for the area, due to its close proximity to the city centre, public transport and major roads and government and worldwide policies for Transit Oriented Development (TOD). There are, however, significant traffic issues that must be addressed prior to an approval being granted. One relates to the modifications required for Southport Street to accommodate the development and the other relates to access and egress from the car bay for persons with a disability. In saying this, it is acknowledged that these requirements make development of this site difficult to achieve. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application for mixed

use development (nine offices and eight grouped dwellings) submitted by J Quinlan at Lot 1 (No. 36-40) Southport Street, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 23 May 2005 and revised Level 1 plan dated 7 July 2005 in its present form, for the following reasons:-

• the car bay for persons with a disability shown on the plans dated 23 May 2005

requires vehicles exiting the site to reverse onto Southport Street which is considered to be unsafe, and the car bay for persons with a disability shown on the plans dated 7 July 2005 is on the verge rather than within the boundaries of the site; and

• modifications to Southport Street to accommodate traffic movements into the site

will require consultation with the owners of neighbouring affected properties which has not yet been undertaken;

(ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans

incorporating the following modifications:-

• modifications to Southport Street to accommodate vehicle movements into Hawkes Lane that are to the satisfaction of the Town;

• one on site car bay for persons with a disability in a location that is to the

satisfaction of the Town and which allows vehicles to enter and exit Southport Street in forward gear;

• crossover to Hawkes Lane increased in width to 6.0 metres; • Hawkes Lane increased in width to 5.6 metres for the distance shown on the

revised Level 1 plan dated 7 July 2005;



• the 1.0 metre high solid wall adjacent to the walkway in front of Comm 1 and Comm 2 and facing Southport Street modified to be visually permeable;

• location of a bin enclosure that complies with the Town of Cambridge Health Local

Law 2001; (iii) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning

Scheme No.1, Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a mixed use development (nine offices and eight grouped dwellings) submitted by J Quinlan at Lot 1 (No. 36-40) Southport Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 23 May 2005 and revised Level 1 plan dated 7 July 2005, noting variations to variations to plot ratio and off-street parking, subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above and the following conditions:- (a) all car parking areas shall be sealed, kerbed, line marked and maintained to the

Town’s specifications, prior to the occupation of the building; (b) the tandem car parking bays in the basement car park shall be clearly identified as

staff car parking bays only; (c) the design, construction, and any modifications to Southport Street and Hawkes

Lane that are required as a direct result of the development shall be carried out in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Town and carried out to the Town’s specifications, at the developer’s cost;

(d) a Construction Management Plan being provided detailing how the construction of

the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site for the parking of construction vehicles and for the storage of building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the surrounding network and for the parking of workers’ vehicles off site. The construction management plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of a building licence;

(e) a Noise Management Plan shall be submitted for all construction site works in

accordance with the requirement of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

(f) any proposed signage being the subject of a separate development application. Footnotes: 1. The applicant be advised that with regard to the potential for noise and

disturbances, residential development in inner urban areas should be considered in terms of context of its location. The proximity of existing uses or potential uses which may impact on the amenity of the residential environment and requirements of the Town and other organisations to provides services, such as rubbish collection and works in the street, need to be taken into account by developers, landowners and potential occupants.

2. Use of double glazing and acoustic bricks is recommended to reduce the impact of

freeway noise on occupiers of the apartments.



Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, Members agreed that the Council should further explore the possibility of access being provided to this site via the road reserve to the rear which connects through to Cambridge Street. It is understood that this land is in the ownership of Main Roads. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry That a further footnote be added to the motion as follows:- 3. the Council to enquire into the future plans for the presently disused road reservation at

the rear of the site and investigate the possibility of it being used to provide a link from the site through to Cambridge Street.

Carried COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application for

mixed use development (nine offices and eight grouped dwellings) submitted by J Quinlan at Lot 1 (No. 36-40) Southport Street, West Leederville as shown on plans dated 23 May 2005 and revised Level 1 plan dated 7 July 2005 in its present form, for the following reasons:-

• the car bay for persons with a disability shown on the plans dated 23 May

2005 requires vehicles exiting the site to reverse onto Southport Street which is considered to be unsafe, and the car bay for persons with a disability shown on the plans dated 7 July 2005 is on the verge rather than within the boundaries of the site; and

• modifications to Southport Street to accommodate traffic movements into the

site will require consultation with the owners of neighbouring affected properties which has not yet been undertaken;



• modifications to Southport Street to accommodate vehicle movements into Hawkes Lane that are to the satisfaction of the Town;

• one on site car bay for persons with a disability in a location that is to the

satisfaction of the Town and which allows vehicles to enter and exit Southport Street in forward gear;

• crossover to Hawkes Lane increased in width to 6.0 metres; • Hawkes Lane increased in width to 5.6 metres for the distance shown on the

revised Level 1 plan dated 7 July 2005;



• the 1.0 metre high solid wall adjacent to the walkway in front of Comm 1 and Comm 2 and facing Southport Street modified to be visually permeable;

• location of a bin enclosure that complies with the Town of Cambridge Health

Local Law 2001;

(iii) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a mixed use development (nine offices and eight grouped dwellings) submitted by J Quinlan at Lot 1 (No. 36-40) Southport Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 23 May 2005 and revised Level 1 plan dated 7 July 2005, noting variations to variations to plot ratio and off-street parking, subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above and the following conditions:- (a) all car parking areas shall be sealed, kerbed, line marked and maintained to

the Town’s specifications, prior to the occupation of the building; (b) the tandem car parking bays in the basement car park shall be clearly

identified as staff car parking bays only; (c) the design, construction, and any modifications to Southport Street and

Hawkes Lane that are required as a direct result of the development shall be carried out in consultation with, and to the satisfaction of, the Town and carried out to the Town’s specifications, at the developer’s cost;

(d) a Construction Management Plan being provided detailing how the

construction of the development will be managed in order to limit the impact on the surrounding area. The plan will need to ensure that adequate space is provided within the subject site for the parking of construction vehicles and for the storage of building materials so as to minimise the need to utilise the surrounding network and for the parking of workers’ vehicles off site. The construction management plan will need to be submitted and approved by the Town prior to the issue of a building licence;

(e) a Noise Management Plan shall be submitted for all construction site works in

accordance with the requirement of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

(f) any proposed signage being the subject of a separate development

application. Footnotes: The applicant be advised that:- 1. With regard to the potential for noise and disturbances, residential

development in inner urban areas should be considered in terms of context of its location. The proximity of existing uses or potential uses which may impact on the amenity of the residential environment and requirements of the Town and other organisations to provides services, such as rubbish collection and works in the street, need to be taken into account by developers, landowners and potential occupants.

2. Use of double glazing and acoustic bricks is recommended to reduce the

impact of freeway noise on occupiers of the apartments.



3. the Council to enquire into the future plans for the presently disused road

reservation at the rear of the site and investigate the possibility of it being used to provide a link from the site through to Cambridge Street.

Carried 9/0



DES05.129 LOT 2 (NO.116) KIMBERLEY STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - THREE TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLINGS (File Reference:PRO1765) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 35DA-2005 LANDOWNER: Brenlane Pty Ltd APPLICANT: Cross Fishwick and Associates Designers ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R40 POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1)

COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Building Height ( Clause 2.3 RDG) Wall height

6.0 metres

5.4 metres – 6.6 metres

Landscaping (Clause 2.1.4 RDG)

Minimum of 60% of front setback area to be landscaped

19.5% landscaping within front setback area

Ground Rear Setback East (R-Codes)

1.0 metres Nil (Strata C)

Upper Floor Setback North (R-Codes)

2.2 metres 1.15 – 3.15 metres

Retaining/Filling (R-Codes)

Maximum height of 0.5 metres above natural ground level

0.5 – 1.5 metres along northern and eastern boundaries

Outdoor Living Area Minimum Dimension (R-Codes)

4 metres 3.75 metres (Strata C)

DETAILS: Lot Area: 810m2 Open Space: Strata A 45%; Strata B 45%; Strata C 57.85%



Council has received an application for three, two storey grouped dwellings at Lot 2 (No. 116) Kimberley Street, West Leederville. One of the dwellings (Strata A) has frontage and vehicular access directly from Kimberley Street and the other front dwelling (Strata B) and rear dwelling (Strata C) have vehicular access to Kimberley Street by a 3.0 metre wide common property access leg. The dwellings are proposed to be constructed of brick and colorbond. The applicant seeks variations in order to accommodate the new development which will be discussed in the report. As part of any approval, a requirement should be that the carports remain unenclosed to allow views to the dwelling from the street and vice versa. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was referred to the neighbours in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes. At the conclusion of the referral period there were no objections to the proposal. Officers discussed the proposal on-site with the landowners of No.118A Kimberley Street (north neighbour) and the neighbours are satisfied with the development provided that the applicant ensures that all retaining walls are built on the subject site and that a new colorbond fence (or masonry fence finished facing their side) is placed on top of the northern retaining wall (for screening/privacy purposes) at the applicant’s cost. The applicant has indicated to officers that this is acceptable and can be included as a condition of any approval. Delegated Authority As identified, the application involves variations listed in the above table. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the owner of the adjoining property has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this particular case, all of the variations referring to retaining, rear and side setbacks can be approved under delegated authority as the affected neighbours have not objected to these variations. The variations are considered acceptable as these will not have any significant impact on the amenity of their respective properties and are reasonable in relation to the topography of the natural ground level of the site, which requires some filling in order to achieve a relatively level surface. Therefore these variations are regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval and are not discussed further in this report. As such, the only outstanding variations which require discussion are in relation to landscaping, wall height and Strata C courtyard dimension. COMMENT: Wall Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 6.0 metres as contained in Clause 2.3(A1.1) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. The application proposes a wall height ranging 5.4 metres - 6 metres from natural ground level to the top of the eaves.



The wall height variation applies is limited to portions on all of the dwellings. The range in height is attributed mainly due to the gradual slope of the natural ground level, which generally falls 2.5 metres over the depth of the property (40 metres) from the front of the property to the rear boundary, and the proposed filling. The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3 (P1) Performance Criteria under the provisions of Building Height and Bulk contained in Clause 2.3 of the Residential Design Guidelines. Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria states:- “New development should meet these criteria: • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their

height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape; • Buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of existing

development within the locality; • Where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and

interesting façade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • “Building Height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to

recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: o Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; o Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and o Access to views of significance.”

The proposed filling of the property, particularly towards the rear increases the wall height of the rear portions of the front two dwellings and the rear dwelling. The fill is required in order to provide a more practical level upon which to build the dwellings. The neighbouring properties on both sides have recently been redeveloped as follows:- • No. 118A Kimberley Street (North) – Two Storey Dwelling approved 3/10/99 (Ref: 474BA-

1999) and constructed. • No. 114 Kimberley Street (South) – Two Storey Dwelling approved 5/3/02 (Ref: 27BA-

2002) and constructed. The construction of these dwellings included retaining and filling at the rear and side boundaries of these properties to a similar degree as the applicant’s proposal to fill/retain 0.5 – 1.5 metres above natural ground level. The subject site is therefore between two properties which have been built up and therefore the proposed filling and retaining will be consistent with the levels of the side neighbouring properties. In this regard, the additional wall height is considered to be reasonable. The overall height of the grouped dwellings is not considered to be excessive and would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or neighbouring properties by way of light and ventilation. The wall height of the dwellings at the front of the property is below the 6.0 metre requirement (i.e. 5.5 metres) and the portions of wall which exceed the height requirement are at the rear of the property and would not be easily visible from the street. Accordingly the variation in relation to wall height can be supported. Courtyard Dimension – Strata C The application does not comply with the acceptable development standards of Clause 3.4.2 “Outdoor Living Areas” of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia for Strata C courtyard. Clause 3.4.2(A2) [third paragraph] states:-



“An Outdoor Living Area to be provided with a mimimum length and width dimension of 4m, except in areas Coded R-IC where the minimum dimension may be 3m.” Residential development in an R40 zone requires each dwelling to have a minimum of 45% as open space with a minimum outdoor loving area of 20m2 (with minimum dimensions of 4.0 metres). The applicant proposes an overall outdoor living 34.5m2 in area with an effective courtyard with dimensions of 5 metres long x 3.75 metres wide. The application therefore does not comply with the minimum dimension requirement of 4.0 metres. Variations to the acceptable development standards may be considered under the relevant performance criteria of the Codes at Clause 3.4.2 (P2) which states: “An outdoor area capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling, if possible, open to winter sun.” The proposed overall outdoor living area is much larger than the required area and easily accessible from the dwelling via a habitable room. The dimensions of 5 x 3.75 metres is considered to be practical and useable. An additional area of 2.25 x 7.0 metres is proposed which may also be used for outdoor living and is accessible from the Living Room via double doors which open out into the courtyard area. The outdoor living area is north orientated and uncovered so it will be open to winter sun. Overall, there is relatively substantial outdoor living space available and the applicant’s proposal is seen to meet the relevant performance criteria. Accordingly, it is considered that the variation can be supported. Landscaping The proposed development does not comply with Clause 2.1.4 (A1) of the Residential Design Guidelines which states: “A minimum of 60% of the primary setback area is landscaped.” The development proposes 19.5% of the front setback area being paved for driveway and vehicular parking. Variations to Clause 2.1.4(A1) may be approved by Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criteria are met under Clause 2.1.4(P1):- • “The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”

appearance, allowing views to the dwelling; and • Development which minimizes impact on the natural topography of the locality and

conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.” In this instance the variation is considered acceptable when considering that most of the front setback area comprises of the common property, access driveway and two double carports for Strata A and Strata B. After provision of these elements, there is only a small area remaining for landscaping. The design is appropriate as it retains the existing street tree in the verge at the front of Strata B. On this basis, the variation is considered to be reasonable. A landscaping plan should be submitted for any approval. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for three two storey brick and colorbond grouped dwellings proposes a number of variations as outlined in the report. The affected neighbours have made no objections to the proposal, except that the northern neighbours have requested that any retaining be contained on the subject site and that a new dividing fence be placed on top of the new retaining wall. The variations proposed are considered reasonable in the overall development of the property, the topography of the site and levels of neighbouring properties, particularly the north and south adjoining properties. The development is consistent with nearby recent development in the street. Accordingly it is considered that the application can be supported subject to the conditions outlined above. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Cross Fishwick and Associates Designers as shown on the plans dated 7 July 2005, for three two storey grouped dwellings at Lot 2 (No. 116) Kimberley Street, West Leederville, noting variations to:- • Wall Height • Side Setback • Rear Setback • Landscaping • Courtyard Dimension and subject to: (i) all retaining walls are built on the subject site and that a sufficient new dividing

fence (i.e. colorbond) is provided to the northern boundary at the applicant’s cost to the satisfaction of the Town.

(ii) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the

areas depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development.

(iii) the carports shall remain open on all sides. No solid doors of any kind shall be

affixed to the carport. Carried 9/0



DES05.130 LOT 42 (NO.16A) CLUNE (CNR ST LEONARDS) AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED THREE LEVEL DWELLING INCLUDING UNDERCROFT (File Reference: PRO1565) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for provisional building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 26BA-2005 LANDOWNER: B and N Bennett Watt APPLICANT: N Bennett Watt ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R30 22 March 2004 The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) conditionally approved a subdivision of Lot 42 (No.129) St Leonard’s Avenue, West Leederville into two green titles, creating 16A and 16B Clune Avenue. 14 January 2005 The Town received an application for a three level residence with an undercroft on the portion of land recognised as 16 Clune Avenue, West Leederville. The plans involved a number of variations with particular regard to height, boundary setbacks and visual privacy. 26 May 2005 Amended plans were received at the Town. The proposal was still for a three level dwelling with undercroft but the pitched roof was removed for a flat/skillion roof and a number of the variations from the initial proposal were addressed. After discussions with the Town it was recognised that the structure was still too high and that they (the landowners) will be required to submit further amended plans. 13 June 2005 Amended plans were received at the Town. The overall height of the dwelling was reduced to a height commensurate with the approved three level dwelling (with undercroft) on the directly adjacent site to the west (16B Clune Avenue). 5 July 2005 Amended plans received at the Town. After further discussions with the Town and the affected neighbours to the south, the landowners submitted amended plans. These plans are the subject of this report.



POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape (R-Codes and RDG’s) Secondary Street Clune Avenue (north) Roof Pitch Landscaping (amount of hard paving)

1.5 metres

30 – 40 degrees

40% (max.)

0.75 metre (to entry stairs)

3 degrees

63.15% Boundary Setbacks (R-Codes) Ground Floor (west) First Floor (west) Upper Floor (west)

1.5 metres

2.6 metres

1.7 metres

Nil – 1.785 metres

Nil – 1.785 metres

0.8 – 1.785 metres Building Height (RDG’s) Wall Height

7.0 metres (max.)

6.0 – 8.05 metres Visual Privacy (R-Codes) Dining Room (west)

6.00 metres

1.785 – 2.55 metres DETAILS: Lot area: 367 m2 Open space: 46.30% Approval is sought for a three level dwelling with undercroft at Lot 42 (No.16A) Clune Avenue, West Leederville. The subject site is part of an approved subdivision and is located on the southern side of Clune Avenue at the intersection of St Leonards Avenue. The site overlooks Lake Monger to the north and a small park between Clune Avenue and Lake Monger Drive. The site rises up from the front (north eastern) corner of the site by a gradient of approximately 1.5 metres to the rear (south western) corner of the site.



The dwelling is proposed to be set back from the front (St Leonards Avenue) property boundary between 4.775 and 5.0 metres and set back between 1.5 and 2.110 metres from the secondary (Clune Avenue) property boundary. Clune Avenue is considered the secondary street to the subject site and the proposed dwelling and its appurtenant features have been orientated towards this street to take advantage of the views to the north and Lake Monger. Vehicular access to the site is from St Leonards Avenue and the driveway has been orientated to the southern side of the subject site so that the undercroft has been cut considerably into the subject site in this location. The dwelling is proposed to be constructed in rendered brick with a colorbond roof and has been designed with varying finished floor levels on all levels so as to address the topography of the site. The undercroft contains a double garage and store, cellar, gym and home theatre. A covered outdoor kitchen/barbeque area is also proposed at this level to the north eastern (front) corner of the site. The first floor contains the working portions of the dwelling such as the kitchen, formal dining and family rooms. An alfresco dining area is also proposed (directly above the kitchen/barbeque area) with access gained from the kitchen and family rooms. The rear or western end of the first floor contains a bedroom, lounge, kitchen and ablution facilities. A separate pedestrian access to the rear (western) side of the dwelling is also proposed. The upper floor contains the remaining 3 bedrooms and features such as walk in robes, bathrooms and an ensuite to the master bedroom. A balcony overlooking Lake Monger is also proposed with access to the area gained via the master suite and the master suite retreat. Applicant’s Ground for Request Prior to the January 2005 submission, the landowner consulted with the adjoining landowners to the south for their comment on the proposal. After discussions between the two parties, the plans were revised and the following comments were provided by the applicant’s designer in regard to the concerns raised. The comments are summarised as follows: “Open Space. The proposed building site coverage is 51.5% after we made an overall reduction on the size of the house. This leaves 48.5% open space with 38% which will be lawns and gardens. These figures comply with the R Codes for our zoning of R30. Height and Setback and Loss of Views and Winter sun. The adjoining landowner (16B Clune Avenue) has reconfigured the design of their dwelling to allow 1.0 metre and I have shortened the entire house and moved 1.0 metre from the line of your rear patio. We have also lowered our roofline at the west end to also allow for more light flow. The eastern (St Leonards Avenue) setback is set at 4 metres, the minimum requirement for our zoning. We also enquired and confirmed that we comply with the requirements for the upper level setback for the second storey. Both walls are at the required 1.5m distance from the boundary. The ground level and basement are both nearly entirely below the fence line. Wall Height. The house has been sunk as far as possible, without creating too steep a driveway gradient to access our below ground garage. On the walls closest to you the wall height is on average 5.6m at the southern boundary. We have a sloping block in two directions. The ground floor and second level reflect other two storey homes surrounding our site.”



The applicant has attempted to address the concerns of the affected neighbours to the south through the submission of amended plans and streetscape concepts. Subsequent redesigns and the plans (dated 13 June 2005), the subject of this report, have seen the three level dwelling pushed back to the rear (west) of the site (with a Nil setback) on the ground and first floor level and a greater setback than the required 4.0 metres to the front (St Leonards Avenue) boundary. The upper floor is set back 0.8 metres from the western property boundary to allow light and ventilation to the adjoining property to the south and its areas of usable outdoor open space. The setback variation to the rear (west) of the site will still allow limited views to the north (Lake Monger) for the adjoining affected landowners to the south as well as permit light and ventilation to the rear of the affected dwelling. With the submission of amended plans (dated 5 July 2005), the subject of this report, the applicants’ designer provided the following:- “The plans have been revised to reflect discussion points raised at <date> meeting, namely:- 1. Building Height reduced by 429mm. 2. Eastern setback to garage increased from 4.0m to 5.0m. 3. Common boundary wall west elevation. 4. Garage and laundry floor level raised 172mm. Subsequent to these changes, windows to east boundary and north elevation lower ground floor windows have been revised. I refer you to page 7 of 11 for street elevations of St Leonards and Clune Avenue.” The latest submission from the applicant will be circulated to Elected Members. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for a period of 14 days where an objection from the affected neighbour to the south was received. It is summarised as follows: “We wish to express our concerns regarding the proposed development. There has been improvement from the initial design particularly in terms of height; a flat roof is preferable to a sloped roof as this keeps the overall height down. The block is to our immediate north and the new building will impact on both our views to Lake Monger and our winter sun. Firstly, we would like to see the height limit at the eastern end of the property adhered to. At present the building is quite a lot over the limit and although it has been reduced at the eastern end it is still over height. Keeping the height limit particularly at the eastern end will help preserve our views. As proposed we will get sunlight to our upper level but Lake Monger will not be in our line of vision.



Secondly, there is no setback on the western end. This isn’t mentioned as a variation in the council letter but affects us significantly as it blocks our winter sun in our pergola area. We don’t have a problem with the parapet on the lower level. However we have requested that there is a minimum setback of 1m on the upper level, (we understand the usual is normally 1.5m). This allows 2m of breezeway and a little sunlight to our pergola area when the adjoining property at 16B is taken into consideration, as their setback is 1m with a lower parapet.” The affected neighbours to the west have endorsed the proposal and have no objections to the variations proposed to their common property boundary. Delegated Authority As identified above, the application involves variations to the streetscape, boundary setbacks and visual privacy requirements of the R-Codes. It also involves variations to the Town Of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) in regards to wall height and roof pitch. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. Whilst there are a number of variations requested, these are generally of a minor nature with limited effect on the neighbours. The above provisions in respect to the adjoining property to the west are regarded as having been satisfied, and therefore the variations to boundary setbacks and visual privacy requirements on that side do not require the Elected Members’ approval. The variations to the secondary street setback, paving within the front setback area, over height walls and roof pitch require further discussion. COMMENT: Streetscape Secondary Street Setback (Clune Avenue) Clause 2.1.1 A1.4 (ii) of the Towns RDG’s states that:- “Minor incursions into the street setback area are considered in accordance with Clause 3.2.2 A2 of the R-Codes” Clause 3.2.2 A2 (i) of the R-Codes states that:- “A porch, balcony, verandah, chimney or the equivalent may (subject to the Building Code of Australia) project not more than one metre into the building setback area, provided that the total of such projections does not exceed 20% of the frontage at any level”. The overall width of the entry porch and stairs is 5.15 metres or approximately 20.94% of the frontage (24.59 metres) at ground floor level. The proposed setback to the entry porch is 0.75 metres in lieu of 1.5 metres. This meets the acceptable setback requirement of projecting not more than one metre, however, it slightly exceeds the allowable width. Clause 3.2.2 P2 of the R-Codes states that:- “Minor intrusions and projections not to detract from the character of the streetscape”.



The entry porch and stairs could are considered as an architectural feature. The overall width (20.94% in lieu of 20%) of the entry porch and stairs is a minor variation. Clune Avenue has a varied streetscape with a number of contemporary/modern designs and varied setbacks (both primary and secondary) being afforded to the Clune Avenue streetscape. Given the above, it is considered that the proposal meets the above performance criteria in that it will not detract from the character of the streetscape and that the secondary street (Clune Avenue) setback variation be recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. Landscaping in the Primary Street Setback area Clause 2.1.4 (A1) of the RDG's states that:- “A minimum of 60% of the primary street setback area is landscaped.” In the case of this application, approximately 63.15% of the front setback area is proposed to be paved and therefore 36.85% is landscaped. Clause 2.1.4 P1 Performance Criteria - Landscaping in the Primary Street Setback Area of the RDG's goes onto state that:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”

appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and • Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality and

conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.” The variation to the amount of hard paving is a result of a combination of the configuration of the proposed dwelling and driveway. It is also a result of the topography of the subject site which requires retaining, particularly to the north eastern corner. The applicant has provided no written justification for this variation, however, it was verbally stated that the remaining areas will be landscaped to a high standard to maintain a green appearance to both the Clune and St Leonards Avenue streetscape. It will be a condition of approval that a landscape plan is provided prior to the issue of a Building Licence. It is considered the performance criteria in relation to a substantial green appearance and views to the dwelling will still be maintained is being met. It is not considered that the second criterion is being met, however, the amount of paving will not detract from the streetscape. Whilst the amount of paving within the front setback area is a major departure (23.15% or 12.93m2), it is a combination of the following matters which permit the variation to be supported. • The overall width of the subject lot after subdivision (12.09 metres); • The topography of the general area; • A common desire for residents/landowners is to have a double lock up garage or carport;

and • Corner location of the site. Although this form of development is not particularly encouraged, that is, where a garage and/or carport and driveway dominating the façade of the dwelling and streetscape, it is a result of a combination of the matters (as mentioned above).



It is therefore recommended that the variations to the streetscape compliance issues (paving within the front setback area) be supported. Whilst the above situation is considered acceptable, the amount of hard paving should be limited to the minimum possible, to still permit vehicular access and egress, whilst enabling the most landscaping possible. Given the above, approval to the variation to landscaping within the front setback area is recommended in the configuration proposed subject to the submission of a landscape plan prior to the issue of a Building Licence. Wall Height The proposal does not comply with the wall height requirements of the Towns RDG’s. Clause 2.3 A1.1 (iii) states that in West Leederville:- “Top of a skillion, curved or flat roof that does not exceed 7.0 metres in height”. Given the topography of the site, wall heights across the northern facade of the dwelling (Clune Avenue) range from 7.40 – 8.05 metres, with the highest point being at the north eastern corner of the site where it falls away considerably to the road reserve level. Along the western facade of the dwelling (rear), wall heights range from 7.25 to 7.45 metres. To the southern side of the dwelling, wall heights vary from 6.80 and 7.25 metres. To the east (St Leonards Avenue) side of the proposed dwelling, wall heights range between 6.90 and 8.05 metres. The applicants have, through the submission of a number of amended concepts, lowered the overall wall and building height. The removal of the pitched roof for a flat roof structure alleviates some of the concerns of the affected neighbours to the south, however, variations to the overall wall height are still proposed and a variation has resulted to the roof pitch requirements for dwellings within West Leederville. Clause 2.3 P1 of the RDG’s states that:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their

height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape; • buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of the existing


interesting facade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to

recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:

o adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; o adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and o access to views of significance.

Clause 3.7.1 P1 of the R-Codes also states that:- “Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: • adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance”.



The new three level dwelling with wall heights ranging from 6.80 – 8.05 metres is a departure from the acceptable development standard of 7.0 metres as listed above, however, it is considered that the overall height of the dwelling will not dominate the Clune or the St Leonards Avenue streetscape as the height of the proposed dwelling is commensurate with the approved dwelling at 16B Clune Avenue and follows the natural topography of the area. In addition, adverse comments were received from the adjoining landowners to the south regarding the wall height variations particularly with respect to how the overheight structure will impact on views. In regards to the first two criterions, it is considered that adequate and direct sunlight and ventilation will still be afforded to the building and adjoining buildings. The proposed three level dwelling will create a higher level of overshadowing on the adjoining landholding to the south, although it is at a compliant level (i.e. - less than 35% of the adjoining lot area). The proposal is also considered to partially satisfy the third criterion; which has regard to protecting adjoining properties access to views of significance. With a new development on a vacant lot, neighbours may reasonably expect compliance where they, maybe directly impacted upon, however, the following must be taken into consideration:- • The southern wall of the proposed building ranges in height from 6.80 – 7.25 metres. The

overheight section of wall (along the southern façade) is to the western end and is considered an architectural feature (i.e. – 250mm wide) and is considered to not impact on adjoining neighbours views to significance;

• The gutter to the western wall does not exceed the 7.0 metre (max.) wall height requirement;

• The building is proposed to be setback between 4.775 and 5.0 metres from the front (St Leonards Avenue) boundary, in lieu of the required 4.0 metres;

• The proposed level of overshadowing is compliant (i.e. – less than 35%) • The natural ground level on the adjoining landholding to the south is approximately 1.5

metres higher than the subject lot; and • It is the front (northern) façade of the proposed building where the majority of wall height

variations occur. This can be attributed to the topography of the site and the configuration and shape of the proposed building.

Notwithstanding the adjoining neighbours objections, there are a number of factors (i.e. – topography, front setbacks and the fact that the wall to the southern side of the dwelling, which will be visible to the neighbours rather than the higher northern side that will limit views) for the proposal to be considered favourably and hence the building with wall height variations is recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. Roof Pitch The proposal is for a colorbond roof pitched at 3 degrees (which is considered a flat roof as it has a pitch less than 5 degrees). The applicant had amended this from the original proposal where a pitched roof (in accordance with the Towns RDG’s) was proposed, however, major departures from wall height requirements were proposed and the impact on views and overshadowing for adjoining landowners (to the south) was greater. Clause 2.1.5 (A1.3) – Architectural Character of the RDG’s states that in West Leederville:- “Primary roofs of a dwelling visible from the street:- • are hipped and/or gabled; and • have a pitch between 30 degrees and 40 degrees.”



Clause 2.1.5 (P1) of the RDG’s states that: “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the

locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural style which characterises the immediate locality;

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

housing in the immediate locality.” The flat roofs do not comply with the acceptable development requirements, however, it is considered that the above performance criteria are being met. There are a number of contemporary two storey dwellings in the general vicinity, however some have roof forms which are compliant and others do not. The flat roof structure reduces the level of overshadowing on the adjoining property to the south, and reduces the impact on loss of views. It is therefore considered that the proposed roof form can be approved in the configuration proposed. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Having regard to the comments outlined in the above report, it is considered that the proposed three level dwelling including an undercroft has been designed so that it complements the streetscape and has been designed to take into consideration the adjoining dwelling to the south. It is also considered that the proposal meets the performance criteria regarding streetscape, boundary setbacks, wall height and visual privacy. Adverse comments were received from the landowners to the south regarding the variations proposed and whether privacy, amenity and views will be maintained. Having regard to the comments above, this is considered to be the case. It is recommended that the three level dwelling including an undercroft can be supported in the configuration proposed. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Natalie Bennett Watt for a three level dwelling including an undercroft at Lot 42 (No.16A) Clune (cnr St Leonards) Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 5 July 2005 noting variations to:- • Streetscape; • Boundary Setbacks; • Wall Height; and



• Visual Privacy subject to the following condition:- (i) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the areas

depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development.

Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, concern was expressed regarding the level of compliance of the development and, in particular, the resulting affect on the neighbour to the south. Accordingly, Members agreed that the boundary setbacks on the western side of the development should be brought into full compliance with the R Codes. Amendment Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by MacRae That a further condition be added to the motion as follows:- (ii) the development being amended to bring it into full compliance with the R Codes for the

boundary setback on its western side. Carried As the votes of the Members present were equally divided, the Presiding Member cast a second vote in favour of the motion. For: Crs Bradley (Casting Vote) and O’Connor Against: Crs Berry and MacRae COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Natalie Bennett Watt for a three level dwelling including an undercroft at Lot 42 (No.16A) Clune (cnr St Leonards) Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 5 July 2005 noting variations to:- • Streetscape; • Boundary Setbacks; • Wall Height; and • Visual Privacy subject to the following condition:- (i) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the

areas depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The



landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development;

(ii) the development being amended to bring it into full compliance with the R Codes

for the boundary setback on its western side. During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the application due to the number and extent of the variations sought. The motion was then put and lost 3/6 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Bradley and O’Connor Against: Crs Barlow, Berry, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and MacRae



DES05.131 LOT 399 (NO. 64) BRANKSOME GARDENS, CITY BEACH - THREE STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE (File Reference:PRO0380) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 138BA - 2005 LANDOWNER: T and T Richards APPLICANT: Riverstone Construction ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG)

COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Building Height (RDGs) Wall height

6.5 metres 5.8 – 7.1 metres along the side elevations 7.6 metres for stair tower 8.3 metres for portion of west elevation between two gable walls

Roof Height (RDGs)

Maximum 10.5 metres 10.0 – 11.1 metres

Visual Privacy (R-Codes) Balconies

Min. setback of 7.5 metres within 45 degree cone of vision

Rear Balconies North 4.2 metres South 6.5 metres Front balcony North 3.0 metres

DETAILS: Lot Area : 804m2 Open Space : 75.5%



Council has received an application for a three storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 399 (No. 64) Branksome Gardens, City Beach. The proposed brick and colorbond roof dwelling is relatively large accommodating five bedrooms and three bathrooms and a lift. The undercroft garage is substantially situated below ground level and the third floor is accommodated in the roof space. The roof has a substantial pitch (41 degrees) which creates a large space within the roof for a third floor. Two dormer windows are located on the side elevations to allow light into the third floor. Gable end openings at the front and rear of the dwelling provide sunlight, ventilation and aspect for the third floor. An existing original dwelling on the property, including outbuildings, will be demolished to facilitate the proposal. The dwelling has been positioned and designed to take advantage of the westerly ocean views and parkland at the rear of the property. The subject site is located within the City Beach Precinct in an area which is currently undergoing substantial change whereby original single storey dwellings are being demolished and replaced with larger dwellings. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was referred to the owners of adjoining properties in relation to the variations. Submissions were received from both side neighbours to the north and south of the subject site. Both submissions are relatively lengthy and are summarised as follows [a copy of the submissions are circulated with the agenda]: Neighbour No.62 Branksome Gardens (North) The submission is from Jones Coulter Young Architects and Urban Designers acting on behalf of the landowner. • “Although the building has a small footprint, it is over height (three storey) and contains

large dormer windows on the sides and a stair tower at the front. It is an imposing development.

• Other matters were raised including a request for a greater rear setback (though the

provided rear setback complies) and consideration of environmental design and style of the dwelling which are considered inappropriate.”

Neighbour No.66 Branksome Gardens (South) The submission is from Masterplan Consultants WA acting on behalf of the landowner. • “The extent of overlooking as a result of the proposed development is unacceptable and

would restrict the landowner’s ability to use and enjoy outdoor spaces to the rear of the dwelling.

• The overall height and mass of the proposed dwelling will have an adverse impact on the

landowner’s property in terms of visual bulk and overshadowing. Furthermore, the large dormer windows along the side of the roof exacerbates the impact of bulk on the outdoor spaces of the landowner’s property.



• The stair tower at the front of the dwelling which is overheight exceeds the compliance standard and adds to the visual bulk and scale of the development which is considered excessive.”

COMMENT: Wall Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 6.5 metres as contained in Clause 2.3 (A1.2) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. The application proposes a wall height ranging from 5.8 metres to 8.3 metres from natural ground level to the top of the eaves. The range in wall height is attributed to the applicant’s design of the dwelling (i.e. stair tower) and the slope of the natural ground level from the middle of the property down to the front and rear of the property. The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria under the provisions of the Residential Design Guidelines. Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria states:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their



interesting façade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • Where the performance criteria contained in Part 3.7.1 P1 of the R-Codes are met.” • Building Height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to


In a letter dated 21 June 2005, the applicant has submitted the following comments in relation to the wall height variation [due to the relatively lengthy submission, the submission is circulated with the agenda]: • The wall height to the majority of the dwelling complies with the Town’s requirement; • Due to the slope of the land at the rear of the property, a dispensation is requested for the

section of non-complying wall; • The additional height for the stair well is an architectural “gothic” style feature of the

dwelling and plays an important part in the overall design presentation; • The existing mature Norfolk Island pine at the front of the property will definitely be

retained and conceals the dwelling from the street to some extent and lessens the impact of the dwelling on the streetscape.

There are three sections of the dwelling which are non-compliant with the wall height requirement (shown in italics below) and are discussed as follows: The stair tower measures 7.6 metres in wall height and has a width of 4.3 metres. The stair tower is at the front of the dwelling and presents as an architectural feature of the dwelling. The proposed stair tower is considered to meet the above performance criteria as it is:-



• setback 5.0 and 10.0 metres from the north and south side boundaries, 19.5 and 19.0

metres from the front and rear property boundaries respectively thus allowing light to neighbouring properties and having a limited impact on the streetscape;

• the size of the stair tower, its dimensions and overall wall height of 7.6 metres is a

relatively small part of the overall building footprint and will not dominate its surroundings. The north side elevation wall height ranges 5.9 – 7.1 metres with the non-complying wall height section being a 3.0 metre section of wall at the rear of the dwelling. This non-complying section is primarily due to the slope of the natural ground level which falls approximately 1.1 metres over 6.0 metres in this area of the property. The non-compliance is considered to be minor as it only relates to a 3.0 metre section of the dwelling, whereas the remainder to the north side elevation complies with the 6.5 metre requirement. The rear elevation contains two gable walls which are exempt from the 6.5 metre wall height requirement, with the exception of the section of wall which comes between the two gables. This section of wall is 8.3 metres high from the natural ground level to the top of the eaves. It is considered that this section of wall is reasonable as it lies between two gable walls and will not be easily visible from the neighbouring properties, being concealed by the two protruding gable walls. Overall, an assessment of the wall height non-compliance against the relevant performance criteria leads to supporting the wall height variations for the reasons stated above. Roof Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 10.5 metres as contained in Clause 2.3 (A1.2) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. The application proposes a roof height ranging from 10.0 metres to 11.1 metres from natural ground level to the top of the roof ridge. The range in roof height is attributed to the applicant’s design of the dwelling and the slope of the natural ground level from the middle of the property down to the front and rear of the property. The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria which states:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their



interesting façade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • Where the performance criteria contained in Part 3.7.1 P1 of the R-Codes are met.” • Building Height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to

recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:-



o Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; o Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and o Access to views of significance.”

The roof area of the dwelling which is over height mostly occurs in the back half of the dwelling where the natural ground level falls down from the middle of the property to the rear boundary. The non-complying roof height is considered to be excessive, particularly as the applicant is proposing a third floor in the roof space. The roof height ranging from 10.0 – 11.1 metres is considered to be excessive in terms of overshadowing and visual bulk and scale of the development. The applicant has discussed the matter with officers of the Town and advise that the sloping natural ground level makes it difficult to comply with the Town’s requirements. It is felt that the non-compliance is mainly due to the amount of floor area in the third storey. The proposed building footprint is, however, relatively small and because the building footprint is small, some dispensation is considered reasonable to the overall roof height. A maximum roof height of 10.8 metres is considered an appropriate height provided that the dormer windows on the side elevations are reduced to approximately half their current size due to their visual impact. Visual Privacy The application proposes variations in relation to visual privacy under the Codes as stated in the compliance table. Variations to the visual privacy acceptable development standards prescribed by the Codes may be considered under the performance criteria of Clause 3.8.1 which states: “Avoid direct overlooking between active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the development site and the habitable rooms and outdoor living areas within adjoining residential properties taking account of:- • The positioning of windows to habitable rooms on the development site and the adjoining

property; • The provision of effective screening; and • The lesser need to prevent overlooking of extensive back gardens, front gardens or areas

visible from the street.” There are three balconies which are non-compliant (shown in italics below) and are discussed as follows:- The front balcony accessed from the lounge is on the second storey level and faces the front of the property. The balcony has an area of 7.35m2 (2.1 metres x 3.5 metres) and is screened by a 1.75 metre high privacy screen on the northern side. The balcony is set back 1.7 metres from the side north boundary and the visual privacy setback provided is 3.0 metres from a 45 degree cone of vision. The Codes require a minimum visual privacy setback of 7.5 metres from a 45 degree cone of vision to a neighbour’s boundary. It is considered that the unscreened non-compliant section of the balcony is reasonable as it is seen to satisfy the relevant performance criteria of the Codes. The balcony overlooks the garage roof and across the front driveway and garden of No.62 Branksome Gardens. These areas are not active outdoor habitable spaces and are already visible from the street. The variation is therefore considered reasonable.



Both rear second and third storey balconies have overlooking variations to both the northern and southern neighbouring properties. The 45 degree cone of vision field of view captures a portion of the corners of both neighbouring properties. A 6m2 area of the southern neighbour’s property in the north-west corner falls within the cone of vision and an 8m2 area of the northern neighbour’s property in the south-west corner falls within the cone of vision. Both of these occurrences are considered to be minor variations as the areas being overlooked are only small in area and fall in the corners of the properties where there is already existing garden vegetation. The overlooking does not occur in the primary outdoor living areas which are located further away from the corners of the property. The variations are considered to meet the relevant performance criteria and are considered reasonable. In summary, the variations proposed in the above compliance table are considered to be reasonable subject to the maximum roof height being no greater than 10.8 metres and the size of the dormer windows on the side elevations being reduced by at least half their current size. On this basis, the application can be supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for a three storey dwelling with undercroft has a number of variations which are listed in the report including wall height, roof height and visual privacy. Both north and south side neighbours have objected to the variations on the grounds of loss of amenity. After consideration of the extent of all the variations and having regard to the relevant performance criteria, it is considered that the variations related to wall height and visual privacy can be supported. In each case they are considered to be minor and will not significantly detract from the amenity of the streetscape or have a significant adverse impact on neighbouring properties. The variation in relation to overall roof height is not supported as the variation is considered to be excessive. A maximum roof height of 10.8 metres can be supported on the basis that the footprint of the building is relatively small and the dormer windows be reduced in size by at least half their current size. Subject to these conditions, it is considered that the application can be supported. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1,

Council is not prepared to approve the application submitted by Riverstone Construction for a three storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 399 (No. 64) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on plans dated 22 June 2005 for the following reasons:-

(a) the proposed roof height does not comply with the Acceptable Development

Requirements or satisfy the Performance Criteria of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines Clause 2.3 – Building Height;



(b) the proposal if approved would result in an undesirable precedent for other

applications seeking variations of a similar nature;

(c) the development will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties and the streetscape;


incorporating the following modification:-

(a) the maximum overall height of the roof being no greater than 10.8 metres above the natural ground level;

(b) the dormer windows on the side elevations being reduced by approximately half the size of that shown on the existing plans to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,

Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application submitted by Riverstone Construction for a three storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 399 (No. 64) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on plans dated 22 June 2005, subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the change referred to in (ii) above.

Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 Members were advised that both side neighbours have discussed the proposal with the applicant and have submitted revised submissions. Essentially, the submissions state that the neighbours are prepared to withdraw their current objections subject to conditions. These include the dwelling to be set back a further 1.0 metre from the rear boundary and for the dormer windows on the side elevations to be reduced in size by approximately half. Shifting the dwelling back from the rear boundary another 1.0 metre will have the following effects in relation to the neighbouring properties: • overall maximum roof height is reduced from 10.0 – 11.1 metres to 10.0 – 10.9 metres; • overall maximum side elevation wall heights are reduced from 5.8 – 7.1 metres to 5.8 –

6.9 metres; • visual privacy cone of vision variations are increased in the south-west and north-west

corners of the neighbouring properties, No.62 and No.66 Branksome Gardens respectively.

The neighbours have no objection to the amendments stated above and these variations are considered reasonable from a planning view. In particular, the neighbours have indicated that the impact of these variations on their amenity is acceptable and the proposal will not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape. Accordingly, it is recommended that the application can be supported subject to the conditions specified by the neighbours as follows:- • the dwelling being moved back 1.0 metre from the rear boundary; • the dormer windows on both side elevations being reduced by half their size with the

windows having a minimum sill height of 1.7 metres. Discussion ensued. Members agreed that, in view of the further information presented at Committee, the application could be supported. The Administration’s recommendation was then voted upon and lost.



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Riverstone Construction for a three storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 399 (No.64) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on plans dated 22 June 2005 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the dwelling being moved back 1.0 metre from the rear boundary; (ii) the dormer windows on both side elevations being reduced by half their size with

the windows having a minimum sill height of 1.7 metres. and noting variations to: • Wall Height; • Visual Privacy; • Roof Height. During discussion, Members were advised that since the Committee meeting on Tuesday night, one of the neighbours has brought to the Administration’s attention that his support for the proposal (subject to the two recommended conditions) is based solely on the plans submitted to Council and he seeks assurance that should there be any alterations to these plans, he will have further opportunity to comment. Amendment Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Bradley That a further clause (iii) be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) neighbour support for the variations proposed in this application is on the basis of

the above conditions (i) and (ii) and the approved plans (dated 22 June 2005). Any variations to this approval will be subject to further neighbour comment.

Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Riverstone Construction for a three storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 399 (No.64) Branksome Gardens, City Beach as shown on plans dated 22 June 2005 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the dwelling being moved back 1.0 metre from the rear boundary; (ii) the dormer windows on both side elevations being reduced by half their size with

the windows having a minimum sill height of 1.7 metres. (iii) neighbour support for the variations proposed in this application is on the basis of

the above conditions (i) and (ii) and the approved plans (dated 22 June 2005). Any variations to this approval will be subject to further neighbour comment;

and noting variations to:



• Wall Height; • Visual Privacy; • Roof Height. Carried 9/0



DES05.132 LOT 62 (125A) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT AND BELOW GROUND SWIMMING POOL (File Reference: PRO0153) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for provisional building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 46DA-2005 LANDOWNER: A and M Davey APPLICANT: Edit Architecture ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R30 12 July 2002 The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) conditionally approved the subdivision of Lot 358 (No.125) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville into two green title lots. The lots have subsequently been created which leads to consideration of this application for development of a two storey dwelling with an undercroft garage and store. An application for a two storey dwelling at No.125A St Leonards Avenue (northern neighbour) is also being considered by Council in this agenda. 26 April 2005 The Town received an application for a two storey residence with undercroft car parking and storage. The proposal was for a butterfly skillion roof with a pitch of less than 5 degrees. The plans involved a number of variations affecting the adjoining neighbours with particular regard to height, boundary setbacks, visual privacy and roof pitch. 9 June 2005 Amended plans were received at the Town. The proposal was still for a two storey dwelling with undercroft but the front portion of the butterfly skillion was removed and a proposal for a pitched roof was put forward. A number of the variations from the initial proposal were addressed. These plans are the subject of the report. POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes)



COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed

Streetscape (R-Codes) Garage Door (width) Driveway Width Landscaping in the Primary Setback Area

50% (max.)

40% (max.)

40% (max.)

66.22%

68.54%

93.4% Boundary Setbacks (R-Codes) Ground Floor (south) Terrace – Laundry Upper Floor (south) Balcony 1 – Sitting Room Upper Floor (south) Void Ground Floor (north) Whole of Wall Upper Floor (north) Whole of Wall Ground Floor (west) Pool Store Retaining Wall (south)

1.5 metres

1.9 metres

2.7 metres

2.0 metres

3.3 metres

1.0 metre

1.5 metres

1.0 – 2.0 metres

1.0 – 1.5m

2.5 metres

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Site Works (R-Codes) Fill (south)

0.5 metre (max.)

Nil – 1.0m Building Height (RDG’s) Wall Height

6.0 metre walls beneath

pitched roofs

7.0 metres walls beneath skillion roofs

6.80 – 8.05 metres



Visual Privacy (R-Codes) Bed 1 (north) Sitting Room (south) Balcony 2 (north and south)

4.5 metres

6.0 metres

7.5 metres

4.2 metres @ 45 degrees

1.6 metres @ 45 degrees

4.3 metres

@ 45 degrees (north) 6.3 metres

@ 45 degrees (south) DETAILS: Lot area: 336m2 Open space: 54.98% Approval is sought for a two storey dwelling with undercroft vehicle parking and storage at Lot 62 (No.125A) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville. The subject site forms part of an approved subdivision and is located on the western side of St Leonards Avenue nearest the intersection of Clune Avenue. The site rises up from the front (St Leonards Avenue) of the site by a gradient of approximately 1.4 metres to the rear (western) end of the site. The two storey dwelling is proposed to be set back 4.78 metres and the undercroft garage 4.785 metres from the front (St Leonards Avenue) property boundary and has been designed with varying finished floor levels so as to address the topography of the site. There is no ROW to the rear of the site and it is bounded on all sides by residential properties. Vehicular access to the site is proposed from St Leonards Avenue with the driveway orientated to the northern side of the subject site so that pedestrian access to the dwelling can be gained via the entrance gate and path adjacent to the common southern property boundary. The undercroft is 9.515 metres long and spans the full width of the lot (7.55 metres) and contains car parking for two vehicles and storage areas as well as a cellar and stairwell to the ground floor. The ground floor contains the working portions of the dwelling such as the kitchen, formal dining and family/living areas. A small terrace overlooking St Leonards Avenue is also proposed. The rear of the site contains an alfresco area with various landscaping features and a 3.6 x 3.6 metres below ground swimming pool with a raised deck area adjacent to the pool. The upper floor contains 3 bedrooms including the master bedroom with a balcony overlooking the pool area below to the rear of the site. The master bedroom has its own ensuite and walk in robe. The front (eastern end) of the upper floor contains two bedrooms, a study nook, sitting room and a small balcony overlooking St Leonards Avenue. The dwelling is proposed to be constructed in sand/cement rendered brick. The primary roof visible from the street is a colorbond roof pitched at 30 degrees which covers the first half of the proposed dwelling. The roof to the rear of the dwelling is a skillion colorbond roof with a pitch of 5 degrees.



Applicant’s Ground for Request The applicant provided the Town with justifications for the variations proposed on three separate occasions. One was provided with the original submission (dated 26 April 2005). The next (dated 1 June 2005), was formulated in response to a request from the Town after an assessment of the plans relating to the original submission. With the submission of the amended plans (dated 9 June 2005) the applicant also provided extra justification for the variations proposed. The two latest submissions have been circulated to the Elected Members. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for a period of fourteen days to the adjoining affected landowners. Of the three contacted, only one made a response, albeit one month after the closure of the advertising period. Their comments are as follows:- “…We offer the following comments:- 1. We look forward to having new neighbours and hope that the construction process can be

completed smoothly and that our new neighbours can move in soon. 2. We also hope that our new neighbours can build the home of their dreams, whilst also

meeting planning requirements that may be properly required by the Town. 3. We are surprised that you have specifically asked us to comment on a number of matters

where the proposed plans vary from the Town’s residential planning requirements. We would have thought that plans that were outside the Town’s requirements would have been declined at an early stage by the Town without any input from us and that architects would be encouraged to design dwellings that fit within the requirements.

4. We do not wish to become part of a “haggling agreement” or “negotiated settlement” or

“compromise agreement” whereby the Town tries to broker a deal between prospective neighbours so that plans that are outside “requirements” can get approved. In our view the Town should take a broader view (and long term) and impose good planning requirements for the benefit of all future owners of 123 and 125A St Leonards Avenue. For example, the streetscape of West Leederville should not be ruined for all future generations simply because two neighbours happen to “agree” on what some may consider to be an ugly monstrosity.

5. We note the Town can approve variations to requirements if certain “performance criteria”

are met. We are uncertain what these criteria are but we are concerned about the following variations, in particular, that you brought to our attention:-

Visual privacy Setback from upper floor balcony – obviously we don’t want our privacy invaded; and Visual Privacy Setback from sitting room west facing window – again we do not want our privacy invaded. We do not consider that frosted glass (which can be easily replaced with clear glass at a later date) will ensure adequate privacy for the long term.



The proposed variations to setbacks and wall height will obviously result in a relatively large house on a relatively small block. This will have a significant shadowing effect on our property that we would prefer not to have.

6. Finally, we consider that the original time afforded for comment was too short. Your letter

was dated 12 May 2005 and you asked for comment by 26 May 2005. We were overseas until mid June and were only able to deal with this matter upon return.”

Delegated Authority As identified above, the application involves a number of variations to the requirements of the R-Codes including streetscape, boundary setbacks, site works, access and car parking and visual privacy. It also involves variations to the Town Of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) in regards to wall height. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. Whilst there are variations requested, these are generally of a minor nature with limited effect on the neighbours. Therefore the above provisions in respect to the adjoining properties to the north and west are regarded as having been satisfied, and the variations to the northern boundary including setbacks and visual privacy do not require the Elected Members’ approval. The variations to the southern property boundary including setbacks, visual privacy and site works and the variations to streetscape and access and car parking require further discussion. COMMENT: Streetscape On the western side of St Leonards Avenue, between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue, there is no rear (ROW) access to lots and as such, all vehicular access must be taken from the street. Further, the R40 zoning of the area permits the subdivision of the original allotments, into a ‘side by side’ configuration, resulting in narrow frontages. As new development occurs, therefore, an increasing predominance of hard paving and vehicle garaging will be evident in the front setback. This situation is further exacerbated by the provision of side by side parking arrangements, as opposed to tandem (one behind the other). It is quite apparent that side by side parking is the contemporary standard for new housing. In the above circumstances, it is impossible to meet the acceptable development requirements of the RDG’s. The situation could be improved if Council was to insist upon tandem parking only, however, this could be seen in the housing market as an inferior standard and is perhaps unreasonable. Further, there are two properties in this section of the street that have been subdivided and developed with side by side parking in the front setback area. It is therefore recommended that the variations to the streetscape compliance issues (paving within the front setback area, width of garage door and width of driveway) be supported. Whilst the above situation is considered acceptable, the amount of hard paving should be limited to the minimum possible, to still permit vehicular access and egress, whilst enabling the most landscaping possible.



Boundary Setbacks Clause 3.3.1 (P1) – Boundary Setbacks of the R-Codes states that:- “Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:-

• provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;

• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties;

• provide adequate direct sun to the building and its appurtenant open spaces;

• assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties;

• assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and

• assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” As outlined above, the boundary setback variations to the northern property boundary (with Nil setbacks) are considered acceptable given the adjoining neighbour offered no objection. The variations to the southern boundary will be discussed individually given the objections received from the affected neighbour to the south. The adjoining landowner to the south has objected to all of the setback variations proposed to the southern property boundary primarily on the grounds of overshadowing, however, the level of overshadowing is compliant (32.5% in lieu of 35%). Ground Floor (south) – WC and laundry wall This wall requires a 1.5 metre setback in lieu of the 1.0 metre minimum proposed to the section containing the laundry and toilet. There are no major openings proposed in this length of wall therefore privacy and overlooking is not of concern. The initial portion of the wall which includes the terrace, lounge and entry is appropriately setback between 1.5 to 2.0 metres. The section of wall which is non compliant (laundry and toilet) is 5.58 metres in length and is located adjacent to an existing parapet wall on the common property boundary to an enclosed garage. It is considered the setback variation is minor and the above performance criteria are being met and therefore the ground floor terrace to laundry wall be approved in the configuration proposed. Upper Floor (south) – Balcony 1 to Sitting Room This wall requires a 1.9 metre setback in lieu of the 1.0 to 1.5 metre setback proposed. There are no major openings proposed in this length of wall, however, the length (13.745m) and height (6.5 metres) of the wall dictates the required setback of 1.9 metres. Overlooking will not be a concern and privacy will be maintained given there are no major openings. Adequate sunlight and ventilation will be afforded to the building, however, it will cause a reduction in the amount of direct sunlight into the adjoining property to the south (albeit compliant). The adjoining structures that will be overshadowed by this two storey section of wall are a garage (with parapet wall) and double carport (setback approximately 4.4 metres from the St Leonards Avenue boundary). The front porch to the adjoining dwelling will also suffer a loss of direct sunlight, however, it is considered that the majority of the above performance criteria are being met and that the upper floor balcony 1 to sitting room wall be approved in the configuration proposed.



Upper Floor (south) - Void This portion of wall requires a 2.7 metre setback in lieu of the 2.5 metre proposed. The wall is glazed from floor to ceiling, however, it is a void space and is not considered an issue, given the following. The void window is not a major opening and therefore is not required to meet the visual privacy provisions of the R-Codes. An internal balustrade proposed (see cross – section through void) ensures that the outlook from this void window is from an acceptable distance (i.e. – 4.5 metres) even though it is not considered a major opening. The proposed setback variation is minor (0.2 metres) and it is considered the performance criteria are being met and therefore the upper floor void window is recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. In conclusion, the above setback variations are considered acceptable as the level of overshadowing is compliant, the relevant performance criteria are deemed to have been met and notwithstanding the neighbours concerns, they are recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. Site Works Level of Fill and Retaining Wall (south) The level of fill adjacent to the entry porch exceeds the maximum permissible amount by 0.5 metre. The retaining wall proposed along the common southern property boundary requires a 1.0 metre setback in lieu of the Nil setback proposed given its length (7.25 metres long) and its maximum height (1.0 metre) above natural ground level. Clause 3.6.1 (P1) – Excavation or Fill of the R-Codes states that:- “Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other public place, or from an adjoining property.” Clause 3.6.2 (P2) – Setback of retaining Walls of the R-Codes states that:- “Retaining walls designed or set back to minimise the impact on adjoining property.” The excessive fill and retaining is a result of a combination of the following factors. It is required to permit an acceptable floor to ceiling height for the undercroft. It is also required to ensure a building which is commensurate with the natural ground levels of the site and general vicinity and adjoining buildings finished floor levels. The excessive amount of fill and retaining (above 0.5 metre) is considered to be relatively minor as the majority (56% or 4.1 metres of the 7.2 metres retaining wall) will abut the existing garage parapet wall located on the common southern property boundary and be obscured from view from the neighbours as well as from the street. It is considered that the above performance criteria are being met. Given the above, it is recommended that the fill and retaining along the southern property boundary be approved in the configuration proposed. Wall Height The excessive wall height proposed to the two storey dwelling is a result of a combination of the topography of the site and the fact that a combination of a pitched and a skillion roof has been proposed. The rear of the dwelling (where the skillion section of roof is proposed) meets the maximum permitted wall height of 7.0 metres although a small portion of the wall located to the front of the dwelling (where the pitched roof is proposed) is where the wall height variation with the most impact occurs (6.5 metres in lieu of the permitted 6.0 metres).



The proposed parapet walls to the common northern property boundary also exceed the permitted wall height, however, they will match the walls proposed on the adjoining site to the north (currently under assessment). These walls are not considered to be problematic and are recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. Clause 2.3 A1.1 (i) – Building Height of the RDG’s states that In West Leederville: “Top of an external wall with a hipped roof and or/gabled roof above that does not exceed 6.0 metres in height.” Clause 2.3 A1.1 (iii) – Building Height of the RDG’s states that in West Leederville: “Top of a skillion, curved or flat roof that does not exceed 7.0 metres in height”. Clause 2.3 P1 – Building height of the RDG’s states that: “Variations to the Compliance Standards may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of Council, the following criteria are met:- (a) buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their

height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape; (b) buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of the existing

development within the locality; (c) where the front of the building facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and

interesting facade to the street, rather than a continuous wall. (d) Where the performance criteria contained in Part 3.7.1 P1 of the R-Codes are met.” Clause 3.7.1 (P1) of the R-Codes states:- “Building Height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- • adequate and direct sun to buildings and appertunant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings and habitable rooms, and • access to views of significance.” The wall height variations are considered as relatively minor. It is only a small section of wall that is excessive in height which is visible from the street and from the adjoining affected neighbour to the south. The other overheight sections of wall are not visible from the street and the most affected landowners have endorsed the proposal in general. It is also considered that the excessive wall heights meet the above performance criteria. The dwelling is proposed at a height commensurate with the topography and existing built form of the general vicinity. The dwelling will also address the street in a more traditional manner as has been a consideration of the applicant with the proposed pitched roof to the front of the dwelling. Two of the three adjoining landowners have no objection to the proposal and it is considered that it will not unduly affect the amenity of the dwellings or surrounding landholdings nor will it adversely affect the streetscape. Given the above, the overheight walls are recommended for approval in the configuration shown.



Visual Privacy Clause 3.8.1 (P1) of the R-Codes states that: “Avoid direct overlooking between active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the development site and the habitable rooms and outdoor living areas within adjoining residential properties taking into account of: • the positioning of windows to habitable rooms on the development site and the adjoining

property; • the provision of effective screening; and • the lesser need to prevent overlooking of extensive back gardens, front gardens or areas

visible from the street.” The Bedroom 1 west facing window does not comply with the acceptable development standards for visual privacy, particularly to the north. This is also the case for the balcony 2 (accessed from bedroom 1), however, the potential for overlooking occurs both to the north and the south. The southern neighbour has objected to the proposed variation. A large tree is proposed to be planted in the rear garden area that will prevent overlooking into the property to the north and its rear garden area and existing vegetation on the southern property boundary fence currently provides some form of visual privacy. As stated in the above performance criteria, there is a lesser need to prevent overlooking of extensive back gardens, however, in the case of this application it is considered that some overlooking from balcony 2 will be possible into the rear garden area of the adjacent property to the south. A condition of approval be applied that a solid balustrade (i.e. - non permeable) to 1.0 metre high (from the finished floor level (FFL) of the balcony) to prevent direct overlooking from this location is required. Whilst the balustrade will not eliminate all possible overlooking it will reduce it, particularly when occupiers of the dwelling are sitting on the balcony. In this regard, the bedroom 1 window is recommended for approval in the configuration proposed and balcony 2 is approved with a condition. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Having regard to the comments outlined in the above report, it is considered that the proposed two-storey dwelling with undercroft and below ground swimming pool has been designed so that it complements the streetscape and has been designed to take into consideration the adjoining dwelling to the south. It is also considered that the proposal meets the performance criteria regarding boundary setbacks, paving within the front setback area and site works (retaining and fill), wall height and visual privacy. Adverse comments were received from the landowners to the south regarding the variations proposed and whether privacy and amenity will be maintained. This is considered to be the case.



Given the nature of the variations proposed and the limited impact they will impose on the adjoining dwelling and the streetscape in general, the two storey dwelling with undercroft and below ground swimming pool can be supported in the configuration proposed. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Edit Architecture for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft and below ground swimming pool at Lot 62 (No.125A) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 9 June 2005 noting variations to:- • Streetscape; • Boundary Setbacks; • Site Works; • Access and Car parking; • Wall Height; and • Visual Privacy subject to the following conditions:- (i) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the areas

depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development; and

(ii) balcony 2 to have a solid (non-permeable) balustrade to 1.0 metre above its finished floor

level (FFL) to prevent direct overlooking into the adjoining properties. Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, Members agreed that the design of the driveway should be reviewed to minimise the area of hard paving and maximise the area available for planting, as well as allowing for minimising the crossover width to enable greater space in the verge for street trees. The Administration was requested to investigate whether it was possible to lower the floor levels of the dwelling, having regard to the access grade to the undercroft car park of the prior to the next meeting of the Council to be held on Tuesday 26 July 2005. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry. That a further condition be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the driveway access in the front setback area being reduced to the minimum acceptable

dimensions and located such that it allows for the maximum possible on-site planting and provides the best opportunity for the provision of a street tree in the verge.

Carried



FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 19 July 2005) At the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on 19 July 2005 additional information was sought by the Committee regarding the neighbouring developments at 125A and 125B St Leonards Avenue. With respect to Item DES05.132 (125A St Leonards Ave), the Committee requested clarification on whether it would be possible to lower the level of the proposed garage with a view to the whole dwelling being reduced in height. Reducing the level of the garage will have the effect of increasing the possibility of vehicles "bottoming out" as they enter the garage due to the gradient becoming steeper. The maximum grade prescribed is 23%. This would allow the floor level to be reduced by approximately 280 millimetres, however, in this case the access length is only 4.7 metres which is less than a typical car length and as such creates conditions which are undesirable and are not to be recommended. An alternative of setting the garage further back on the site to enable a lower level has also been investigated. The reduction in height which would be achieved, however, from setting the building further back would be minimal. In addition, setting the building further back is likely to increase the overshadowing on the adjoining lot to the south and may well not be acceptable to the neighbour. It is noted that the dwelling as proposed is set back 4.7 metres from the front property boundary, which is in excess of the 4.0 metre requirement. The increased setback has been proposed as it is required to enable proper vehicle access to the garage. In the scenarios described above, any reduction in the height of the dwelling is likely to be minimal in relation the increased possibility of difficulty with vehicle access into and out of the garage and the potential impact on the neighbouring property. The other matter raised at Committee related to the scope for reducing the width of the crossover and driveways to each of the proposed developments with a view to allowing street trees to be planted. The width of the driveways and openings of each garage is approximately 5.0 metres. This is normally the minimum width suitable for a double garage parking arrangement. There is, however, some scope to reduce the width of the driveways and therefore also the crossovers. The reduction is, however, only minimal to continue to enable sufficient access to the garages. The reduction is in the order of 0.25 metres for each driveway. Whilst it may be desirable to reduce the width so as to maximise the amount of landscaping possible on each lot, the ability to provide a street tree between each of the crossovers remains limited. The area that can be achieved between each of the crossovers is about 1.2 to 1.3 metres which is not generally considered sufficient by Technical Services staff for a street tree. In any event, the amount of paving in the front setback area and the crossover should be minimised, therefore, the driveways and crossovers of each proposed development at 125A and 125B St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville should be reduced in width by 0.25 metres. The following condition (iii) is recommended to be added to the approval for each application: (iii) the width of the driveway and crossover to be reduced by 0.25 metres



COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Edit Architecture for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft and below ground swimming pool at Lot 62 (No.125A) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 9 June 2005 noting variations to:- • Streetscape; • Boundary Setbacks; • Site Works; • Access and Car parking; • Wall Height; and • Visual Privacy subject to the following conditions:- (i) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the

areas depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development; and

(ii) balcony 2 to have a solid (non-permeable) balustrade to 1.0 metre above its

finished floor level (FFL) to prevent direct overlooking into the adjoining properties;

(iii) the driveway access in the front setback area being reduced to the minimum

acceptable dimensions and located such that it allows for the maximum possible on-site planting and provides the best opportunity for the provision of a street tree in the verge.

Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry That clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows: (iii) the width of the driveway and crossover to be reduced by 0.25 metres. Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Edit Architecture for a two-storey dwelling with undercroft and below ground swimming pool at Lot 62 (No.125A) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 9 June 2005 noting variations to:- • Streetscape; • Boundary Setbacks;



• Site Works; • Access and Car parking; • Wall Height; and • Visual Privacy subject to the following conditions:- (i) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the

areas depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development; and

(ii) balcony 2 to have a solid (non-permeable) balustrade to 1.0 metre above its

finished floor level (FFL) to prevent direct overlooking into the adjoining properties;

(iii) the width of the driveway and crossover to be reduced by 0.25 metres. Carried 9/0



DES05.133 LOT 61 (NO. 125B) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY DWELLING (File Reference:PRO0153) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for development approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 36DA-2005 LANDOWNER: K Harris and R Stobbs APPLICANT: Beaumonde Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R30 On 12 July 2002, the Western Australian Planning Commission conditionally approved the subdivision of Lot 358 (No. 125) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville into two green title lots. The lots have subsequently been created which leads to consideration of this application for development of a two storey dwelling. An application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at No.125A St Leonards Avenue (south neighbour) is also being considered by Council in this agenda. POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape (R-Codes) Garage Door (width) Driveway Width Landscaping in the Primary Setback Area

50% (max.)

40% (max.)

40% (max.)

66.3%

63.6%

86.7% Boundary Setbacks (R-Codes) Ground Floor (south) Upper Floor (south) Upper Floor (north)

1.5 metres (Ground) 2.9 metres (Upper)

2.8 metres

Nil (Parapet Wall)

2.5 – 2.7 metres



Building Height (RDG’s) Wall Height

6.0 metres

5.5 – 6.1 metres

Visual Privacy (R-Codes) Balcony (Upper Front)

7.5 metres

2.7 metres (north) Nil (south)

Overshadowing (R-Codes)

Maximum of 35% of the neighbouring property being overshadowed

Approximately 78% of the southern neighbouring property overshadowed

DETAILS: Lot Area: 335m2 Open Space: 47% Council has received an application for a brick and colorbond two storey dwelling at the above address. The subject site has a frontage of 7.54 metres and a depth of 44.48 metres with an overall area of 335m2. The proposed two storey dwelling is narrow in design with vehicular access from St Leonards Avenue to a garage facing the street. There is no right-of-way at the rear of the property. A two storey parapet wall is proposed along the southern boundary [No.125A St Leonards Avenue] which abuts the proposed two storey parapet wall for the dwelling on that site, which is also being considered in this agenda. The applicant seeks a number of variations to the requirements of the Scheme as outlined in the table above. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was referred to the neighbours for comment in relation to the variations. At the conclusion of the referral period, a submission was received from the southern neighbours with an extract as follows: “…I have studied the submitted overshadowing plan for 125B and object to the significant overshadowing caused by the proposed 2.7m boundary wall to the proposed Cabana area. As shown on the drawing, this wall would cause significant overshadowing of the adjacent house’s outdoor living areas. Given that this area represents the only area of north facing outdoor living area possible adjacent to the house, the extent of overshadowing is not acceptable and, I believe, does not comply with the performance criteria of the R-Codes relating to solar access (cl 3.9.1 P1) and boundary setback requirements (cl. 3.3.2 P2) as required by the Town’s Design Guideines (cl.6.41)…We would request that this be enforced on the basis that the top of the proposed boundary structure (including fascia, gutter and roof sheeting) be no more than 2.0m above the level of the adjacent outdoor living area of No.125A…”



Delegated Authority: As identified, the application involves variations listed in the above table. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the owner of the adjoining property has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this instance, the variations relating to side setbacks and visual privacy can be approved under delegated authority as the affected neighbours have made no objection to these variations. The variations are considered acceptable as these variations will not have any significant impact on the amenity of their respective properties. In the case of the setback variations, they are considered to be minor and can be supported, particularly as the proposed two storey dwelling at No.125A St Leonards Avenue will have a two storey parapet wall abutting the applicant’s two storey parapet wall. In relation to visual privacy, the majority of overlooking occurs along blank walls and the front areas of the neighbours properties. Therefore these variations are regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval and are not discussed further in this report. As such, the only outstanding variations which require discussion are in relation to wall height, garage door width, landscaping overshadowing and driveway width. COMMENT: Streetscape On the western side of St Leonards Avenue, between Ruislip Street and Clune Avenue, there is no rear (ROW) access to lots and as such, all vehicular access must be taken from the street. Further, the R40 zoning of the area permits the subdivision of the original allotments, into a ‘side by side’ configuration, resulting in narrow frontages. As new development occurs an increasing predominance of hard paving and vehicle garaging will be evident in the front setback. This situation is further exacerbated by the provision of side by side parking arrangements, as opposed to tandem (one behind the other). It is quite apparent that side by side parking is the contemporary standard for new housing. In the above circumstances, it is impossible to meet the acceptable development requirements of the RDG’s. The situation could be improved if Council was to insist upon tandem parking only, however, this could be seen in the housing market as an inferior standard and is perhaps unreasonable. Further, there are two properties in this section of the street that have been subdivided and developed with side by side parking in the front setback area. It is therefore recommended that the variations to the streetscape compliance issues (paving within the front setback area, width of garage door and width of driveway) be supported. Whilst the above situation is considered acceptable, the amount of hard paving should be limited to the minimum possible, to still permit vehicular access and egress, whilst enabling the most landscaping possible. Wall Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 6.0 metres as contained in Clause 2.3(A1.1) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. The application proposes a two storey wall height ranging from 5.5 metres to 6.1 metres from natural ground level to the top of the eaves. The range in wall height is attributed to the gradual slope of natural ground level from the rear of the property down to the front of the property.



The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria under the provisions of Building Height and Bulk contained in Clause 2.3 of the Residential Design Guidelines. Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria states:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their



interesting façade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • Building Height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to

recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate: • Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and • Access to views of significance.”

The slope from the rear of the property to the front boundary can be seen from a site inspection and the contour levels provided on the site plan, indicating a contour of 11.30 RL at the rear of the property sloping down to a contour of 10.0 RL at the front of the property. The applicant has chosen a finished floor level ranging from 10.38 RL (garage at the front) to 11.07 RL for the dwelling at the rear. It is at the front of the dwelling that the wall height exceeds the permitted wall height of 6.0 metres. All other wall heights around the dwelling are below the 6.0 metre requirement (i.e. 5.6 metres). The landowners of adjoining properties have not objected to the excess wall height. Given that the majority of the dwelling is below the 6.0 wall height, with only a portion over that height at the front of the dwelling, it is considered that the variation is acceptable and will not adversely affect the amenity of the streetscape, nor the neighbouring properties. Overshadowing The application does not comply with the overshadowing requirement of the Residential Design Codes at Clause 3.9.1 (A1) which states: “Notwithstanding the boundary setbacks in Element 3, development in Climatic Zones 4, 5 and 6 of the State shall be so designed that its shadow cast at midday, 21 June onto any other adjoining property does not exceed the following limits….on adjoining properties coded R30 to R40 inclusive – 35% of the site area…” The relevant performance criteria under Clause 3.9.1(P1) states:- “Development designed with regard for solar access for neighbouring properties taking account the potential to overshadow:- • Outdoor living areas; • Major openings to habitable rooms; • Solar heating devices; • Balconies or verandahs.”



The southern neighbour has objected to the proposed cabana at the rear of the dwelling which casts a shadow onto the primary outdoor living area of their proposed development. The applicant has prepared an overshadowing diagram which shows the cabana in its present form casting a shadow length of 4.27 metres onto the southern neighbouring property. The cabana parapet wall height is 2.7 metres. The applicant has considered the neighbour’s objection and is prepared to lower the parapet wall height to a maximum height of 2.4 metres, which will reduce the shadow length to 3.96 metres. It would not be practical to lower the height of the parapet to 2.0 metres as this would restrict standing access in the cabana for the applicant. If the cabana parapet wall were lowered to 2.0 metres, the shadow length would be 3.34 metres, being a difference of 0.93 metres. A boundary fence at 1.8 metres will cast a shadow length of 2.9 metres. Although the neighbouring property is slightly lower than the applicant’s property, this length of shadow cast between the differing heights is the same. It is considered that the applicant should lower the cabana parapet wall height to a maximum of 2.4 metres which will reduce the amount of shadow cast onto the neighbouring property. It should be noted that the applicant’s proposal (with reduced wall height to 2.4 metres) will overshadow approximately 27.7% of the neighbour’s primary outdoor living area. It is also noted on the southern neighbour’s application for No.125A St Leonards Avenue that the proposed pool and deck will abut the rear boundary and will not be significantly affected by the cabana overshadowing. The applicant’s proposal (as amended) is seen to have regard to the potential for overshadowing of the southern neighbour’s primary outdoor living area and is considered reasonable. Street Tree There is a relatively large street tree in the verge where the proposed driveway is to be located. Council’s Technical Services had inspected the street tree at the time of subdivision of the lot and advised that the tree can be removed subject to the landowner providing a suitable replacement tree to be planted somewhere in the verge. A condition of approval should be for the developer to meet the cost for the removal and replacement of the affected street tree. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for a new two storey dwelling has a number of variations as outlined in the report. The owners of adjoining southern property have objected to the overshadowing of their proposed primary outdoor living area at the rear of their property as a result of the single storey cabana. The cabana parapet wall could be lowered to a maximum height of 2.4 metres which would reduce the amount of overshadowing to a reasonable level. All the other variations can be supported as discussed in the report and subject to the cabana parapet wall being reduced to a maximum height of 2.4 metres, the application can be supported. The development will require the removal of a street tree and approval should be subject to the developer meeting the cost for the removal and suitable replacement of the street tree in the verge.



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 submitted by Beaumonde Homes as shown on the plans dated 29 June 2005, for a two storey dwelling at Lot 61 (No. 125B St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, noting variations to:- • Wall Height • Garage Width • Driveway Width • Side Setback • Visual Privacy • Landscaping • Overshadowing and subject to:- (i) the parapet wall of the cabana being reduced to a maximum height of 2.4 metres; (ii) removal of the existing street tree in the verge by the developer at their cost prior to the

occupation of the dwelling to the specification of the Town. Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, Members agreed that the design of the driveway should be reviewed to minimise the area of hard paving and maximise the area available for planting, as well as allowing for minimising the crossover width to enable greater space in the verge for street trees. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Berry. That a further condition be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the driveway access in the front setback area being reduced to the minimum acceptable

dimensions and located such that it allows for the maximum possible on-site planting and provides the best opportunity for the provision of a street tree in the verge.

Carried FURTHER REPORT (Post Committee Meeting 19 July 2005) At the Development and Environmental Services Committee meeting held on 19 July 2005 additional information was sought by the Committee regarding the neighbouring developments at 125A and 125B St Leonards Avenue. With respect to Item DES05.132 (125A St Leonards Ave), the Committee requested clarification on whether it would be possible to lower the level of the proposed garage with a view to the whole dwelling being reduced in height. Reducing the level of the garage will have the effect of increasing the possibility of vehicles "bottoming out" as they enter the garage due to the gradient becoming steeper. The maximum grade prescribed is 23%. This would allow the floor level to be reduced by approximately 280 millimetres, however, in this case the access



length is only 4.7 metres which is less than a typical car length and as such creates conditions which are undesirable and are not to be recommended. An alternative of setting the garage further back on the site to enable a lower level has also been investigated. The reduction in height which would be achieved, however, from setting the building further back would be minimal. In addition, setting the building further back is likely to increase the overshadowing on the adjoining lot to the south and may well not be acceptable to the neighbour. It is noted that the dwelling as proposed is set back 4.7 metres from the front property boundary, which is in excess of the 4.0 metre requirement. The increased setback has been proposed as it is required to enable proper vehicle access to the garage. In the scenarios described above, any reduction in the height of the dwelling is likely to be minimal in relation the increased possibility of difficulty with vehicle access into and out of the garage and the potential impact on the neighbouring property. The other matter raised at Committee related to the scope for reducing the width of the crossover and driveways to each of the proposed developments with a view to allowing street trees to be planted. The width of the driveways and openings of each garage is approximately 5.0 metres. This is normally the minimum width suitable for a double garage parking arrangement. There is, however, some scope to reduce the width of the driveways and therefore also the crossovers. The reduction is, however, only minimal to continue to enable sufficient access to the garages. The reduction is in the order of 0.25 metres for each driveway. Whilst it may be desirable to reduce the width so as to maximise the amount of landscaping possible on each lot, the ability to provide a street tree between each of the crossovers remains limited. The area that can be achieved between each of the crossovers is about 1.2 to 1.3 metres which is not generally considered sufficient by Technical Services staff for a street tree. In any event, the amount of paving in the front setback area and the crossover should be minimised, therefore, the driveways and crossovers of each proposed development at 125A and 125B St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville should be reduced in width by 0.25 metres. The following condition (iii) is recommended to be added to the approval for each application: (iii) the width of the driveway and crossover to be reduced by 0.25 metres In addition, it is recommended that the following condition (iv) be added to the approval for 125B St Leonards Avenue. The condition has been applied to 125A St Leonards Avenue but was overlooked for 125B St Leonards Avenue. (iv) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the areas

depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetation to be retained on site; will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development.

COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Beaumonde Homes as shown on the plans dated 29 June 2005, for a two storey dwelling at Lot 61 (No. 125B St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, noting variations to:-



• Wall Height • Garage Width • Driveway Width • Side Setback • Visual Privacy • Landscaping • Overshadowing and subject to:- (i) the parapet wall of the cabana being reduced to a maximum height of 2.4 metres; (ii) removal of the existing street tree in the verge by the developer at their cost prior

to the occupation of the dwelling to the specification of the Town; (iii) the driveway access in the front setback area being reduced to the minimum

acceptable dimensions and located such that it allows for the maximum possible on-site planting and provides the best opportunity for the provision of a street tree in the verge.

Amendment 1 Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr MacRae That clause (iii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (iii) the width of the driveway and crossover to be reduced by 0.25 metres. Amendment carried 9/0 Amendment 2 Moved by Cr Langer, seconded by Cr MacRae That a further clause (iv) be added to the motion as follows:- (iv) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the

areas depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetarian to be retained on site, will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development.

Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application submitted by Beaumonde Homes as shown on the plans dated 29 June 2005, for a two storey dwelling at Lot 61 (No. 125B St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville, noting variations to:- • Wall Height • Garage Width • Driveway Width



• Side Setback • Visual Privacy • Landscaping • Overshadowing and subject to:- (i) the parapet wall of the cabana being reduced to a maximum height of 2.4 metres; (ii) removal of the existing street tree in the verge by the developer at their cost prior

to the occupation of the dwelling to the specification of the Town; (iii) the width of the driveway and crossover to be reduced by 0.25 metres; (iv) the preparation and lodgement of a detailed landscaping plan denoting how the

areas depicted as landscaping, including existing vegetarian to be retained on site, will be landscaped and reticulated prior to the issue of a Building Licence. The landscaping is to be completed to a high standard as soon as practicable and/or within 28 days of completion of the development.

Carried 9/0



DES05.134 LOT 24 (NO. 90A) MCCOURT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH LOFT (File Reference: PRO1402) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for development approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 72DA-2004 LANDOWNER: M and C.A Broderick APPLICANT: M and C.A Broderick ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R30 26 September 2003 The Town approved an application for development approval (44DA-2003) for two, two storey grouped dwellings on the parent lot recognised as Lot 432 (No.90) McCourt Street, West Leederville. The most northern dwelling had a small loft area included and this building is now constructed. 13 October 2004 A development application is received at the Town for a two storey dwelling with loft and a double garage and upper storey art studio to the ROW (Wisher Lane) to the rear of the site. The plans involved a number of variations, with particular regard to wall height, boundary setbacks and visual privacy. A meeting between officers of the Town and the applicant was held to discuss the variations proposed and the possibility of reducing the number of variations and the overall impact that the proposed building imposes on the adjoining dwelling to the south. The applicant asked the Town not to commence formal advertising until the submission of amended plans. 24 May 2005 Amended plans received at the Town, seven (7) months after the initial submission. The proposal is still for a two storey dwelling with loft and a double garage and upper storey art studio to the ROW to the rear of the site. A number of the visual privacy variations have been addressed through the submission of the amended plans however a number still exist and the adjoining affected neighbours have objected. These plans are the subject of the report. POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes)



COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape (R-Codes & RDG’s) Primary St Setback Ground Floor First Floor Front Fence (perm.) Front Fence (height) Roof Pitch

4.0 metre

4.0 metres

1:1 above 750mm above NGL

2.0 metres (max. piers)

1.8 metres (max. avg. infill)

30 – 40 degrees

3.10 metres (to screen wall)

3.10 metres (to screen wall)

Solid portions above 750mm above NGL

2.50 metres (max.) 1.90 metres (avg.)

Curved & Skillion (to loft)

Boundary Setbacks (R-Codes) North Ground Floor Garage First Floor Art Studio Loft South Ground Floor Garage First Floor – balcony First Floor – rest of wall Loft East (rear) Art Studio Retaining wall (south)

1.7 metres

1.0 metre

2.4 metres

1.2 metres

1.7 metres

4.5 metres

1.0 metre

3.0 metres

2.40 metres

4.70 metres

3.0 metres

1.5 metres

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

Nil

1.26 – 2.90 metres

Nil

0.75 metres

1.26 metres

3.20 metres

2.5 metres (including 2.0 metres of ROW – Wisher

Lane)

Nil



Open Space (R-Codes) Residential R30

45% (min.)

42.25% Site Works (R-Codes) Fill (south)

0.5 metre (max.)

0.9 metre (max.) Building Height (RDG’s) Top of Roof

7.0 metres

8.75 metres Visual Privacy (R-Codes) Loft window (east) Loft balcony (east) Bed 3 balcony (west)

6.0 metres

7.5 metres

7.5 metres

2.7 metres @ 45o to north 5.5 metres @ 45o to south

6.2 metres @ 45o to south 1.7 metres @ 45o to north

0.75 – 1.10 metres

Design for Climate (R-Codes) Overshadowing

R30 – 35% (max.) of adjoining lot area

53.80% of adjoining lot area

DETAILS: Lot area: 306 m2 Open space: 42.26% Approval is sought for a two storey dwelling with a loft and a double garage and upper storey art studio to the rear of the site at Lot 24 (No.90A) McCourt Street, West Leederville. The subject site is located on the eastern side of McCourt Street and forms part of an approved subdivision where the parent lot was divided into two equal portions of 306m2 with a frontage of 7.615 metres each. The site rises up from the front (south western) corner of the site by a gradient of approximately 2.0 metres to the rear (north eastern) of the site. The two storey dwelling is proposed to be set back 3.10 metres from the front (McCourt Street) property boundary. This reduced setback is to a screen wall, however, the setback to the building at ground floor level is 4.1 metres and the first floor is set back between 3.6 and 4.1 metres. The loft is set back 8.70 metres from the front (McCourt Street) boundary. Vehicular access is from the existing ROW (Wisher Lane) to the rear (eastern) end of the site. A double garage with art studio above is proposed in this location. The double garage spans the full width of the lot although the art studio wall is set back 1.4 metres from the common southern property boundary.



The buildings are proposed to be constructed in a number of materials including concrete tilt up panels, rendered masonry walls and ‘Hardies’ wall panels with a paint finish. The curved and skillion sections of roof are to be finished in colorbond custom orb. The ground floor contains the working portions of the dwelling such as the kitchen, formal dining and living rooms. A covered outdoor alfresco dining area is proposed (between the rear of the building and double garage and art studio) with access gained to this area via the living room. The first floor contains 3 bedrooms and features such as walk in robes, bathrooms and an ensuite to the master bedroom. A balcony overlooking McCourt Street is also proposed at first floor level. The loft /library is located over the centre of the first floor roof and is approximately 30m2 in area. A balcony is proposed to the eastern end of the loft/library. Applicant’s Ground for Request Two separate justifications were made in reference to the variations proposed. The initial justification dated 24 May 2005 and received with the amended plans the subject of this report is summarised as follows: “Changes made to the proposal include:- 1. The reduction of the building heights that is a reduction to the wall heights of the loft to the

main residence and garage building. 2. The reduction of the fence/retaining wall to the southern boundary, see elevation 2 of

drawing A02. 3. Loft windows changed to obscure glazing to comply with visual privacy setbacks. 4. The extension of visual screening to Master bedroom windows (first floor). In an attempt to maintain a standard of residence with a functional floor plan, such as that just completed on the adjoining Lot No.23 (also a 7.615m wide frontage lot). We request that the following items be approved in accordance with Clause 2.4.6(i) of the R-Codes. 1. Curved Roof (Nil degree pitch). Whilst this is the desired aesthetic it also reduces the

shadow cast to Lot 433 (to south). 2. Side boundary setbacks. 3. Rear boundary setbacks. 4. Open Space requirement (40.4% achieved). 5. Overshadowing (53.8% of site covered by shadow). Approval of these items is considered reasonable as the floor plan submitted is virtually a mirror image of the residence on Lot 23 with this proposal located on the northern property boundary. The owners also would like to achieve a level of “sustainability” within their economic reach. The inclusions of grey water recycling and solar energy gain through the installation of photovoltaic collectors to the roof are attempts to become more self sustaining. The upper roof to the residence has been reduced to a level below the building to the north which will still provide solar gain from the northern exposure.” In support of the above comments, the applicant also provided the following justification (dated 10 June 2005) for the variations proposed. It is summarised as follows: Curved Roof In recent years the fabrication technology to manufacture frames for curved roofs has become more affordable; consequently many architects have used this element as an expression of contemporary design. Please find attached photographs of high quality architect designed homes within the West Leederville R30 precinct that make use of curved roofs.



• 112 St Leonards Avenue • 133 Woolwich Street • 18 Tara Vista • 12 Tara Vista • 25 Cavanagh St

Please consider the submission as a complimentary form to the high pitched roofs of your guidelines. North Setbacks The existing parapet wall on the northern boundary at house and garage negates the reason for setbacks – Nil setbacks have been previously approved. South Setbacks The setbacks shown (1.26 – 1.955m) are equal and greater than those approved for this site and as existing in the new development on 90B McCourt St (<name> 23/9/2003 your ref: PRO 1427 44DA-2003) The garage and balcony setbacks are also as previously approved. East Setback The ROW is 6m wide. The building has been setback a further 0.5m to facilitate vehicle movement and to continue the line of development similar to the adjacent property. We believe a further 0.5m setback of the studio would unnecessarily complicate construction and not add to the amenity of privacy of the adjacent properties. Open Space We request the Council to approve the 42.24% open space in lieu of 45% required in the R-Codes. The site is tight and additional setbacks to achieve the open space requirements would make the garages and living space unworkable. Overshadowing The overshadowing of the property on the south side is calculated at 55.4%. We ask the Council to grant concession on its requirements because:-

• The property is narrow and the land is considerably higher than the adjacent property. The library and studio on the design contribute marginally to the shadow cast.

• The courtyard wall could be lowered but at the cost of loss of visual and audio privacy between the neighbour.

Privacy We believe that every effort has been made to prevent or minimise over looking from this property.



Summary We ask the Council’s approval for this viable modern home as a reflection of contemporary lifestyle.” COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for a period of 14 days. The adjoining affected landowners to the north made no comment on the proposal (in particular the boundary walls proposed to the common northern property boundary) and the landowner to the south objected to all the variations proposed and made the following comment: “This would appear to me to be such an inept submission for an architect to present. No consideration is being given to the needs of his potential neighbours and I would trust the Council would support us in our objections. When 90B McCourt was built, we received little support from council even to the extent that the owner was hardly required to lower his proposed 8 metre parapet wall and they had missed the owner’s intent to add a loft. After about 3 visits by council staff we finally received a phone call to ask did we want the good news or the bad news. The answer we got was “bad luck – it’s built – we’re finished with it”. If the parapet wall for this house comes in under that of 90b we dont care – regulations are set for protection and we ask for our share. It is Councils role to protect us.” COMMENT: Streetscape Primary Street Setback Clause 2.1.1 (A1.4) (i) – Street Setbacks of the RDG’s states that in West Leederville: “The minimum setback from a primary street boundary (including garages but excluding carports) shall be as per the R-Codes without the provision for averaging.” In a residential R30 area the primary street setback as stipulated in Table 1 – General Site requirements of the R-Codes is 4.0 metres. Both the ground and first floor have a reduced setback of 3.10 metres proposed from the front (McCourt Street) boundary. This reduced setback is to a screen wall which forms part of the two storey parapet wall proposed on the common northern property boundary. This wall abuts the existing two storey parapet wall to the adjoining two storey dwelling with loft to the north. At ground floor level the rest of the building is set back 4.10 metres although the first floor also proposes a reduced setback of 3.60 metres to a balcony.



Clause 2.1.1 (P1) of the RDG’s states that: “New development should meet these criteria:- • The setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; • A reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in the

street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and • Visual separation is maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.” The reduced setbacks are considered to meet the first two of the above performance criteria given the adjoining development to the north and various other two storey developments being constructed along this portion of McCourt Street. However, it is also considered the reduced front setbacks add to the overall impact this proposal has on the adjoining dwelling to the south and its amenity. In this regard, the reduced front setbacks cannot be recommended for approval. Front Fence (permeability) The application does not comply with Clause 2.1.3 A1.3 (iii) – Fencing in the Primary Street Setback Area of the RDG’s, specifically, with regard to permeability and height as indicated in the compliance table. Council has discretion to approve such variations, where the following Performance Criteria are met: “(i) Fences consistent with existing streetscape character; and (ii) Fences that contribute towards:-

• visual privacy for a sole or main living areas; or • protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights

emanating from a public street that are shining directly into habitable rooms; and

(iii) Solid walls and fences that are higher than 0.75 metres above natural ground level are:- • truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of where

fences adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect; and

• broken up with piers, a mix of building materials, recessed panels incorporating landscaping, and/or set back a sufficient distance to allow suitable landscaping, to reduce the bulk of the fence; and

• constructed so as not to substantially obstruct views of the dwelling, including the main entry, from the street."

Given the topography of the site and the fill proposed along the southern property boundary, a solid fence in this location (up to 2.4 metres in height) is proposed to eliminate overlooking into the adjoining property, however, the fence located within the front setback area significantly exceeds the permeability requirements and cannot be supported. Front Fence (Height) Clause 2.1.3 A1.3 (ii) of the Town’s RDG’s states that: “Walls and Fences with piers and visually permeable infill panels above that do not exceed a maximum height above natural ground level of 1.8 metres for the infill panels and 2.0 metres for the piers, including the height of any retaining wall below it.



Only fencing above 1.5 metres in height shall be included in calculations for average height.” The average height of the proposed front fence is 2.075 metres. This is a result of a combination of the topography of the site (i.e. - 1.50 metre cross fall) and the configuration of the fence. The maximum height of the fence is 2.40 metres and therefore exceeds the maximum height provision (for piers) of 2.0 metres and the average height of the fence becomes a variation. The solid portion of fence (up to 2.4 metres high) located along the southern property boundary is inappropriate and impacts adversely on the affected landholding to the south and the streetscape. Front fences in the street are typically less then 1.0 metre in height offering views to the individual dwellings. The above performance criteria are not being met in that the fence is not consistent with the existing streetscape character and does not contribute towards providing privacy for a sole or main living area. Given the above, the front fence cannot be approved in the configuration proposed. Roof Pitch The proposal is for a curved customorb roof which will cover the main floor area and a section of skillion roof (pitched at 20 degrees approximately) covering the loft. Clause 2.1.5 (A1.3) – Architectural Character of the RDG’s states that in West Leederville: “Primary roofs of a dwelling visible from the street:- • are hipped and/or gabled; and • have a pitch between 30 degrees and 40 degrees.” Clause 2.1.5 (P1) of the RDG’s states that: “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the height, massing and roof pitches of existing housing in the

locality; • Buildings which respect the architectural style which characterises the immediate locality;

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

housing in the immediate locality.” The curved roofs do not comply with the acceptable development requirements, however, the skillion section is pitched at a level which does. There are a number of contemporary two storey dwellings in the general vicinity, however, their roof forms are deemed compliant. Although the curved roof structure reduces the level of overshadowing on the adjoining property to the south, the overshadowing proposed is at approximately 54% in lieu of the 35% permitted. This is considered an unacceptable imposition and along with not meeting the above performance criteria the roof pitch variation cannot be approved in the configuration proposed. Boundary Setbacks Clause 3.3.1 (P1) – Buildings Set Back from the Boundary of the R-Codes states that:- “Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:- • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building;



• ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and its appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” As outlined above, the boundary setback variations to the northern property boundary (with Nil setbacks) are considered acceptable, given the adjoining neighbour offered no objection. The variations to the southern property boundary will be discussed individually given the objections received from the affected neighbour to the south. The adjoining landowner to the south has objected to the entire setback variations proposed to the southern property boundary on the grounds of overshadowing (54% in lieu of 35%) and loss of amenity. Ground Floor (south) – Dwelling Given the length and height of the ground floor wall, a setback of 4.5 metres is required in lieu of the 1.26 – 2.90 metre setback proposed. The applicant has justified the variations on the grounds that the previous application for the site had setbacks of less than those currently proposed. This is a different application and it is considered that the setback variation now proposed is major and that the above performance criteria are not being met with particular regard to dot points 2, 4, 5 and 6 (listed above). The setback will not ensure adequate and direct sunlight to the adjoining property as well as inhibiting direct sunlight and ventilation and the perceived impact of building bulk will be greater. Given the above, the ground floor wall cannot be approved in the configuration proposed. Ground Floor (south) - Garage Given the length and height of the garage wall a setback of 1.0 metre is required in lieu of the Nil setback proposed. The applicant has justified the setback variation on similar grounds as above. It is considered that this wall (like the ground floor to the dwelling) also does not meet the majority of the relevant performance criteria and therefore cannot be recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. First Floor (south) – Balcony The bedroom 2 and 3 balcony located to the front of the dwelling is required to be set back 3.0 metres in lieu of the 0.75 metres proposed from the southern property boundary. This variation is considered a major departure (2.25 metres) from the acceptable standards. The relevant performance criteria are also not being met in that it does not assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties and will detract from the amenity of the affected property to the south as overlooking will occur directly into the entrance porch of this dwelling. In consideration of the above, the balcony cannot be recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. First Floor (south) – Rest of Wall The rest of the first floor wall should be set back 2.40 metres in lieu of the 1.26 metres proposed. Not unlike the ground floor wall, the first floor wall with a reduced setback is also considered to not meet the above performance criteria with particular regard to dot points 2, 4, 5 and 6. The setback will not ensure adequate and direct sunlight to the adjoining property as well as inhibiting ventilation and the perceived impact of building bulk will be greater. Given the above, the first floor wall cannot be approved in the configuration proposed.



Loft/Library (south) The loft wall should be set back 4.70 metres in lieu of the 3.20 metres proposed. Not unlike the ground floor and first floor walls, the loft wall with a reduced setback is considered to not meet the above performance criteria are with particular regard to dot points 2, 4, 5 and 6. The setback will not ensure adequate and direct sunlight to the adjoining property as well as inhibiting ventilation and the perceived impact of building bulk will be greater. Given the above, the loft wall with a reduced boundary setback when taken into consideration with all of the other variations proposed cannot be approved in the configuration proposed. Open Space The subject site falls within a residential R30 area which requires a minimum of 45% of the site be open space. In the case of this application, the open space on site is 42.26% in lieu of 45%, which represents approximately 8.4m2 of the total site area (306m2). Clause 3.4.1 (P1) of the R-Codes also states that:- “Sufficient open space around buildings:- • to complement the building; • to allow attractive streetscapes; • to suit the future needs of residents, having regard to the type and density of the

dwelling.” There is some argument to say that the above performance criteria are being met in regards to the open space shortfall, however, it is also considered that the combined effect of the reduced setbacks and the overall height of the dwelling along with the open space shortfall is too great on the adjoining dwelling to the south. Given the above, the open space shortfall cannot be recommended for approval. Site Works Level of Fill and Retaining Wall (south) The retaining wall located in the rear garden area to the common southern property boundary requires a 1.5 metre setback in lieu of the Nil setback proposed given its maximum height of 0.9 metres above natural ground level. Clause 3.6.2 (P2) of the R-Codes states that:- “Retaining walls designed or set back to minimise the impact on adjoining property.” Some form of retaining along the southern property boundary is required given the topography of the site. The retaining wall proposed to the southern property boundary allows the building to be constructed at a level commensurate with the northern or highest point on the site. This has also occurred so that the parapet walls proposed closely match those on the adjoining property to the north. As a consequence, the retaining and fill on the southern property boundary is close to 1.0 metre above natural ground level. In regards to this variation, the adjoining neighbour did not express concern subject to the boundary fence being replaced by the applicant. In regards to the variation, it is considered that the above performance criteria are not being met as the walls have not been designed to minimize the impact on the adjoining property to the south.



The combined effect of 0.9 metres of retaining and 1.8 metres high fence (2.7 metres in total) is too great on the adjoining affected neighbour and therefore the fill and retaining variation cannot be recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. Building Height The proposal does not comply with the building height requirements of the Towns RDG’s. Clause 2.3 A1.1 (iii) states that in West Leederville: “Top of a skillion, curved or flat roof that does not exceed 7.0 metres in height”. The applicants have, through the submission of an amended concept, lowered the overall building height, however, a variation of 1.75 metres still exists. A height of 9.175 metres was proposed with the original submission. The adjoining affected neighbour to the south has objected to the variation on the grounds that their building is located to the south of the subject site. Clause 2.3 P1 of the RDG’s states that: “New development should meet these criteria:- • buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their

height and bulk and remain subservient to the green streetscape; • buildings which are respectful of the predominant character and style of the existing


interesting facade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • Building height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to

recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- o adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; o adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and o access to views of significance.”

The new dwelling with an excessive building height (8.75 metres) is a departure from the acceptable development standard of 7.0 metres as listed above and is considered that the overall height of the dwelling combined with the dwelling on 90B McCourt Street, will dominate the streetscape. The proposal is not considered to satisfy all of the above performance criteria; particularly dot points one and two, which have regard to protecting adjoining properties access to direct sunlight and ventilation. The effect on the adjoining property to the south is considered too great as the proposed dwelling will create a high level of overshadowing on the adjoining affected landholding to the south (53.80 % in lieu of 35%). In light of the above, it is considered that the proposed variation to the overall wall height in combination with the other variations proposed is a major departure from the acceptable development standards of the RDG’s, and the loss of direct sunlight and ventilation will be too great on the adjoining property to the south, and therefore cannot be recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. Visual Privacy Three visual privacy variations are proposed to the southern property boundary as listed in the compliance table.



Clause 3.8.1 (P1) – Visual Privacy of the R-Codes states that:- “Avoid direct overlooking between active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the development site and the habitable rooms and outdoor living areas within adjoining residential properties taking into account of:- • the positioning of windows to habitable rooms on the development site and the adjoining

property; • the provision of effective screening; and • the lesser need to prevent overlooking of extensive back gardens, front gardens or areas

visible from the street.” Two of the visual privacy variations are from the upper storey loft (east facing windows and balcony). Direct overlooking into the adjoining property to the south is possible from both of these locations. The other variation is from the first floor balcony, however, it is considered that overlooking will only occur into an area which is considered to be not as important (i.e. – driveway and an area visible from the street). In regards to the loft window and balcony variation, it is considered that, even though screening is proposed, it will not prevent overlooking occurring into the adjoining property to the south. Given the height of the dwelling proposed, it is acknowledged that much of the overlooking will occur onto the roof structure of the adjoining property, however, it will also overlook the rear garden area which is the only private outdoor open space area on the adjoining site as the front garden is open to the street. The adjoining affected neighbour has objected to the visual privacy variations and given the above, it is considered that the visual privacy concerns are too great and that the first floor balcony and loft (east facing windows and balcony) cannot be approved in the configuration proposed. Design for Climate The proposal creates up to 53.80% overshadowing of the adjoining landholding to the south in lieu of the 35% (max.) permitted on a residential R30 site. The extent of overshadowing is that the majority of the adjoining dwelling to the south will suffer a complete loss of sunlight. Clause 3.9.1 (P1) – Solar Access for Adjoining Sites of the R-Codes states that:- “Development designed with regard for solar access for neighbouring properties taking into account the potential to overshadow:- • outdoor living areas; • major openings to habitable rooms; • solar heating devices; or • balconies or verandahs.” The proposal meets none of the above performance criteria and therefore the impact is considered too great on the adjoining property to the south and therefore cannot be approved in the configuration proposed. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposed dwelling will create too great an impact on the adjoining property to the south and the streetscape given the following. It is an overdevelopment of the site, the impact it will cause on the streetscape, the extent of variations proposed, the overall height of the dwelling and the excessive overshadowing that it will cause. Many of the relevant performance criteria are not being met and the adjoining affected neighbour to the south has objected to all of the variations proposed to their property boundary. It is a combination of the effect of all of the variations proposed and their impact on the adjoining property to the south which ensures the recommendation for refusal. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and matters required to be considered under this Scheme generally, and in particular, as the proposal would be contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the locality, the Council REFUSES the application for a two storey dwelling with loft submitted by Michael Broderick and Partners - Architect at Lot 24 (No.90B) McCourt Street, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 24 May 2005 for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Towns Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) or the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 2 - Streetscape;

(ii) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 3 – Buildings Set Back from the Boundary;

(iii) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 4 – Open Space;

(iv) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 6 – Site Works;

(v) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Towns Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 7 – Building Height;

(vi) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 8 – Visual Privacy;

(vii) the proposal does not satisfy the Acceptable Development Requirements or

Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Element 9 – Design for Climate;



(viii) it would set an undesirable precedent for the development of dwellings of that bulk and scale;

(ix) the level of non-compliance will result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the

adjoining dwellings and the surrounding locality; and (x) adjoining landowners have strongly objected to the proposal. Carried 9/0



DES05.135 LOT 299 (NO. 116) CHIPPING ROAD, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE (File Reference:PRO1654) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 239BA-2005 LANDOWNER: S. Lazaridis APPLICANT: Shayne Le Roy ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Building Height (RDG) Wall height

6.5 metres

4.6 metres – 6.9 metres

Visual Privacy (West) Upper Floor Study Window (R-Codes)

Minimum setback from side boundary 6.0 metres

4.5 metres

Visual Privacy (West) Upper Floor Nursery Balcony (R-Codes)

Minimum setback from side boundary is 7.5 metres

5.2 metres

Visual Privacy (West) Ground Floor Verandah (R-Codes)

Minimum setback from side boundary is 7.5 metres

4.8 metres

Ground Floor Side Setback (East) (R-Codes)


Upper Floor Side Setback (East) (R-Codes)


Upper Floor Side Setback (West) (R-Codes)


Rear Setback (R-Codes)

6.0 metres 1.0 – 1.6 metres (“Shed”)



DETAILS: Lot Area : 898m2 Open Space : 66.9% Council has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at Lot 299 (No. 116) Chipping Road, City Beach. The proposed dwelling will be constructed of brick and tile, replacing an original dwelling. The subject site has a relatively steep grade sloping up from the road to the rear of the property from a reduced level (RL) of 10.0 at the road pavement to 19.5 RL at the rear of the property. The site has a depth of 36.19 metres and a frontage of 28.16 metres. The applicant seeks variations in order to accommodate the new development which will be discussed in the report. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was referred to the neighbours for comment in relation to the variations. Both side neighbours have verbally advised staff that they have no objection to the applicant’s proposal. The rear neighbours (No.55 Kinkuna Way) have objected to the rear setback and wall height as follows: “We are not in agreement with the proposed “shed” which is to be built 1.0 metre from our boundary. The proposed structure on the original plan submitted is not a shed. The plan submitted shows a Spa as the structure with four open sides and a pitched roof. A subsequent plan submission shows the same structure now called a shed. We object to this being 1.0 metre from the boundary as it does not comply with the R-Codes. The proposed Spa (with a name change to a shed) is against the guide under item 3.3.1A1(ii) which states what would be acceptable, describing unenclosed habitable areas as needing to be setback as though they were major openings to habitable rooms. This intended Spa location immediately adjoins our alfresco area and would be obtrusive by the nature of its intended use. Also under item 3.3.1 P1 the R-Codes make provision for adjoining privacy as well as bulk building on adjoining properties. The design codes are very clear in their objective to ameliorate the impact of building bulk, interference of privacy and a general intent of promoting harmony between neighbours. The wall height as shown is above the prescribed requirement by an average of 400mm. Again this is unacceptable to us. The extra height will manifest itself in producing an overall building height factor which will compromise our west facing vision from our internal house level. We understand the need for these building development standards and believe that what is needed for compliance is reasonable and fair to both parties.” Delegated Authority: As identified, the application involves variations listed in the above table. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services.



These delegations usually apply where the owner of the adjoining property has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this instance, all of the variations with the exception of wall height can be approved under delegated authority as the affected neighbours have made no objection to these variations. Officers discussed the variations with the eastern and western neighbours and those neighbours have indicated that they are supportive of those variations. The variations are considered acceptable as the affected eastern and western neighbours say that these variations will not have any significant impact on the amenity of their respective properties. In the case of the setback variations (except rear setback), they are considered to be minor and can be supported. In relation to visual privacy, the majority of overlooking occurs along blank walls and the roof of neighbours’ dwellings. Therefore these variations are regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval and are not discussed further in this report. As such, the only outstanding variations which require discussion are in relation to wall height and the rear setback variation. COMMENT: Wall Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 6.5 metres as contained in Clause 2.3(A1.1) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. The application proposes a two storey wall height ranging from 4.6 – 6.9 metres from natural ground level to the top of the eaves. The area of non-compliance is limited to the front of the dwelling and represents the first 3.0 metres of the dwelling. The overall range in wall height is attributed to the location of the dwelling on the site and the steep slope of natural ground level from the front of the property up to the rear boundary. The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria which states:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their



interesting façade to the street, rather than a continuous wall; and • “Building Height consistent with the desired height of buildings in the locality, and to


The applicant has submitted the following comments in relation to the wall height variation:- “We seek a variation for the area of the proposed dwelling that exceeds the height as it is an architectural feature within the design of the proposed new residence that will enhance the streetscape.”



The over height section of the dwelling is towards the front of the site where the ground level slopes down to the street. Discussions with the applicant indicate that the over height section is difficult to avoid due to the natural topography of the site. In determining the proposal, the Guidelines and R-Codes refer to a number of performance criteria which should be considered. The setback of the dwelling from the neighbouring boundaries, particularly the rear southern neighbour, is acceptable (i.e. rear setback ranges 6.0 – 13.5 metres) in terms of allowing access to sunlight. Furthermore, the neighbours at the rear are much higher than the subject site, for instance, the finished floor level of the rear neighbours two storey (with undercroft) ground floor is 21.13 RL with the upper floor at 24.13 RL. The proposed ground floor for the applicant’s dwelling is 16.0 RL with the upper floor at 19.0 RL and the roof at approximately 21.5 RL. The proposed wall height variation is considered to have a minimal impact on the rear neighbour in terms of bulk. At the time when the rear neighbours were proposing their two storey dwelling with undercroft in June 2000, they produced a letter to the Town to support their proposal for a visual privacy variation, which stated in part:- “…because the house situated at present on Lot 299 was on a significantly lower downhill sloping block, the view from our intended upstairs window would clearly be over the rooftop of Lot 299 Chipping Road. In the event of Lot 299 being redeveloped from a single level to a two storey residence the view would still be uninterrupted across the rooftop. In any event to have a view into the house/backyard of Lot 299 from our upstairs window would be a physical impossibility given the very low ground level of Lot 299…” The applicant has designed the two storey dwelling, with undercroft garage, making use of the natural topography of the site. The proposed basement garage floor level is approximately 2 metres below natural ground level. To reduce the garage floor level further would require additional excavation at the rear of the property where the proposed finished floor level of the ground floor of the dwelling is currently proposed to be approximately 2 metres below the natural ground level. Substantial retaining is required at the rear of the property due to the relatively steep slope and it is considered that the proposed finished floor levels of the dwelling are reasonable. The proposed ceiling height of the ground floor is relatively high at 3.0 metres, with the undercroft and first floor being 2.8 metres and 2.6 metres respectively. The ground floor ceiling height could be lowered to 2.7 metres, resulting in an overall reduction in height of 300mm. This reduction will not have any significant bearing on the overall height of the dwelling in relation to the streetscape and neighbouring properties and would achieve small gain, particularly as the majority of the dwelling complies with the wall height requirement and the variation is for a small section of the front of the dwelling. The overall height of the dwelling is not considered to be excessive and would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape. After considering all of these aspects, it is concluded that the wall height variation can be supported. Rear Setback The applicant proposes an unenclosed shed at the rear of the property, which is defined as a building under the Codes and cannot be classified as a shed because it is not enclosed. If the shed were enclosed, then it would not be subject to the rear 6.0 metre setback requirement and would comply as a 1.0 metre setback is acceptable. The shed is therefore deemed to be a patio and is subject to the rear setback requirement. The proposed patio has dimensions of 4.0 x 4.0 metres with a wall height of 2.4 metres and an overall pitched roof height of 3.3 metres above natural ground level. It is noted that these dimensions would comply with the acceptable development standards for an outbuilding in the rear setback area.



Variations to the rear setback acceptable development requirements of the R-Codes may be considered under the performance criteria of Clause 3.3.1 “Buildings Setback from the Boundary” and Clause 3.3.2 “Buildings on Boundary”: Clause 3.3.1 states:- “Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:- • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of assess to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” The patio is single storey and has an area of 16m2. Being unenclosed, it could be used for habitable purposes. The southern neighbour [No.55 Kinkuna Way] objects to the rear setback variation on the grounds of impact of building bulk and loss of privacy. In terms of impact on the neighbouring property under the relevant performance criteria, a site inspection was undertaken and it was noted that the southern neighbouring property is substantially higher than the subject site. The finished floor level of the patio is 18.65 RL and the neighbouring ground level at the boundary is 20.4 RL, a difference of 1.75 metres. With a dividing fence on top of the rear boundary, which is at 20.4 RL, the proposed patio would be concealed to a considerable extent from view. In terms of privacy, the Codes require a setback of buildings for both acoustic and visual privacy. In terms of providing the best privacy and acoustic privacy for the southern neighbour, the location of the patio is acceptable as the further away from the rear boundary the patio is located, the greater the ability for its occupants to look upwards at the southern neighbours. Similarly, Council’s Health Services suggest that the best method to reduce noise from a source is to locate a noise barrier [in this case the rear retaining wall and dividing fence] as close to the source of the noise as possible. Whether the applicant exchanges the location of the pool and patio, absolute acoustic privacy cannot be guaranteed. Based on these observations, it is considered that the rear setback for the patio is acceptable. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft has a number of variations which are listed in the report including; side and rear setbacks, wall height and visual privacy. All of the affected neighbours have indicated that they have no objection to the proposed dwelling, with the exception of the rear neighbour. The rear neighbour has objected to the wall height and rear setback variation.



After consideration of the extent of all the variations including the rear setback and wall height variation and having regard to the relevant performance criteria, it is considered that all of the variations are acceptable for the reasons as outlined in the report. In each case, they will not significantly detract from the amenity of neighbouring properties or the streetscape. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Shayne Le Roy as shown on the plans dated 18 May 2005, for a two storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 299 (No. 116) Chipping Road, City Beach, noting variations to:- • Wall height • Visual Privacy • Rear and Side Setbacks Carried 9/0



DES05.136 LOT 46 (NO. 29) WINDARRA DRIVE, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING AND SWIMMING POOL (File Reference: PRO1202) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for provisional building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 369BA-2005 LANDOWNER: D Odgers and L Wong APPLICANT: Buildwise ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: - Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) - Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Side Setback (R Codes)

1.0 metre to side (south) boundary

0.2 metres to side (south) boundary from feature pillar.

Rear Setback (R Codes)

6.0 metres to rear (west) boundary

1.5 metres to rear (west) boundary (to retaining and screen walls)

Retaining Walls (R Codes)

Retaining walls setback from a common boundary – 6.0 metres from rear boundary.

1.5 metres to rear (west) boundary.

Visual Privacy (R Codes)

• 7.5 metres from areas raised more than 0.5 metres above natural ground level.

• 7.5 metres from upper storey balconies.

• 1.9 metres from raised lawned terrace to rear (west) boundary.

• 6.3 metres from rear alfresco to rear (west) boundary.

• 7 metres from rear balcony to south (side) boundary and 7.3 metres to west (rear) boundary.



DETAILS: Lot Size: 930 square metres Open Space: 66 percent The applicant proposes a two storey dwelling on the existing vacant lot with a raised rear pool and deck area at the rear of the proposed dwelling. The dwelling includes a three car garage and workshop, lounge, guest bedroom, study, home theatre room, kitchen, dining and family room on the ground floor level with an alfresco area directly accessible from the kitchen and family rooms. The master bedroom, three other bedrooms and an activity room are proposed on the upper floor level. Balconies are proposed at the front and rear of the dwelling. The subject site is located on the south west curve of Windarra Drive and the lot slopes down approximately three and a half metres from the street to the rear of the lot. The application requires a Council determination due to the raised outdoor living and pool areas and an upper storey balcony at the rear of the dwelling which result in variations to the setback, retaining and privacy provisions of the R Codes. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes. The plans were advertised to the two properties to the rear of the subject site (No. 10 and 12 Yaringa Way) and the properties either side of the site (No. 27 and No. 31 Windarra Drive) with regard to the setback, retaining and privacy variations. The following submissions were received:- Submission One (No. 27 Windarra Drive) • Rear Setback (West): the proposed retaining and swimming pool screen wall at 1.5

metres setback from the rear/western boundary would be aesthetically displeasing and intrusive to our residence. We believe that the Town’s 6.0 metre minimum required setback from the rear/western boundary should be applied. We strongly object to the height of this proposed wall which we understand to be in excess of 4.0 metres in height. This wall would tower over our property, which is already at a lower level that this part of Lot 46, and would be both confining and aesthetically unattractive to our residence.

• Visual Privacy setback: the proposed upper floor rear balcony will enable visual intrusion

into our family back yard area. We believe the Town’s minimum 7.5 metre setback to the side boundary within the cone of vision should be applied.

Submission Two (No. 10 Yaringa Way) The 4 metre retaining and swimming pool screen wall would have a dramatic and deleterious impact as it is only 1.5 metres back from the boundary. We fully support and trust you will enforce the 6 metre boundary required rear setback. Also of concern is the proposed 4 metre wall that is planned in close proximity to the main sewerage line and the 300mm storm water drain which runs just inside the southern boundary of Lot 46. This would greatly limit subsequent access for maintenance when it is required.



We are also concerned about the rear alfresco area, and the upper floor balcony which does not comply with the visual privacy setback of 7.5 metres. As there is no significant screen wall between these areas and the rear boundary, they would also negatively impact on the amenity of our rear outside areas. Again we fully support and trust you will enforce the minimum required setback of 7.5 metres. Submission Three (No. 31 Windarra Drive) Our main objection is the height of the rear boundary walls (facing towards the ocean). On submission of our plans, we were required to reduce the height of the boundary walls even though the original plans were within Council planning requirements. Therefore, we can see no justification for neighbouring walls on lower natural ground levels to be higher than our own, even to the smallest extent. We are also concerned that any excavation and retaining on the boundary we share with the above dwelling may undermine the existing retaining and perimeter walls, and hope that the Council and all other parties involved will ensure that all precautions are taken to protect our boundary walls. Submission Four (No. 12 Yaringa Way) 1. The swimming pool so close to the fence would allow residents and relatives and friends

invited to the outdoor entertainment areas to peer across into my back yard and disturb my privacy.

2. The natural fall of the land is so great that I already have great problems maintaining my privacy in the rear of my property.

3. The balcony closer to my rear fence than allowed by the Residential Codes would also invade my privacy for the same reasons and compounds the problems of my property having any privacy.

4. The alfresco area and the swimming pool and balcony are all entertainment areas due to the fact that they overlook my property attract ocean views.

Delegated Authority As identified above, the application involves a variation to the side setback requirements of the R Codes. The adjoining property owners to the south (No. 27 Windarra Drive) were advised of the variation and have made no objection to this part of the plan. The setback variation is due to a feature wall to the ground floor which is 230mm in length and is set back 0.2 metres in lieu of 1.0 metre from the property to the south. This variation is considered to be relatively minor and not to have any detrimental impact on the adjoining property. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining land owner has no objection to the variation and the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this particular case, the above provisions in respect to the side setback variations impacting on the adjoining side property is regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval.



COMMENT: Rear Setback The applicant proposes an alfresco area to the rear of the proposed house and a swimming pool directly accessible from the alfresco area. The applicant is therefore proposing to retain the rear section of the lot to nearly the same level as the rear part of the house. This results in the application proposing a retaining wall which runs across the entire width of the lot and set back 1.5 metres from the rear boundary to take account of a sewerage/drainage easement across the rear of the site. The amount of fill and retaining proposed to this boundary reaches a maximum height of 0.914 metres and a 2.4 metre high screen wall is proposed on top of this wall. This means a total wall height of 3.314 metres is proposed 1.5 metres from the rear boundary resulting in a rear setback variation. An additional retaining and screen wall, which is 7.9 metres long, is proposed along the southern side of the proposed swimming pool and ranges in height from 3.3 metres to 4.4 metres. Although this is set back the required distance from the side/southern boundary, approximately half of its length falls within the 6.0 metre rear setback area. With regard to the retaining walls, Clause 3.6.2 of the R Codes requires retaining walls to be setback from common boundaries in accordance with the setback provisions of Table 1, Table 2 and Figure 3. On this basis, a rear setback of 6.0 metres is required in accordance with Table 1 of the R Codes. Buildings which do not comply with the acceptable development standards can be considered against the following performance criteria:- “Retaining walls designed or set back to minimize the impact on adjoining property”.

The requirements relating to building setbacks are contained in the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). The R Codes allow Councils the discretion to consider new development that does not comply with the acceptable development standards, against the following performance criteria:

“Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to: − Provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; − Ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; − Provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; − Assist with the protection of access to direct sun for adjoining properties; − Assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and − Assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” It should be noted that access to views of significance is not a performance criteria that can be applied to a rear setback variation and therefore cannot be applied in this instance. The performance criteria that the development may not meet would be in relation to the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties.



The retaining and screen walls may have an impact on this whilst meeting the next criteria of assisting in protecting privacy between adjoining properties. It is noted that the rear setback variation relates to the screen walls around the swimming pool and not to the actual dwelling. The wall has the potential to have some impact on the adjoining property to the south and west with regard to building bulk. The applicant has not provided any justification for requiring such a high screen wall and it is considered there is scope to reduce both the amount of retaining and the height of screen walls around the swimming pool to reduce the impact of the building on the adjoining landowners. Retaining Walls The Performance Criteria in the R Codes allows for variations to the R Codes as follows:- Development that retains the visual impression of the natural level of a site, as seen from the street or other public place, or from an adjoining property. It is noted that the existing site has a significant fall toward the rear so that with the existing levels, there is potential for overlooking of the adjoining properties to the rear. The majority of the fill proposed by the applicant does not exceed 0.5 metres above the natural ground level, however, there are some sections where more than half a metre of fill is proposed and this is considered to exacerbate problems associated with the difference in levels in terms of privacy and overlooking. As stated previously, it is considered that there is some scope for further lowering of the levels at the rear of the site to reduce the impacts of the retaining walls and privacy screens on adjoining properties. Visual Privacy

The performance criteria of the R Codes state as follows:- Avoid direct overlooking between active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the development site and the habitable rooms and outdoor living areas within adjoining residential properties taking account of:- - The positioning of windows to habitable rooms on the development site and the adjoining

property; - The provision of effective screening; and - the lesser need to prevent overlooking of extensive back gardens, front gardens or areas

visible from the street. The design of the proposed dwelling has all the main living areas for the residence at the rear of the property with an alfresco area at ground level and an upper storey balcony across the rear of the house to take advantage of views to the ocean. There are variations to the R Code privacy distance requirement of 7.5 metres from both of these levels to the southern side and rear boundaries. The rear alfresco area is set back 6.3 metres from the rear boundary and the upper storey balcony is set back 7.0 metres from the southern side boundary and 7.3 metres from the rear boundary. In addition, there is potential for overlooking of the properties to the rear from the built up lawned terrace area. Although the majority of this lawn area is proposed at natural ground level, there is a section towards the rear of the property, where the natural ground level drops away towards the rear boundary, where there is proposed to be more than half a metre of fill. Whilst it is recognized that the subject site is naturally higher than the adjoining properties to the rear due to its topography and overlooking of these properties already exists, it is not considered that additional fill, to exacerbate the situation, should be permitted.



It is considered that amended plans are required that meet the performance criteria of the R Codes in relation to visual privacy. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: This is a particularly difficult site to build on and comply with both the acceptable development standards or else meet the performance criteria of the R Codes. In fact, it could be said that by requiring the application to be brought into compliance with the acceptable development standards of the R Codes, the actual impact on adjoining landowners, particularly with regard to privacy issues, could be worse than if the additional retaining and screen walls are permitted. This is because of the natural topography of the site, which means that any building on the existing natural ground level towards the rear of the site can currently overlook the adjoining properties to the rear. It is therefore considered that some level of retaining and screen walls at the rear of the site are required to allow for a usable rear garden space, whilst providing privacy to both the subject site and adjoining properties. Therefore, it is recommended that the rear alfresco area be either lowered to no greater than half a metre above natural ground level or reduced in size so that a setback of 7.5 metres is achieved to all common boundaries from the alfresco area more than half a metre above natural ground level. In addition, part of the lawned terrace area will need to be reduced in level so that no part of this area is more than half a metre above natural ground level. This can be achieved by the swimming pool, lower deck and part of the lawn area being dropped one metre lower so that the amount of fill required in the rear of the site is reduced. The applicant may have to consider providing steps down to the alfresco area from the house and steps down to the pool level from the alfresco deck (currently the top of the pool to the rear retaining level is at the same level as the rear alfresco area). Privacy screens on top of the retaining wall should not be higher than 1.65 metres along the rear wall. It is questionable whether a screen wall is necessary at all along the side southern boundary and certainly not to the height proposed. It is recommended that this be reduced to a maximum height of 1.6 metres above the retaining level within the 6 metre rear setback area. The upper storey balcony is also required to be amended to achieve 7.5 metre setbacks to adjoining property boundaries or else provided with effective screening. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application in

its present form, for the following reasons:-



(a) non compliance with Clause 3.3.1 of the Residential Design codes with regard to the rear setback variation and its impact on adjoining properties in terms of building bulk; and

(b) non compliance with Clause 3.6.1 of the Residential Design Codes with regard to the amount of fill proposed at the rear of the site and its impact on the natural level of the site as seen from an adjoining property;

(c) non compliance with Clause 3.6.2 of the Residential Design Codes with regard to the proposed retaining walls and the impact on adjoining properties;

(d) non compliance with the visual privacy setback requirements of Clause 3.8.1 of the Residential Design Codes in terms of direct overlooking between active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the development site and the outdoor living areas of adjoining residential properties.


incorporating the following modifications:- (a) the finished floor level of the rear alfresco area being reduced so that no part

of it is greater than 0.5 metres above natural ground level (ie a FFL of 30.6) or else reduced in size so that no part is closer than 7.5 metres from a common boundary;

(b) the finished floor level of the swimming pool, rear deck and rear lawned terrace area being reduced so that no part is higher than 0.5 metres above natural ground level;

(c) any screen wall above retaining within the rear setback area being no higher than 1.6 metres;

(d) the upper storey balcony to the rear of the dwelling being either reduced in size so that no part is closer than 7.5 metres from a common boundary or provided with effective screening in accordance with the provisions of the R Codes.

(iii) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town

Planning Scheme No.1, Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a two storey dwelling and swimming pool submitted by Buildwise at Lot 46 (No. 29) Windarra Drive, City Beach as shown on plans dated 14 June 2005 and 24 June 2005 subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above.

Carried 9/0



DES05.137 LOT 63 (NO. 14) FORTVIEW ROAD, MT CLAREMONT – PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING WITH UNDERCROFT GARAGE (File Reference: PRO1861) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 350BA - 2005 LANDOWNER: G and K Moffat APPLICANT: Grant Francis Moffat ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Building Height (RDG) Wall height

7.5m

7.3m – 8.7m

Landscaping (Clause 2.1.4 RDG)

Minimum of 60% of front setback area to be landscaped

48.9% of the front setback area is paved

DETAILS: Council has received an application for a two storey dwelling with undercroft garage at the above address. The proposed contemporary style dwelling will be constructed of rendered brick with a flat colorbond roof. Currently, there is an existing single storey dwelling on the property which will be demolished to make way for the new dwelling. An undercroft garage is proposed with access from Fortview Road. The application has variations to landscaping and wall height. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was not referred to the owners of adjoining properties in relation to the variations as all of the affected adjoining neighbours have viewed the plans and have no objections to the proposal.



COMMENT: Landscaping The proposed development does not comply with Clause 2.1.4(A1) of the Residential Design Guidelines which states:- “A minimum of 60% of the primary setback area is landscaped.” The development proposes 48.9% of the front setback area being landscaped, the remainder being paved for the driveway and pathways. Variations to Clause 2.1.4(A1) may be approved by Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criteria are met under Clause 2.1.4(P1):- (a) “The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”

appearance, allowing views to the dwelling; and (b) Development which minimizes impact on the natural topography of the locality and

conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.” The applicant has provided a hardstand driveway to a double garage and a paved pathway from the street boundary and driveway to the side and entrance to the dwelling. It is considered, however, that the amount of paving provided for the pathway to the entrance and side of the dwelling could be reduced to make the application comply. A condition of approval should be for the landscaping at the front to comply with the Residential Design Guidelines requirements. Wall Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 7.5 metres as contained in Clause 2.3(A1.2) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. The application proposes a two storey wall height ranging from 7.3 metres to 8.7 metres from natural ground level to the top of the concealed roof. The range in wall height is attributed to the applicant’s design of a concealed roof in lieu of a pitched roof and the varying topography of the natural ground level across the site. The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3(A1.2) Performance Criteria under the provisions of Building Height and Bulk contained in Clause 2.3(P1) of the Residential Design Guidelines which states:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their




recognise the need to protect the amenities of adjoining properties, including, where appropriate:- o Adequate direct sun to buildings and appurtenant open spaces; o Adequate daylight to major openings to habitable rooms; and o Access to views of significance.”



Although it is noted that the design and wall height of the proposed flat roof two storey dwelling is less bulky in size and scale than if the dwelling had a pitched roof, the proposed wall height is considered excessive. The wall height of the proposed dwelling is relatively high, for instance, the front elevation wall height is 8.0 – 8.3 metres. The wall height of the dwelling becomes less, being in the range of 8.0 - 7.3 metres, from the front of the dwelling towards the rear of the dwelling. The acceptable wall height standard under the Guidelines is 7.5 metres. The contemporary concealed roof design of the proposed dwelling technically requires the upper parapet walls to be included in the wall height assessment, which adds to the overall wall height of the dwelling. Notwithstanding that the neighbours have no objection to the proposed dwelling, the overall height of the dwelling would have an adverse impact on the streetscape and since it is a new development, approval in its present form could create an undesirable precedent. The applicant has designed the two storey dwelling, with undercroft garage, making use of the natural topography of the site. It would not be practical to lower the finished level of the undercroft garage any further due to the gradient of the driveway. It is considered that the proposed ceiling heights of the first and second floors are relatively high, (3.0 metres) and these could be lowered to 2.7 metres each, resulting in an overall reduction in height of 600mm. This reduction will have some influence on reducing the overall height of the dwelling in relation to the streetscape and neighbouring properties. After considering all aspects of the proposal, it is concluded that the application can be supported subject to the wall height being lowered by 0.6 metres. CONCLUSION: Notwithstanding that the neighbours have provided their written consent to the proposal, the wall height variation in its present form is considered to have an adverse impact on the streetscape. Subject to the overall wall height being reduced by 0.6 metres, the proposed two storey dwelling with undercroft garage is generally acceptable in the streetscape given that there are other relatively large two storey dwellings in the street and neighbourhood. The landscaping variation is not supported as it is considered that there is scope to be able to reduce the amount of paving, particularly in sections of the pathway which are wider than necessary. The application is supported on the basis that the landscaping be brought into compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Grant Francis Moffat as shown on the plans dated 2 June 2005, for a two storey dwelling with undercroft at Lot 63 (No. 14) Fortview Road, Mt Claremont, noting variations to:- • Wall Height



and subject to: (i) the overall wall height of the dwelling being reduced by 0.6 metres; (ii) landscaping in the front setback area to comply with the requirements of the

Residential Design Guidelines. Carried 9/0



DES05.138 LOT 163 (NO.123) GROVEDALE ROAD, FLOREAT - PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING (File Reference:PRO1838) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS 1). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 299BA-2005 LANDOWNER: R and T Ronzan APPLICANT: Seacrest Homes ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Compliance Standard Proposed Side Setback (South) Garage (R-Codes)


Side Setback (North) (R-Codes)


Visual Privacy (North) Upper Floor Bedroom (R-Codes)

4.5 metres 4.0 metres

DETAILS: Lot Area: 708m2 Open Space: 61% Council has received an application for a brick and colorbond two storey dwelling at the above address. The proposed dwelling replaces an original dwelling on the subject site. The applicant proposes to retain the existing outbuildings at the rear of the property and has designed the dwelling to achieve this outcome. The applicant proposes variations to side setbacks and visual privacy as outlined above. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff.



The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was referred to the owners of adjoining properties in relation to the variations. The neighbours to the south have commented on the proposed variations and the northern neighbour has verbally advised staff that he has no objections to the variations. The southern neighbour’s submission follows: “I wish to object to the dwelling being closer than the minimum prescribed acceptable setback of 1.5 metres as this will impact the northern side of my property at 121 Grovedale Road through restricting sunlight and ventilation.” Delegated Authority: As identified, the application involves variations listed in the above table. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the owner of the adjoining property has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this instance, all of the variations with the exception of side setback south can be approved under delegated authority. Staff discussed the variations with the northern neighbour who indicated that he has no objection to those variations. The variations are considered acceptable as they are considered minor from a planning view. Therefore these variations are regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval and are not discussed further in this report. As such, the only outstanding variation which requires discussion is in relation to side setback south for the garage. COMMENT: The minimum required setback for the garage wall from the south side boundary is 1.5 metres and the applicant proposes a 1.0 metre setback. The proposed garage boundary wall has a length of 7.0 metres and a height of 3.4 metres above natural ground level. Variations to the side setback acceptable development requirements of the R-Codes may be considered under the performance criteria of Clause 3.3.1 “Buildings Setback from the Boundary” and Clause 3.3.2 “Buildings on Boundary”: Clause 3.3.1 states:- “Buildings set back from boundaries other than street boundaries so as to:- • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building; • ensure adequate direct sun and ventilation being available to adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun to the building and appurtenant open spaces; • assist with protection of assess to direct sun for adjoining properties; • assist in ameliorating the impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; and • assist in protecting privacy between adjoining properties.” The garage is single storey and the encroachment relates to a 7.0 metre portion of wall with a reduced setback of 1.0 metre in lieu of 1.5 metres. In terms of impact on the neighbouring property under the relevant performance criteria, a site inspection was undertaken and it was noted that the southern neighbour has a garage angled in towards the northern boundary with a setback of less than one metre.



The garage is a non-habitable room. In this case, a 1.0 metre setback is considered to be sufficient in terms of providing adequate sunlight and ventilation to the neighbouring property. Accordingly it is considered that the variation is acceptable for the reasons stated. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for a two storey dwelling to replace the original existing dwelling has variations relating to side setbacks and visual privacy affecting the southern and northern neighbours. The northern neighbour has verbally indicated no objection to the proposal. The southern neighbour has objected to the reduced side setback on the grounds of loss of sunlight and ventilation. The variation has been considered under the relevant performance criteria and can be supported as the impact on the neighbour is minimal. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Seacrest Homes as shown on the plans dated 12 May 2005, for a two storey dwelling at Lot 163 (No. 123) Grovedale Road, Floreat, noting variations to:- • Visual Privacy • Side Setbacks Carried 9/0



DES05.139 LOT 43 (NO.18) BARNSLEY ROAD, MT CLAREMONT - PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING (File Reference:PRO1133) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 216BA-2005 LANDOWNER: V and Y Siciliano APPLICANT: M Zurzolo ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1)

COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape Front Setback (Clause 2.1.1 RDG), (R-Codes), (Clause 20 TPS1)

7.5 metres from the front property boundary

4.3 – 5.7 metres (Garage)

Side Setback (Shed) Rear and West Side (R-Codes)

1.0 metre Nil

Side Setback East (R-Codes)

1.5 metres 1.1 – 3.0 metres (Dwelling)

Building Height (RDG) Wall height

6.5 metres 8.0 metres (Portico/Balcony)

Retaining Wall West (R-Codes)

0.5 metres above natural ground level

0.9 metres above natural ground level

DETAILS: Council has received an application for a new brick and tile two storey dwelling at the above address. The dwelling is relatively large containing five bedrooms and four bathrooms. The proposal will require the demolition and removal of the original single storey dwelling on the property.



COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was referred to the owners of adjoining properties in relation to the respective variations which affect their properties. The western neighbour at No. 20 Barnsley Road has indicated in writing no objection to the proposal. The eastern neighbour at No.16 Barnsley Road has objected to the proposed front setback variation as follows: “….the only objection I have is to the front setback. I believe that the Barnsley Road streetscape has conformed, without exception, to the standard setback. This residence would be the first to go over that setback. I don’t believe there are good reasons for the residence to go over the setback as the block is large and there is available space at the rear of the proposed residence to allow the building to be moved backwards so the garage does not cross the setback line.” During the referral period a submission was also received from a resident in the street and an extract from the submission reads:- “…As near neighbours we wish to object to this proposal on the grounds that it will lead to the destruction of the existing “garden” landscape of our street. It will also create a precedent whereby any owner rebuilding can request a similar consideration to bypass the existing building by-laws…”. Delegated Authority: As identified, the application involves variations listed in the above table. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the owner of the adjoining property has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this particular case, all of the variations, with the exception of front setback and wall height, can be approved under delegated authority as the affected neighbours have indicated no objection to these variations. The variations are considered acceptable and will not have any significant impact on the amenity of the neighbouring properties. Therefore these variations are regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval and are not discussed further in this report. As such, the only outstanding variations which require discussion are in relation to front setback and wall height. COMMENT: Front Setback The location of the proposed garage is subject to Council’s Town Planning Scheme No.1 Clause 20(1)(a) and Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs). Clause 2.1.1(A1.1) of the RDGs relates to setbacks in City Beach and states:-



“The minimum setback from a primary street boundary to buildings (including garages but excluding carports) shall be 7.5 metres without provision for averaging.” Buildings or structures, such as garages, which encroach into the minimum front setback area may be considered under the Performance Criteria of Clause 2.1.1(P1) of the RDGs. A variation may be approved by Council where, in the opinion of Council, the following criteria are met:- “(a) the setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; (b) a reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in

the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and (c) visual separation maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.” The Performance Criteria of Clause 3.2.3 “Setback of Garages and Carports” of the Residential Design Codes is also considered relevant in determining whether the development is acceptable:- “The setting back of carports and garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings, or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa.” The proposed dwelling is set back between 9.0 – 11.4 metres from the front property boundary and the proposed garage at the front of the dwelling and is set back 4.3 – 5.7 metres from the front property boundary. Approximately 16.6m2 of the garage encroaches into the 7.5 metre front setback area. The range in setback for the garage is attributed to the angle of the garage to the front property boundary and the irregular shape of the lot. Generally speaking, without sufficient setback from the street, a garage detracts from the amenity of the streetscape by presenting a solid structure close to the street. The applicant has provided the following comments in relation to the proposed variation:- “….the overall average front setback is 8 metres….we request consideration to this revised proposal on the following grounds:- • The garage setback is very similar to the adjoining garage to the west [setback

approximately 7.0 metres from the front boundary]; • The projection is only single storey and only a garage; • The average setback for the entire front is very generous; • The design is aimed at removing the garage door from the front elevation and create a

sense of space in front of the home; • There is a very generous verge (6 metres); • The artist impression demonstrates sensitive massing to the street; • The shape of the lot (diminishing considerably to the back) means that all front setback

area reduces the available building area considerably.” Following a site inspection of the subject property and surroundings, it is considered that the proposed setback of the garage is not consistent with the existing character of residential built form in the street and the local neighbourhood. The Barnsley Road streetscape is characterised as having a very open appearance with dwellings well set back from the street (i.e. 7.5 metres) and landscaping and gardens in front setback areas and along the street verge. The proposed garage would therefore not be in keeping with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street and the “garden” suburb principle.



The applicant has mentioned a number of points above to justify the reduced front setback, however, none of them provide any solid justification to support the variation. Generally for new development Council has been strict in requiring development to comply with the front setback requirement of the Scheme and Residential Design Guidelines unless there are strong reasons to support a variation. The proposed setback of the garage would detract from the amenity of the streetscape and approval of the garage would set an undesirable precedent for this form of development in the street and neighbourhood. Accordingly it is considered that the variation in its present form can not be supported. Notwithstanding the submissions received and the above comments, it is noted that the property boundaries taper from the front to the rear. The property frontage is 24.14 metres wide and the rear boundary is 14.08 metres wide, with a property depth of 45.26 and 46.37 metres for the east and west side boundaries respectively. On the basis of the irregular shape of the lot, some dispensation can be considered in order to accommodate the design of the dwelling. Whilst the overall setback variation cannot be supported, a variation could be supported if the western front corner of the garage is moved to the 7.5 metre setback line so that the eastern front corner of the garage does not come any closer than 6.0 metres to the front boundary. It is considered this variation can be supported for the above reasons. Wall Height As stated in the above table, the application does not comply with the maximum permitted wall height of 6.5 metres as contained in Clause 2.3(A1.2) acceptable development standards of Council’s Residential Design Guidelines. Most of the dwelling is contained within the 6.5 metre wall height limit with the only portion of the dwelling exceeding 6.5 metres being the portico/balcony. The application proposes a wall height of 8.0 metres from natural ground level to the top of the eaves for the portico/balcony feature at the front elevation of the dwelling. The applicant seeks Council’s discretionary approval pursuant to Clause 2.3(P1) Performance Criteria which states: “New development should meet these criteria:- • Buildings which respect the scale of buildings generally in their vicinity, in terms of their





The proposed portico/balcony is considered to meet the above performance criteria as it is:- • setback approximately 32 and 10.7 metres from the north (rear) and south (front)

boundaries, 9.0 and 9.5 metres from the west and east side property boundaries respectively thus allowing light to neighbouring properties and having a limited impact on the streetscape;



• it will not be readily visible from the neighbouring properties as the section of non-

complying wall is at the front of the dwelling; • the size and scale of the portico/balcony is relatively small and will not dominate its

surroundings as it is an architectural feature rather than part of the overall mass of the dwelling.

The landowners of the adjoining properties have made no objection to the proposed wall height variation and it is considered that the variation is minor and individually could be supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for a new brick and tile two storey dwelling proposes a number of variations including retaining wall, side and rear setback, wall height and front setback variations. It is considered that the application requiring a variation to the maximum permitted wall height specified under Clause 2.3(A1.2) of the Residential Design Guidelines, can be supported as it satisfies the relevant performance criteria under Clause 2.3(P1) “Building Height” of the Residential Design Guidelines as outlined in the report. With the exception of front setback, other variations proposed can be approved under delegated authority as outlined above, particularly as the neighbours have provided in writing no objection or have made no objection and that those variations are considered acceptable from a planning view. The proposed location of the garage does not satisfy the performance criteria of the Residential Design Guidelines and the Residential Design Codes and approval would set an undesirable precedent in the street and neighbourhood. In relation to the application, there is no compelling reason for Council to reconsider its policy and accordingly the application can not be supported in its present form. Notwithstanding these comments, on the basis of the irregular shape of the lot, some dispensation can be considered in order to accommodate the design of the dwelling. The western front corner of the garage should be moved back to the 7.5 metre setback line so that the eastern front corner of the garage does not come any closer than 6.0 metres to the front boundary. It is considered this variation can be supported as it will not have a significant impact on the amenity of the streetscape. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,

Council not be prepared to approve the application submitted by M Zurzolo as shown on the plans dated 30 May 2005, for a two storey dwelling at Lot 43 (No. 18) Barnsley Road, Mt Claremont, for the following reasons:-



(a) the proposed garage does not comply with the Acceptable Development

Requirements or satisfy the Performance Criteria of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines Clause 2.1.1 – Street Setbacks and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia Part 3.2 Element 2 – Streetscape;

(b) the proposed garage does not comply with Clause 20(1)(a) of Town Planning

Scheme No.1 requiring a 7.5 metre street boundary setback for garages; (c) the proposal if approved would result in an undesirable precedent for other

applications seeking variations of a similar nature; (d) the development will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the

streetscape;

(ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans incorporating the following modification:-

(a) the western front corner of the garage be moved back to the 7.5 metre setback

line so that the eastern front corner of the garage does not come any closer than 6.0 metres to the front boundary;


Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application submitted by M Zurzolo as shown on the plans dated 30 May 2005, for a two storey dwelling at Lot 43 (No. 18) Barnsley Road, Mt Claremont, subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the change referred to in (ii) above.

Carried 9/0



DES05.140 LOT 1452 (NO. 22) KILDARE ROAD, FLOREAT – PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS (File Reference: PRO 1725) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 353BA-2005 LANDOWNER: Mr R Pillar and Ms L Westover APPLICANT: Ms L Westover ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Front Setback (Cl 20 of TPS 1 and RDGs)

9.0 metres for the garage/store 0.3 metres

Side Setback (R Codes)

Minimum 1.5 metres from additions to north/left boundary

0.82 metres

Minimum 1.5 metres from additions to south/right side boundary

1.0 metre

Minimum 1.1 metres from garage/store to south/right side boundary

1.0 metre


Minimum 6.0 metres from studio addition to rear/east boundary

1.8 metres

Visual Privacy Setback (R Codes)

Minimum 4.5 metres from bedroom 2 to right/south side boundary

3.5 metres measured at a 45 degree angle

DETAILS: Lot Size: 835 square metres Open Space: 64 percent



The applicant proposes additions and alterations at No. 22 Kildare Road, Floreat. The additions to the dwelling include a main bedroom, ensuite, WIR and bedroom 2 to the southern side of the dwelling, and a laundry, toilet and alfresco to the rear of the dwelling. Also proposed is a garage (including store) in the front, south-western corner of the property, and an extension to an existing studio located in the rear north-eastern corner of the property. Applicant’s Ground for Request The applicant has provided the following information as justification for the proposed variation to the front setback requirement:-

“The front setback on the plan is 300 mm. The carport is 6000 mm wide and it is separated from the main dwelling by 1400 mm. The setback from the Southern boundary is 1000 mm. There are 2 main reasons why we would like to have the carport in this location.

1. Our block slopes down from the front boundary to the rear boundary by

approximately 2500 mm. From the front boundary to the front wall of the existing dwelling, the fall is approximately 1400 mm. Currently our driveway slopes down towards a carport which is in line with the house. We consider that the sloping driveway is both inconvenient and dangerous. In October 2003, there was an accident involving a vehicle running down the slope and smashing into the carport. On a previous occasion, a car ran down the sloped driveway and smashed into the neighbors kitchen – which looks onto our southern fence. We also have elderly parents and grandparents who are unable to negotiate this slope. Additionally we have a young child and expect to have more children. The slope of the driveway will pose a danger to these (young) children playing on bikes.

Taking the carport to within 300 mm of the front boundary will overcome the danger and inconvenience associated with the current driveway and carport.

2. The second reason for placing the carport at the front of the property is that our

neighbours at 20 Kildare Road (southern side neighbours) have a triple carport in the mirror location on their block. The back of their garage faces our southern boundary and is open to our front yard and visible from our bedroom windows. Stored in the garage is a boat, trailer, and a number of vehicles. There are also storage shelves and a variety of other items which are in view of our bedroom window. This is unsightly and noisy. Any vehicle coming or leaving at night or in the early morning wakes us. Placing our carport in the South Western corner of our block will improve the amenity of our block because it will block noise and create a visual buffer. This is also why we have planned to have an 1800 mm wall on the southern side of our carport.

In order to ensure that our carport is free of clutter, we have planned to have a small storeroom at the rear for bicycles, and garden tools.

A further reason is described in more detail below and relates to maintaining the originality of the main house structure.

5.6 Performance criteria – Garages and Carports Variations to the Compliance Standards may be approved by the council where, in the opinion of the council, the following criteria are met:-



(a) the setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street.

(b) a reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and

(c) visual separation maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.

Addressing the above criteria.

(a) The proposed setback for the carport is 300 mm. This is in line with the property directly next door at 20 Kildare Road. Their carport is in the North Western corner of their property. The setback for this carport is approximately 1500 mm. It adjoins their house.

(b) The street contains a vast variety of building styles, materials and sizes. For

example, Number 24 is a very large modern house (Brick and Colourbond) built over 3 levels. Number 22 is an original 1950’s house – with barn style 25 degree pitch roof. Number 20 is a 1980’s style house with low roof line. Number 18 is a new single storey home – rendered with Colourbond roof. Number 16 is a large new 2 storey home. The property directly opposite our home is a similar style to ours but sits approximately 4 to 5 metres higher. We do not consider that the proposed carport will detract in any way from the pattern of development in the street.

(c) We consider that visual separation is maintained by the variety of building styles

and building materials described above. The aesthetics of the area and in particular, our street is of concern to us also. We believe that maintaining the originality of the area by retaining original houses is very important. Placing the carport at the front of the property allows us to preserve the original home and extend it in a way that is sympathetic to the original design.”

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R Codes. The application was referred to the owners of the five properties that adjoin the subject site, No. 20 Kildare Road to the south, No. 24 Kildare Road to the north, and Nos. 21 to 25 Clanmel Road to the rear. No comments were received. Council’s Town Planning Delegation Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining land owner has no objection to the variation and the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this particular case, the above provisions in respect to the side setback, rear setback and visual privacy setback variations impacting on adjoining properties are regarded as having been satisfied and do not require the Elected Members’ approval.



The side setback variation to the northern side boundary is proposed in order to continue the existing northern side setback of the dwelling. Access to direct sun and ventilation for the adjoining property to the north and the subject site will not be significantly affected by the proposed side setback. The adjoining dwelling to the north is higher and longer than the dwelling on the subject site, so bulk is not a concern. The alfresco area will enhance privacy for occupiers of the subject site and the adjoining dwelling to the north as it will cover their existing private outdoor living area. The side setback variation to the southern side boundary for the proposed garage is minor (1.1 metre required, 1.0 metre provided). In relation to the setback of the proposed bedroom additions from the southern side boundary, the bedroom additions are likely to cause overshadowing onto the adjoining dwelling to the south. A compliant setback of 1.5 metres is unlikely to significantly reduce the level of overshadowing caused by the wall, due to the proposed height of the wall which includes a gable wall. Although single storey, the height of the wall is over 4.0 metres, as the floor level of the bedrooms is proposed to be the same level as the rest of the dwelling which is built up on limestone blocks. In relation to the visual privacy variation for the bedroom 2 window, the adjoining dwelling to the south has windows facing the side boundary that are currently clearly visible from ground level of No. 22 Kildare Road over the dividing fence. The bedroom 2 window faces the rear rather than the side boundary, so casual overlooking will be to the rear, rather than the side of the dwelling. In relation to the rear setback variation for the studio extension, the existing studio is set back 1.8 metres from the rear boundary. The studio is a single storey structure and the addition will increase the width of the studio, parallel to the rear boundary, by 1.085 metres. The addition is considered to be minor and is unlikely to have a significant detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. Therefore the only variation requiring the Elected Members’ approval is the front setback variation for the garage/store. COMMENT: Front Setback The acceptable development requirements of the RDGs require a setback of 9.0 metres for the proposed garage/store. The structure is classed as a garage rather than a carport, even though the structure is open on two sides (front and northern side). This is because the definition of a carport (Clause 2.1.1 A1.6 (i) of the RDGs) is a structure that is unenclosed, except to the extent that it abuts a dwelling on one side. The proposed setback of the garage/store is 0.3 metres from the front boundary. If a proposed development does not comply with the acceptable development requirements, Council may still approve the development if it meets certain performance criteria. In relation to front setbacks, the performance criteria (contained in Clause 2.1.1 P1 of the RDGs) are as follows:_ (a) The setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; (b) A reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in

the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and (c) Visual separation maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.



The applicant has highlighted that the adjoining property to the south (No. 20 Kildare Road) has a garage (carport with solid roller doors) approximately 1.5 metres from the front boundary. This garage is, however, cut into the site with the side of the garage parallel to the front boundary. The neighbour’s garage is screened by landscaping between the garage and the front boundary. The proposed garage at No. 22 Kildare Road will be at the same level as the front boundary, as vehicles will be entering and exiting the carport directly off the street. As the land slopes down to the rear, the land under the garage will need to be filled to match the ground level of the front boundary. This will result in the rear wall of the garage being 3.65 metres high, whilst the front column is 2.314 metres high. The proposed garage will, therefore, be more visible in the street than the neighbour’s garage. Whilst the southern side of the garage will be partly open, the side will still appear more bulky than if the side had only columns and no walls between. The applicant would like to screen the neighbour’s garage from view. It is considered that a more appropriate way of screening the garage is to consider increasing the height of the dividing fence, which currently is relatively low on the side of No. 22 Kildare Road. This would have to be discussed between neighbours, and an application for fencing in the street setback area may need to be submitted to the Town. It is considered that the enclosed store attached to the rear of the garage is also difficult to support. The store is located within the 9.0 metre front setback area and will be visible from the north and directly in front of the carport. The land under the store will be compacted fill to a maximum height of approximately 1.0 metre. The store will be enclosed on all sides. The store adds to the bulk of the carport/garage. On its own, an enclosed structure such as a store would not be permitted in the front setback area. Overall, it is considered that the proposed garage/store in the front setback area does not satisfy the performance criteria and is therefore not supportable. The proposed 0.3 metre setback of the garage/store is not compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street and is likely to adversely impact on the pattern of development in the street and set an undesirable precedent for future garage applications in Floreat. A fully open carport is, however, supportable as it would have a significantly less detrimental impact on the streetscape than the garage/store structure. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposed additions and alterations to the existing dwelling and studio at No. 22 Kildare Road are acceptable. The proposed garage/store, set back 0.3 metres from the front boundary, is, however, of concern. The structure requires fill to level the area, which will create a more prominent structure in the streetscape.



The addition of the fully enclosed store increases the bulk of the structure closer to the street. It is considered that alternatives exist to screening the neighbour’s garage from view and providing covered storage space on the property behind the front setback line. A fully open carport in the location of the proposed garage/store (ie. front setback of 0.3 metres) would comply with the acceptable development requirements and would be approved without the need for a Council determination. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application for

additions and alterations submitted by L Westover at Lot 1452 (No. 22) Kildare Road, Floreat as shown on plans dated 7 June 2005 in its present form, for the following reasons:- (a) the garage/store does not meet the acceptable development requirements or

performance criteria of Clause 2.1.1 ‘Street Setbacks’ of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines;

(b) there are no extenuating circumstances in this instance that would support

such a substantial variation to the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines;

(ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans incorporating the following modifications:-

(a) the garage/store being modified to a carport;

(iii) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town

Planning Scheme No.1, Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for additions and alterations submitted by L Westover at Lot 1452 (No. 22) Kildare Road, Floreat as shown on plans dated 7 June 2005 subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above.

Carried 9/0



DES05.141 LOT 198 (NO. 47) DAMPIER AVENUE, CORNER HOVEA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, INCLUDING FENCING IN THE STREET SETBACK AREA (File Reference: PRO 0941) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for provisional building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 331BA-2005 LANDOWNER: Mr M and Mrs C Langoulant APPLICANT: Beilby Design ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed


Minimum 6.0 metres 4.3 metres (ground floor)

Fencing in the Street Setback Area (RDGs)

100% visually permeable in the primary street setback area above 750 mm

Approximately 84% visually permeable

Minimum 40% visually permeable in the secondary street setback area above 750 mm

Approximately 14% visually permeable

Maximum average height of 1.8 metres

Ranges in height from 1.55 metres to 2.2 metres above natural ground level

DETAILS: Lot Size: 1093 square metres Open Space: 74 percent The applicant proposes additions and alterations to an existing single storey dwelling. The additions include a new kitchen and activity room on the ground floor, new verandah and deck adjacent to the pool and limestone walls, and a new upper floor comprising of a main bedroom and ensuite and WIR, bedroom 2, study and bathroom.



The application requires a Council determination as variations to the acceptable development requirements relating to fencing in the street setback area are proposed. Applicant’s Ground for Request The proposed fence is designed to provide the best solution for the owner and the surrounding amenity.

“The part of the proposed fence on the actual secondary street boundary is designed to replace an existing brick fence that has recently collapsed due to fatigue of the existing retaining wall. There is an existing level difference between the natural ground of the verge and the pool surround of 350mm to 900mm. For the privacy of the owner and the comfort of the neighbours, we intend to reinstate the existing solid screen (brick fence) to a height of 1.35 metres above the pool level. It should be noted that the existing length of the brick screen wall on the boundary is to be reduced to assist with minimising the non-conforming but sensible solution. Where possible the new line of the proposed fence has been set back from the boundary allowing for a landscape screen to assist with the breaking up of the streetscape and the fence shall be built of limestone to assist with minimising visual impact. The heights of the fence have been kept to a minimum (1.356 metres to 1.2 metres) from the owner’s ground level. Material selection has been considered to provide a visually pleasing aesthetic. This situation of non-conforming fencing is a result from the fall of the natural ground level and the construction of the existing pool, some 20 years ago at a level mid-way between the existing house level and the verge level. Furthermore, the primary street frontage has an open front garden without any fences, more than compensating any foreseen impact to the secondary street frontage. The owners could build a conforming front fence facing Dampier Avenue, resulting in a much greater impact on the streetscape, than the proposal presented. SUMMARY As the proposed works are without detriment to the surrounding amenity, we request planning approval.”

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R Codes. The application was referred to the owners of the two properties that adjoin the subject site, No. 1 Hovea Crescent to the rear/south and No. 45 Dampier Avenue to the east in relation to the proposed rear setback variation. No comments were received in relation to the proposed development. Council’s Town Planning Delegation Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining land owner has no objection to the variation and the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective.



In this particular case, the above provisions in respect to the rear setback variation for the additions impacting on adjoining properties are regarded as having been satisfied and does not require the Elected Members’ approval. The rear setback variation is for the ground floor additions, which will be set back 4.3 metres minimum from the rear boundary. Only a 3.3 square metre portion of the proposed kitchen and 1.8 square metres of the proposed verandah are within the rear setback area. The rear boundary acts as the side boundary of the adjoining property to the south. COMMENT: Fencing in the Street Setback Area The relevant acceptable development requirements of the Residential Design Guidelines (Clause 2.1.3 A1.3 and A1.4) states that a minimum of 40% of the area of any fence within the secondary street setback area above 750 mm should be visually permeable and 100% of the area of any fence above 750 mm within the primary street setback area should be visually permeable. The plans submitted show 14% visual permeability in the secondary street setback above 750 mm and 84% visual permeability in the primary street setback above 750 mm. In addition, the acceptable development requirements permit an average height of 1.8 metres. Due to the existing retaining, most of the proposed fence will be greater than 1.8 metres high, as viewed from the street. Council may approve variations to the acceptable development requirements of the RDGs relating to fencing in the street setback area where the following performance criteria, outlined in Clause 2.1.3 P1 of the RDGs are met: i. Fences consistent with existing streetscape character; and ii. Fences that contribute towards:

• visual privacy for a sole or main living areas; or • protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights

emanating from a public street that are shining directly into habitable rooms; and

iii. Solid walls and fences that are higher than 0.75 metres above natural ground level are:

• truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of where fences adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect; and

• broken up with piers, a mix of building materials, recessed panels incorporating landscaping, and/or set back a sufficient distance to allow suitable landscaping, to reduce the bulk of the fence; and

• constructed so as not to substantially obstruct views of the dwelling, including the main entry, from the street.

The limestone walls will provide some privacy to the existing pool area and replace a previous high solid wall that collapsed recently. The extent of the high solid wall along the secondary street boundary will be less than the previous high solid wall. The limestone walls are not close to the driveway so sightlines will not be affected. The wall steps in off the Hovea Crescent boundary, allowing landscaping to be planted in front of the wall, which will reduce the bulk of the walls. The ‘random pattern’ of the limestone wall will also provide some aesthetic interest to the streetscape.



The dwelling addresses Dampier Avenue. The proposed walls, which are located to the Hovea Crescent side of the property, will not affect views of the dwelling from Dampier Avenue. No fencing is proposed along the primary street (Dampier Avenue) setback area so the property will retain an open streetscape to Dampier Avenue. In addition there are a number of large trees on the Hovea Crescent verge directly adjacent to the high solid wall, which will assist in reducing the impact of the wall on the Hovea Crescent streetscape. The height of the wall is a result of the established difference in levels between the pool paving and the verge. The height of the wall as viewed from inside the property is 1.35 metres, which is 15 centimetres higher than the minimum required for pool safety. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing, whilst higher and less visually permeable than the acceptable development requirements, will not have a detrimental impact on the streetscape and the amenity of the surrounding area, and can therefore be supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposed limestone walls satisfies the performance criteria and can therefore be supported. The limestone walls will provide privacy to the existing pool area and replace a previous solid wall that collapsed recently. The limestone walls are not close to the driveway so sightlines will not be affected. The wall steps in off the Hovea Crescent boundary, allowing landscaping to be planted in front of the wall, which will reduce the bulk of the walls. A substantially open streetscape to Dampier Avenue, allowing uninterrupted views of the dwelling will be maintained. The site plan submitted shows paving in the Dampier Avenue verge. A footnote can be included advising that a separate application is required for any paving in the verge. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations at Lot 198 (No. 47) Dampier Avenue, City Beach submitted by Beilby Design as shown on the amended site plan and Hovea Crescent Fence Elevation dated 8 July 2005 and floor plans and elevations dated 26 May 2005 noting variations to:- • rear setback; and • fencing in the street setback area.



Footnote: This approval does not include approval for paving in the Dampier Avenue verge. A separate application is required for any paving in the Dampier Avenue verge. Carried 9/0



DES05.142 LOT 151 (NO. 68) CHIPPING ROAD, CITY BEACH – PROPOSED PERGOLA (File Reference: PRO 1654) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval for a pergola seeking a variation to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 335BA-2005 LANDOWNER: M Schneider and L Martin APPLICANT: M Schneider and L Martin ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 At the 26 April 2005 meeting, Council decided, in relation to an application for retrospective planning approval for a patio at No. 68 Chipping Road,

“That:- (i) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town

Planning Scheme No.1, the Council REFUSES the application for retrospective approval submitted by M Schneider and L Martin for the illegally constructed patio within the front setback area at Lot 151 (No.68) Chipping Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 25 February 2005 for the following reason:-

• non compliance with the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia,

(ii) the unauthorised patio within the front setback area be removed within 28 days

of the date of this decision. (iii) if the unauthorised patio is not removed within 28 days, the Council will initiate

legal action. Footnote: The Owner and Builder be advised that it is an offence to commence or carry out any development without first having applied for and obtained the relevant approval of the Council.”

The patio has not yet been removed. The applicant proposes to demolish the patio and construct the pergola at the same time. In response to the Council’s decision, the applicant submitted a new application for a pergola, set back 0.3 metres from the front boundary. This application is the subject of the following report. POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) − Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1



COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Front setback (Cl 20 of TPS 1 and RDGs)

Minimum 7.5 metres

0.3 metres

DETAILS: Lot area: 855 square metres Open space: Unchanged The applicant proposes to replace the existing unauthorised patio that is attached to the front boundary wall with a freestanding pergola, set back 0.3 metres from the front boundary and 1.0 metre from the northern side boundary. The pergola is proposed to be 7.5 metres long (parallel to the front boundary), and 2.4 metres wide and 2.4 metres high. The application requires a Council determination due to the variation to the front setback requirement. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, there was no specific requirement to undertake consultation. COMMENT: Front Setback: Under the current Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and the previous RDGs, pergolas were not subject to any town planning building setback requirements, as they were not defined as a building. The revised RDGs, approved by the Council at its 28 June 2005 meeting, now include a clause (Clause 2.1.1 A1.5(ii)) that states:-

“Structures in the street setback area which are not defined as a building in the R-Codes such as pergolas and shade sails are considered in accordance with the street setback and boundary setback acceptable development requirements of these Guidelines and the R-Codes.’

The front setback requirement for dwellings and garages in City Beach is 7.5 metres. However ,the front setback requirement for carports in City Beach that are separated from a dwelling by 1.5 metres or more and have a maximum width of 6.5 metres is 0.3 metres. The proposed pergola, whilst over 6.5 metres in width facing the street, is a more similar structure to a carport rather than a garage or dwelling. The pergola is open on all sides and will have a flat, water permeable roof. The pergola will be visible from Chipping Road, as its height of 2.4 metres is higher than the front limestone wall. The front limestone wall ranges in height from approximately 1.75 metres to 1.95 metres. Compared with the current patio, the proposed pergola will be set back, rather than attached to the front wall, and therefore stormwater will be contained on site.



Whilst there are similarities with the existing structure, the proposed pergola is considered to be low impact in the streetscape and therefore supportable, as it is open on all sides, including the roof covering. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Whilst the proposed pergola is similar to the existing patio in terms of location and positioning in the front setback area, the modifications are considered sufficient to enable its recommendation for approval. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning

Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a pergola at Lot 151 (No. 68) Chipping Road, City Beach submitted by M Schneider and L Martin as shown on the plans dated 27 May 2005 noting a variation to:-

• primary street setback;

(ii) the unauthorised patio within the front setback area be removed within 28 days of the

date of this decision; and (iii) if the unauthorised patio is not removed within 28 days, the Council will initiate legal

action. Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, Members expressed concern that the relocation of the structure might still result in the roof overhanging the front boundary. It was therefore agreed that the entire structure should be located such that it remains entirely within the front boundary wall. Amendment Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That clause (i) of the motion be amended by adding the following condition:- • the pergola being located such that no part of the structure extends (to the west) beyond

the inside face of the front boundary wall. Carried



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town

Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application for a pergola at Lot 151 (No. 68) Chipping Road, City Beach submitted by M Schneider and L Martin as shown on the plans dated 27 May 2005 subject to the following condition:-

(a) the pergola being located such that no part of the structure extends (to the

west) beyond the inside face of the front boundary wall. noting a variation to:-

• primary street setback;

(ii) the unauthorised patio within the front setback area be removed within 28 days of

the date of this decision; and (iii) if the unauthorised patio is not removed within 28 days, the Council will initiate

legal action. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



DES05.143 LOT 20 (NO. 16A) RESERVE STREET, WEMBLEY – PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY DWELLING (File Reference: PRO0972) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine the application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 245BA-2005 LANDOWNER: J and S Coker APPLICANT: J and S Coker ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20 POLICY: - Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) - Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Primary Street Setback (R Codes and RDG’s)

6.0 metres 3.0 metres to garage 5.0 metres to verandah

Garage Doors in Wembley (RDG’s)

Max 40% of frontage being garage door facing the street.

42.35% frontage being garage door.

Side Setback (R Codes)

1.0 metre from right (south) boundary

Nil metres

DETAILS: Lot Area: 547 square metres Open Space: 56 percent Applicant’s Ground for Request The original residence was built in 1996 and to a very good standard. The additions required for the residence include a fourth bedroom/study and the existing carport enclosed to become a double garage.

• The new design adds more space internally and maintains the existing exterior structural design style.

• The fourth bedroom/study is built from the boundary with a parapet wall to allow for a spacious entry hall and easy access from the garage to the house.



• The double garage has been extended one metre towards the street frontage to allow for adequate space around the two cars.

• A proposed brick and wrought iron fence will add structure and strength to the residence.

• The new rendered brick fascias to the house frontage should be painted to reduce weathering and add a modern colour scheme.

• These additions should increase the value of the property without a major building expense.

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes and the adjoining property owner to the south (No. 16B Reserve Street) was contacted with regard to the nil setback to the dwelling additions. The fourteen days period for comment expires on 21 July 2005. At the time of writing this report, no submission had been received. COMMENT: Primary Street Setback Clause 2.1.1 (A1.3) of the RDGs relates to setbacks in Wembley states:- “The minimum setback from a primary street boundary to buildings (including garages but excluding carports) is 6.0 metres without provision for averaging.” Buildings or structures, such as garages, which encroach into the minimum front setback area may be considered under the Performance Criteria (P1) of Clause 2.1.1 of the RDGs. A variation may be approved by Council where, in the opinion of Council, the following criteria are met as stated in the Performance Criteria:- “(a) the setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; (b) a reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in

the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and (c) visual separation is maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.” The Performance Criteria of Clause 3.2.3 “Setback of Garages and Carports” of the Residential Design Codes is also considered relevant in determining whether the development is acceptable:- “The setting back of carports and garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings, or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa.” The existing dwelling is set back approximately 9.5 metres from the front property boundary and the existing carport is setback 4.0 metres from the front property boundary. The applicants propose to convert the existing carport to a garage by adding solid side walls and a garage door and increase its length so that it is one metre closer to the front boundary (ie a 3 metre setback). Garages are required to be set back from the front boundary 6.0 metres as without sufficient setback from the street, a garage generally detracts from the amenity of the streetscape by presenting a solid structure close to the street.



Following a site inspection of the subject property and surroundings, it is considered that the proposed garage is not consistent with the existing character of residential built form in the street and the local neighbourhood. The Reserve Street streetscape is characterised as generally having an open appearance with dwellings well set back from the street (i.e. 6.0 metres) and landscaping and gardens in front setback areas and along the street verge. There are many examples of open carports within the front setback area with the few garages generally being for properties on corner lots. The proposed garage would therefore not be in keeping with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street. In order to bring the application to a more acceptable standard, it is recommended that the extension to the carport can be supported but not its enclose to become a garage. If a garage door is required to provide security, then it should be visually permeable as well as any side walls within the front setback area. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a verandah in front of the dwelling addition which will have a setback of 5.0 metres from the primary street boundary. This verandah is directly adjacent to the open double carport on the adjoining property to the south and it is not considered that the setback variation will have an adverse impact on the amenity of the streetscape. Garage Doors in Wembley Clause 2.1.2 of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines relates to garage doors in Wembley and states that acceptable development requires: “For single storey dwellings, a garage door facing the primary street that:- • Does not occupy more than 40% of the frontage at the setback line as viewed from the

street; and • Is located within 2.0 metres of the main entry door to the dwelling.” The proposal to convert the existing carport to a garage with a garage door means that 42.35% of the frontage will be taken up with a garage door. Further, the garage door is located 4.0 metres from the main entry to the dwelling. Garages which do not meet the acceptable development standards may be considered under the Performance Criteria (P1) of Clause 2.1.2 of the RDGs. A variation may be approved by Council where, in the opinion of Council, the following criteria are met as stated in the Performance Criteria:- • “The proportion of frontage and building façade occupied by garages limited so as not to

detract from the streetscape; and • The front of the dwelling facing the street is broken up, presenting a varied and interesting

façade to the street.” As stated previously, the streetscape is generally open and with large setbacks to the street. The location of a solid garage door 3.0 metres from the boundary and taking up more than 40% of the frontage would have a dominating visual impact on the streetscape. A visually permeable door would allow security to the house without providing a blank and uninteresting façade to the street. Side Setback The requirements relating to building setbacks are contained in the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes). The R Codes allow Councils the discretion to consider new development that does not comply with the acceptable development standards, against the following performance criteria:



Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:- − Make effective use of space; or − Enhance privacy; or − Otherwise enhance the amenity of the development; and − Not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and − Ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of

adjoining properties is not restricted.

The setback variation is to the southern side boundary with the proposed bedroom and verandah having a nil setback to the boundary. The wall along the boundary is 5.7 metres long and is directly adjacent to the neighbour’s double carport.

In terms of the performance criteria of the R Codes, the main issue in consideration of the setback variation is the impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the south. As the setback variation is to a short length of wall and not adjacent to living areas on the adjoining property, it is not considered that the setback variation in itself would cause excessive overshadowing, building bulk or loss of privacy.

Having regard to the above comments, the variation to the side setback requirements for the proposed carport meets the performance criteria of the R Codes and can be supported. However, it is noted that the comments of the adjoining neighbour have not been received at the time of writing this report and this consideration may need to be further reviewed. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposal to extend the existing carport closer towards the primary street boundary and convert it to a garage with solid walls and a garage door would have a detrimental impact on the streetscape and provide a blank façade to the street. The proposal for the reduced setback to the carport can be supported subject to the structure remaining an open carport within the front setback area and the door being visually permeable. The reduced setback to the open verandah is not considered to have any significant impact on the streetscape and can be supported. The nil setback to the southern boundary for the bedroom addition may be able to be supported but is subject to no adverse comments being received from the neighbour to the south and could be reconsidered on the basis of any comments received.



ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application in its

present form, for the following reasons:-

(a) non compliance with Clause 2.1.1 (A1.3) of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines with regard to the front setback variation to the proposed double garage and its impact on the streetscape in terms of building bulk; and

(b) Non compliance with Clause 2.1.2 of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines with regard to the garage doors dominating the frontage and providing a blank façade to the streetscape;


incorporating the following modifications:- (a) the proposed garage having open sides within the front setback area (for the first

6.0 metres as measured from the primary street boundary; and (b) the garage door being visually permeable;

(iii) in the event of no objections being received during the advertising period, in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No.1, Council authorise the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for additions and alterations to the existing residence, noting a variation to the side setback, as submitted by J and S Coker at Lot 20 (No. 16A) Reserve Street, Wembley as shown on the amended plans dated 6 July 2005 subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above.

Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 Members were advised that the application has been withdrawn. Council Meeting 26 July 2005 Members noted that the application has been withdrawn.



DES05.144 LOT 212 (NO.451) CAMBRIDGE STREET, FLOREAT – PROPOSED ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO EXISTING SINGLE STOREY DWELLING (File Reference:PRO1637) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Residential Planning Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 272BA-2005 LANDOWNER: C and N Eaves APPLICANT: As Above ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R15 POLICY: − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape (RDG’s) Front Fence (perm.) Front Fence (Height) Landscaping (amount of hard paving)

1:1 above 750mm above NGL

1.8 metres (avg.)

40% (max.)

Solid portions above 750mm above NGL

1.85 metres (avg.)

71.95% Boundary Setbacks (R-Codes) Existing study – bed 2 (east)

1.6 metres

1.5 metres – 2.4 metres DETAILS: Lot area: 1004m2 Open space: 72.12%



Approval is sought for alterations and additions to the existing single storey dwelling at Lot 212 (No.451) Cambridge Street, Floreat. The subject site is located on the southern side of Cambridge Street nearest the intersection of Birkdale Street. The site has a cross fall (from west to east) of approximately 1.5 metres as well as from the street to the rear of the site (northwest to southeast) by a gradient of approximately 2.1 metres. The additions and alterations include works within the front setback area with the construction of a double carport (42.25m2), front fence and various landscaping/paving works. A ground floor extension is proposed to the rear of the existing single storey dwelling and includes a living area, two bedrooms and a covered outdoor entertainment/alfresco area. The extension to the ground floor also includes a store, toilet, bathroom and water closet. A small upper storey is also proposed, to be constructed within the proposed roof cavity and is described on plan as a utility and home theatre room.

The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the acceptable development requirements of the Town’s RDG’s relating to streetscape and the R-Codes with regard to boundary setbacks. The adjoining property to the east is approximately 0.5 metres lower than the subject site and contains a three storey, multi unit (twelve) development. Applicant’s Ground for Request The applicant provided the following justification for the proposed variations. 1) “Fencing:

Justification for solid fencing (17.51m2) above 0.75 metres is as follows:-

• Noise Barrier for main arterial street (Cambridge St), furthermore being half way up the

crest of the hill vehicle’s require extra acceleration which exacerbates noise levels. • Bus stops just before and after property create extra noise from vehicle’s breaking and

accelerating. Bus exhaust brakes are extremely noisy both up and down the hill. • Noise barrier required for main bedroom and main living area’s of home being situated

in the front of the house. • Visual barrier required from on street parking directly in front of property. Several cars

permanently park directly in front of home from busy shopping district and several units being situated next door. There are also constant vehicles coming and going from short visits to the shopping district which causes numerous onlookers and excessive noise directly in front of home.

• Colour bond fencing in set back area on eastern boundary required due to main foot entrance to 3 storey, 12 unit site located next door. Entrance is a thoroughfare for all residents and visitors for unit site who commonly cut through our front property to access their footpath. Fencing is also required as a privacy screen from the many residence and visitors of the unit site and to stop people cutting through our property.

2) Paving in front setback area:

Justification for 71.95% paving in front setback area:

• Paving is required to allow for turning circle for vehicles to exit the property in forward gear onto main arterial road (Cambridge St), within immediate vicinity to shopping district (Birkdale St) and to be able to see past on street parking on both sides of road.



• Due to newly constructed island and on street parking directly in front of our property

the existing cross over must remain in same location on front boundary to allow access from both east and west bound vehicles. Carport is unable to be directly accessed from Cambridge Street therefore level of paving is unavoidable.

• Front area gardens will be professionally landscaped to compensate for excessive amounts of required paving.

3) Ground floor side setback:

Setback to be 1.5m to eastern boundary:-

• Units next door have straight wall run (approx. 30m by 9m high) with entry doors and balcony’s, similar setback to proposed 451 Cambridge St setback.

• 451 Cambridge St property will not be disturbing view as windows to units are located on the eastern side of unit property.”

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for a period of 14 days to the adjoining affected landowners to the east and no comments were received. Delegated Authority As identified above, the application involves variations to the boundary setbacks requirements of the R-Codes. It also involves variations to the Town Of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) in regards to streetscape and site works (retaining and fill). Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. Whilst there are variations requested, these are generally of a minor nature with limited effect on the neighbours. Therefore the above provisions in respect to the adjoining properties to the east are regarded as having been satisfied, and therefore the variations to the boundary setback requirements do not require the Elected Members’ approval. The streetscape variations require further discussion. COMMENT: Streetscape Front Fence (Permeability) The application does not comply with Clause 2.1.3 A1.3 (iii) Acceptable Development – Fencing in the Primary Street Setback Area of the RDG’s, specifically, with regard to permeability as indicated in the compliance table, although the location of the subject site



(along Cambridge Street) is a major factor in submitting such a proposal. Council has discretion to approve such variations, where the following Performance Criteria are met:- “(i) Fences consistent with existing streetscape character; and (ii) Fences that contribute towards:

o visual privacy for a sole or main living areas; or o protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights

emanating from a public street that are shining directly into habitable rooms; and (iii) Solid walls and fences that are higher than 0.75 metres above natural ground level are:

o truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of where fences adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect; and

o broken up with piers, a mix of building materials, recessed panels incorporating landscaping, and/or set back a sufficient distance to allow suitable landscaping, to reduce the bulk of the fence; and

o constructed so as not to substantially obstruct views of the dwelling, including the main entry, from the street."

It is considered that the proposed fence meets the relevant performance criteria in that it is a proposal which is consistent with the existing streetscape character, particularly after viewing front fences along Cambridge Street in the general vicinity. It was noted that many fences in the general vicinity have been constructed in a manner which do not meet the acceptable development standards regarding front fences and that full height (1800mm or greater) rendered brick fences are particularly common. The fence has some solid sections as well as sections where 100mm horizontal infill panels (in a hit and miss configuration at a ratio of 1:1) are proposed. The vehicle entry gate will also be constructed in the same hit and miss (100mm wooden panels) configuration as the infill portions of the fence. There is a large open space area forward of the dwelling although it is not considered as the primary area of usable open space on site. This does not preclude the landowner from meeting acceptable development standards particularly in regards to front fencing, although it is not unreasonable to expect some form of privacy and security for that area, particularly given the proposed carport configuration and existing road conditions along Cambridge Street in the general vicinity. Given the above, it is recommended that the proposed fencing located along the primary street boundary (Cambridge Street) and within the front setback area of the subject site be approved in the configuration proposed. Front Fence (Height) Clause 2.1.3 A1.3 (ii) of the Town’s RDG’s states that:- “Walls and Fences with piers and visually permeable infill panels above that do not exceed a maximum height above natural ground level of 1.8 metres for the infill panels and 2.0 metres for the piers, including the height of any retaining wall below it. Only fencing above 1.5 metres in height shall be included in calculations for average height.”



The average height of the proposed front fence is 1.85 metres. This is a result of a combination of the topography of the site (i.e. - 1.50 metre cross fall) and the configuration of the fence. The maximum height of the fence is 1.90 metres and therefore does not exceed the maximum height provision (for piers) of 2.0 metres however the average height of the fence becomes a variation, albeit minor. Cambridge Street is a district distributor and carries a high amount of traffic particularly during peak hours. The subject site is located near a local shopping precinct and some form of visual privacy and security for the front setback area is an expectation of the applicant. It is considered that the fence height variation is minor and that the performance criteria for Walls and Fences (RDG’s Clause 2.1.3 P1) are being met. The proposed fence height is consistent with the existing streetscape character of fences in the general vicinity and the fence will still afford views to the dwelling, unlike some fences in the area. The fence will also ensure a degree of privacy and security as well as offer some protection from vehicular noise. It is therefore considered that the front fence be approved in the configuration proposed. Landscaping in the Primary Street Setback area Clause 2.1.4 (A1) of the RDG's states that up to a maximum of 60% of the front setback area may be developed with landscaping. In the case of this application, approximately 72% of the front setback area is proposed to be paved and therefore 28% is landscaped. Clause 2.1.4 P1 Performance Criteria - Landscaping in the Primary Street Setback Area of the RDG's goes onto state that:- “New development should meet these criteria:- • The street setback area developed and planted to present a substantially “green”

appearance, allowing views to the dwellings; and • Development which minimises impact on the natural topography of the locality and

conserves significant landscape elements, including indigenous trees.” The variation to the amount of hard paving is a result of a combination of the configuration of the double carport (parallel to Cambridge Street) and the existing driveway and turning circle area proposed to allow vehicles to exit the site and enter Cambridge Street in a forward gear. The applicant/landowner has justified the excessive paving on the grounds of safety in that it is required to permit vehicles to enter the street in a forward gear. The applicant also mentions the existing road conditions surrounding the Birkdale Street local shopping precinct and uses that fact as justification and stated that the remaining areas will be landscaped to a high standard to maintain a green appearance within the front setback area. It is considered the above performance criteria are being met and that the amount of paving will not detract from the streetscape and views to the dwelling will still be maintained. It is considered that the amount of paving within the front setback area will be offset by the areas of landscaping and garden proposed beyond the setback line and in front of the existing dwelling. Approval to the variation to landscaping within the front setback area is recommended in the configuration proposed. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Having regard to the comments outlined in the above report, it is considered that the proposed alterations and additions have been designed to take into consideration the existing dwelling on site. It is also unlikely to unduly impact on the surrounding affected landholdings and the streetscape in general. The alterations and additions have been designed to complement the existing dwelling in regards to finishes, colours and style/appearance and the applicant has justified the proposed variations. It is considered that the proposed variations meet the relevant performance criteria and therefore it is recommended that the alterations and additions be approved in the configuration proposed. i.e. with variations to side boundary setbacks, front fences and landscaping within the front setback area. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Corey Eaves for alterations and additions at Lot 212 (No.451) Cambridge Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 31 May 2005 noting variations to:- • Side boundary setbacks; • Streetscape - front fences; and • Landscaping in the primary setback area. Carried 9/0



DES05.145 LOT 273 (NO.26) CAMBOURNE AVENUE, CITY BEACH - ALTERATIONS AND ADDITIONS TO AN EXISTING DWELLING (File Reference:PRO1696) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for building approval seeking variations to the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No. 1. BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 358BA-2005 LANDOWNER: D and D Cunneen APPLICANT: D and D Cunneen ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R12.5 POLICY: − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R Codes) − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs)

COMPLIANCE: Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape Front Setback (Clause 2.1.1 RDGs) (Clause 20 TPS1)

7.5 metres from the front property boundary

6.0 - 6.5 metres to the carport deemed a garage because it is enclosed.

Side Setback North (R-Codes)

1.0 metre Nil

Front Fencing (RDGs)

Visually permeable (Ratio 1:1) above 750mm natural ground level.

1.8 metre high solid fence

DETAILS: Lot Area: 734m2 Open Space: 68.4% Council has received an application for a carport addition (with store), a new verandah deck and front fencing/landscaping at the front of the property. The major structural addition is a new carport with a parapet wall to the north side boundary, a store at the back of the carport and a 1.8 metre high wall enclosing the south side of the carport. A new 7.5 metre solid front fence is proposed to accommodate an automatic sliding wrought iron gate. The new fence will replace an existing brick solid 1.8 metre high fence at the front of the property. The applicant also proposes to reduce the amount of solid fencing within the front setback by deleting some of the existing 1.8 metre high solid fencing and opening up the view to the dwelling from the street and vice versa. A new landscaping concept is proposed at the front of the property incorporating a new pond, entry pathway, lawn area and spaces for plantings. The applicant seeks a variation in relation to the above non-compliances.



COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case the application was required to be referred to the relevant neighbours in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes. No submissions were received at the conclusion of the referral period. Delegated Authority: As identified, the application involves variations listed in the above table. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the owner of the adjoining property has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. In this instance, the side setback variation can be approved under delegated authority as the affected neighbour has made no objection to this variation. The variation is considered to be acceptable from a planning view as the carport wall is single storey and is 6.2 metres in length and on the southern boundary of the northern neighbour and therefore will not have an overshadowing impact. The side setback variation is regarded as having been satisfied and does not require the Elected Members’ approval and therefore will not be discussed further in this report. As such, the only outstanding variations which require discussion are in relation to front fencing and front setback. COMMENT: Front Fencing The landscaping at the front of the property involves modification to the existing solid brick front fencing and construction of a new 1.8 metre high brick wall to accommodate an automatic sliding wrought iron gate. The new brick fence for the gate does not comply with the Residential Design Guidelines as the fence is completely solid. However, it is noted that there is an existing solid brick fence at the front of the property which is in fact being reduced as the applicant is removing some of the fence to provide a more open appearance at the front of the property. The applicant’s proposal is therefore considered to be acceptable as it is reducing existing solid front fencing. Front Setback Under the R-Codes the proposed carport is deemed to be a garage as it is enclosed on two sides. However it is noted that there is no door at the front. A garage is therefore subject to Council’s Town Planning Scheme No.1 Clause 20(1)(a) and Residential Design Guidelines (RDGs). Clause 2.1.1 (A1.1) of the RDGs relates to setbacks in City Beach and states:- “The minimum setback from a primary street boundary to buildings (including garages but excluding carports) shall be 7.5 metres without provision for averaging.”



Buildings or structures, such as garages, which encroach into the minimum front setback area may be considered under the Performance Criteria of Clause 2.1.1 (P1) of the RDGs. A variation may be approved by Council where, in the opinion of Council, the following criteria are met as stated in the Performance Criteria of Clause 2.1.1 (P1):- “(a) the setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; (b) a reduction in the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in

the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and (c) visual separation maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.” The Performance Criteria of Clause 3.2.3 “Setback of Garages and Carports” of the Residential Design Codes is also considered relevant in determining whether the development is acceptable:- “The setting back of carports and garages so as not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings, or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa.” The existing dwelling is set back between 10.8 – 15.5 metres from the front property boundary and the proposed garage is set back 6.0 – 6.5 metres from the front property boundary. Garages are required to be set back from the front boundary 7.5 metres as without sufficient setback from the street, a garage generally detracts from the amenity of the streetscape by presenting a solid structure close to the street. It is noted that there is no door at the front and in this regard, the proposed structure has some resemblance of a carport. Following a site inspection of the subject property and surroundings, it is considered that the proposed garage is not consistent with the existing character of residential built form in the street and the local neighbourhood. The Cambourne Avenue streetscape is characterised as generally having an open appearance with dwellings well set back from the street (i.e. 7.5 metres) and landscaping and gardens in front setback areas and along the street verge. The proposed garage would therefore not be in keeping with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street. In order to bring the application to a more acceptable standard, the 1.8 metre high solid wall enclosure on the south side of the garage should be reduced to a maximum height of 1.0 metre to create a more open appearance. On this basis, the application could be supported. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil CONCLUSION: The application for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling proposes front and side setback variations and also a variation in relation to front fencing. The variation to front fencing is considered acceptable as the applicant is reducing the overall amount of existing solid fencing as part of the proposal. In terms of the side setback variation, the northern neighbour has not made a submission at the conclusion of the referral period and it is considered that the variation to side setback (garage parapet wall) is acceptable under the relevant performance criteria.



In terms of the front setback variation, the garage as proposed is considered excessive in terms of its impact on the streetscape and a condition of approval is for the southern 1.8 metre high solid wall enclosure to be reduced in height to a maximum of 1.0 metre. On this basis, it is recommended that the application be supported subject to this condition. Approval to the front setback variation requires an absolute majority of Council under the Scheme. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the application submitted by D and D Cuneen as shown on the plans dated 8 June 2005, for additions and alterations to the existing dwelling at Lot 273 (No. 26) Cambourne Avenue, City Beach, noting variations to:- • Front Setback • Side Setback • Front Fencing and subject to: (i) the southern 1.8 metre high solid wall enclosure to the garage being reduced in

height to a maximum height of 1.0 metre. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/0



DES05.146 LOT 711/712 (NO.19) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED CARPORT (File Reference: PRO1174) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application for a building approval seeking variations to the requirements of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes). BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 306BA-2005 LANDOWNER: G and K Rocchi APPLICANT: G Rocchi ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R30 POLICY: − Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) − Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Streetscape (RDG’s) Carport (east)

2.0 metres

0.3 metre Boundary Setback (R-Codes) Carport (north)

1.0 metre

Nil DETAILS: Lot area: 733 m2 Open space: 69.05 % (approx.) Approval is sought for a carport located within the front setback area at Lot 711/712 (No.19) St Leonards Avenue. The subject site is located on the western side of St Leonards Avenue and contains an original single storey timber cottage, setback approximately 4.1 metres from the front (St Leonards Avenue) boundary. A below ground swimming pool spans the rear of the site prohibiting vehicular access to the site from the ROW (Rickson Lane) to the rear (west) of the site. A single vehicle parking bay exists to the northern side of the front setback area.



The proposed carport is to be located to the northern side of the front setback and will cover the existing car parking bay. The carport is to be set back 0.3 metre from the St Leonards Avenue (front) boundary. The pillars of the carport are to be located on the common northern property boundary (Nil setback) although the gutter will be set back at 0.5 metres from that boundary. The carport is 4.1 metres long and 4.0 metres wide and is separated by a distance of 0.5 metres from the existing dwelling. The carport is to be constructed in timber and has a colorbond roof, pitched at 33 degrees, realising a total height of 3.7 metres from the finished paved level of the driveway to the top of the ridge of the carport roof. An architectural feature (finial) is proposed on top of the roof which will extend the overall height of the carport to 4.5 metres. Both the adjoining affected landowners were consulted over the carport and the setback variations proposed and no objections were received. The applicant seeks the Council’s approval to vary the acceptable development requirements of the Town Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) in regards to the front setback (Streetscape) and the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia (R-Codes) relating to the side (northern) boundary setback. Delegated Authority As identified above, the application involves variations to the boundary setback requirements of the R-Codes. It also involves variations to the Town Of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) in regards to streetscape. Council’s Town Planning Delegations Policy, adopted under Clause 50 of Town Planning Scheme No.1, delegates certain Scheme powers to the Chief Executive Officer as well as the Executive Manager, Development and Environmental Services and Manager Planning Services. These delegations usually apply where the adjoining neighbour has no objection to the variation and that the variation is acceptable from a planning perspective. Whilst there are variations requested, these are generally of a minor nature with limited affect on the neighbours. Therefore the above provisions in respect to the adjoining properties to the north are regarded as having been satisfied, and therefore the variation to the boundary setback requirement does not require the Elected Members’ approval. The streetscape (front boundary setback) variation requires further discussion. Applicant’s Ground for Request The applicant after a request from the Town provided the following justification for the proposal:- “Building application is for a carport covering the one and only car bay, presently utilised to park our vehicle within our property. Rear access parking from Rickson laneway is not accessible because the constructed swimming pool covers the total rear boundary width, refer amended Plan 1. West Leederville precinct has received approval for similar carport configuration, i.e. 0.3 metres setback from boundary; refer 18 Tate Street, photo attached. Amended plan denotes 500mm setback from existing dwelling and 500mm setback from the common northern property boundary, refer asterisk amended Plan 3. The proposed carport area is presently utilised as the only car parking bay facility for the dwelling. Present and past vehicles utilising the 5 metre length of the parking bay have never extended from the front of the property boundary”.



Further to the above justification, the applicant provided the following addresses along St Leonards Avenue where carports have been constructed with a setback of 0.3 metres from the front boundary. “For your information we have noted the construction of carports in the West Leederville precinct with a similar setback i.e. 300mm boundary setback at the following addresses:- 60 St Leonards Avenue 98 St Leonards Avenue 81 St Leonards Avenue 106 St Leonards Avenue 132 St Leonards Avenue.” COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This application has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at below 40 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 1 consultation - No specific consultation required other than the investigative and assessment process undertaken by Council's staff. The application has also been assessed against the requirements of Town Planning Scheme No.1 and its related policies. In this case, the application was advertised in accordance with the provisions of the R-Codes for a period of 14 days to the adjoining affected landowners and whereby no comments were received. COMMENT: Clause 2.1.1 A1.8 (b) of the Towns RDG’s states that in West Leederville: “The minimum setback from a primary street to a carport shall be:- (b) 2.0 metres if the carport is greater than 6.5 metres in width facing the street, is attached

to or is less than 1.5 metres from the dwelling”. The proposed carport is to be setback 0.5 metres from the front (St Leonards Avenue) boundary in lieu of the required 2.0 metres given the proposed 0.5 metre separation distance provided from the existing dwelling. Clause 2.1.1 P1 – Street Setbacks Performance Criteria of the Towns RDG’s states that: “Variations to the Compliance Standards may be approved by the Council where, in the opinion of the Council, the following criteria are met:- (a) the setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street; (b) a reduction on the setback would not adversely impact on the pattern of development in

the street because of the position, shape or topography of the lot; and (c) visual separation is maintained between buildings and adjoining properties.” The front setback of 4.1 metres to the existing dwelling is a reason for the submission of the application for a carport in the front setback area with a reduced front setback. A separation distance of 1.5 metres or more from the dwelling cannot be achieved. The other reason is to cover the existing (and only) car parking bay on the subject site. From a site inspection of the streetscape in the general vicinity, it was revealed that it is varied with the existence of a combination of walls and fences (both solid and infill) and a number of carports (both enclosed and unenclosed) adjoined to/or within 1.5 metres of the dwelling and with a reduced front setback (i.e. – within 2.0 metres of the front boundary).



No comments were received from the adjoining affected landowners to the north and south of the subject site and it is considered that the above performance criteria are being met. The proposed reduced setback is compatible with the established line and pattern of setbacks in the street and the reduced setback will not adversely affect the streetscape. Given the proposal is for a carport (not a solid structure), visual separation between the adjoining dwelling (particularly to the north) is maintained. It is noted that the proposed carport does not meet minimum length requirements, however there is sufficient space in front of the carport for a motor vehicle to fit and not extend beyond the line of the front (St Leonards) Avenue boundary. It is therefore considered that the carport be recommended for approval in the configuration proposed. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil. CONCLUSION: Having regard to the comments outlined in the above report, it is considered that the proposed carport addition has been designed so that it assists in reducing any loss of amenity on the streetscape in general. The section of St Leonards Avenue between Railway Road and Cambridge Street has a varied streetscape with varied front setbacks. No objections were received from the affected landowners to the north and south regarding the proposal. Given the minor nature of the variations proposed and the fact that the carport addition is considered to not adversely affect the streetscape and the amenity of the adjoining dwelling to the north, it is considered that the carport addition can be supported in the configuration proposed subject to a condition that it remains open on all sides and no solid doors are affixed to the carport structure. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, 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 submitted by Geoffrey Rocchi for a carport at Lot 711/712 (No.19) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 21 June 2005 noting variations to:- • Streetscape; and • Boundary Setbacks subject to the following condition:- (i) the carport shall remain open on all sides. No solid doors of any kind shall be

affixed to the carport. Carried 9/0



DES05.147 LOTS 313, 101 AND 102 (NO. 67) HARBORNE STREET, WEMBLEY– PROPOSED FRONT FENCE (File Reference: PRO0434) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine an application seeking variations to the requirements of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s).

BACKGROUND: BA/DA REFERENCE: 65GA-2005 LANDOWNER: P Foran and P Moroney APPLICANT: Paul Foran ZONING: MRS Zoning: Urban

Town Planning Scheme No.1: Residential R20

POLICY: Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines (RDG’s) COMPLIANCE:

Non-compliance Required Proposed Fencing within Primary Street Setback Area (Clause 2.1.3 of RDGs)

Visually permeable above 750mm

Solid wall.

DETAILS: Lot Area: 1308 square metres Approval is sought for construction of a front fence at Lots 13,101 and 102 (No. 67) Harborne Street, Wembley. The proposed solid wall is located on the front (east) boundary with truncations around the driveway and a small pedestrian gate the only relief in the overall length. The applicant seeks to vary the Town’s visual permeability clauses under the Residential Design Guidelines. COMMENT: Fencing within the Primary Street Setback Area Assessment of fencing under the Residential Design Guidelines is based on the total front setback area, which includes the lot frontage and the depth of the primary street setback. The Guidelines require that fencing in the front setback area to be visually permeable above 750mm and any variations require Council approval. When an application does not meet compliance standards under the Residential Guidelines, it is assessed under the performance criteria as follows:-

(i) Front fences consistent with the existing streetscape character; and (ii) Fences that contribute towards:



• visual privacy for a sole or main living areas • protection from traffic noise on district distributor roads or vehicle headlights

emanating from a public street that are shining directly into habitable rooms; (iii) Solid walls and fences that are higher than 0.75 metres above natural ground level

are:- • Truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of

where fences adjoin vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where to streets intersect; and

• Broken up with piers, a mix of building materials, recessed panels incorporating landscaping and/or setback a sufficient distance to allow suitable landscaping, to reduce the bulk of the fence; and

• Constructed so as not to substantially obstruct views of the dwelling, including the main entry, from the street.

There are a number of properties in this same street section which have solid walls across the front boundary. The Residential Design Guidelines are therefore partially satisfied in terms of the proposal being consistent with the streetscape. Council may approve variations to the compliance standards when front fences are necessary to provide visual privacy for living areas and protections from traffic noise and vehicle headlights. Harborne Street, as a District Distributor A Road in the Council’s Functional Road Hierarchy, experiences significant traffic volumes and in these circumstances its residents might reasonably desire a greater degree of screening. As previously stated, there are already a number of screen walls along the street. There is an argument that some degree of relaxation of Council’s requirements is therefore justified. The proposed wall also meets the performance criteria with regard to truncations being provided around the driveway and the fence being broken up with piers at 2.6 metre intervals. It is therefore considered that the proposal potentially meets the performance criteria outlined in the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines. The Council has previously considered similar applications for front walls at No. 93 and No. 208 Harborne Street, Wembley at its meeting on 25 April 2000 and July 2004. These applications were not supported on the basis of non-compliance with the open fencing requirements under the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines. The Council, did however, give favourable consideration to amended plans incorporating recessed planter boxes located along 2 metres by 1 metre which would contribute to a more open design as stipulated by the Residential Design Guidelines. The wall at No. 208 Harborne Street has been erected and the planter boxes have established landscaping which helps to reduce the bulk of the wall. It is recommended the same recommendation should be made on the current proposal for No. 67 Harborne Street. STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme.

FINANICIAL IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.



CONCLUSION: It is considered that the proposal potentially meets the performance criteria in the Residential Design Guidelines. There are a number of solid walls along Harborne Street and there is a good argument that they are necessary to reduce noise from a busy district distributor road. However, it is considered that the proposal cannot be supported in its current form. An amended plan which incorporates recessed planter boxes 2 metres long by 1 metre deep, along the wall, would break up the mass of a solid wall and could be supported. On the basis of the wall proposed, two planter boxes could be provided along the frontage to Harborne Street. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:-

(i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application in its

present form, for the following reasons:-

• non compliance with front fencing requirements under Clause 2.1.3 (A1.3) of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines;


incorporating the following modifications;

• provision of two (2) recessed landscaped and reticulated planter boxes located along the Harborne Street boundary, of dimensions 2m by 1m, contributing to break up the bulk of the wall and partially meet the objectives of the Residential Design Guidelines;


Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a front fence submitted by P Foran and P Moroney at Lots 312, 101 and 102 (No. 67) Harborne Street, Wembley subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above.

Committee Meeting 19 July 2005 During discussion, Members agreed that the applicant should be given the opportunity to explore alternative means of breaking up the bulk of the wall. This should be in accordance with clause 2.1.3 P1(iii) second dot point of the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines. Amendment Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr MacRae That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans


• further measures being undertaken to break up the bulk of the wall, having regard to the provision set down in the performance criteria of the Town’s Residential Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer.

Carried



COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:-

(i) the applicant be advised that Council is not prepared to approve the application in

its present form, for the following reasons:-

• non compliance with front fencing requirements under Clause 2.1.3 (A1.3) of the Town of Cambridge Residential Design Guidelines;

• (ii) the Council would be prepared to give favourable consideration to amended plans


• further measures being undertaken to break up the bulk of the wall, having regard to the provision set down in the performance criteria of the Town’s Residential Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Chief Executive Officer;


Council authorises the Chief Executive Officer to approve the application for a front fence submitted by P Foran and P Moroney at Lots 312, 101 and 102 (No. 67) Harborne Street, Wembley subject to the plans being amended in accordance with the changes referred to in (ii) above.

Carried 9/0



ADMINISTRATION/POLICIES/PROJECTS DES05.148 SURVEY OF COMMUNITY ATTITUDES TOWARDS HOUSING IN THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE – SUBMISSION OF FINAL REPORT (File Reference: PLA 0062) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To present the final report on the survey of community attitudes towards housing in the Town of Cambridge. BACKGROUND: At its meeting held on 28 June 2005, Council received a progress report on the survey of community attitudes towards housing in the Town of Cambridge, which discussed the methodology and some of the results. At that stage, a draft report on the survey results had been prepared. On 8 July 2005, the consultants submitted to the Town the final report on the survey results. COMMENT: The final report is a comprehensive 59-page document, with additional tables as an appendix. The additional tables comprise various cross-tabs to assist in analysing the results. The cross-tabs include actual numbers of responses, as well as percentages. The final report has been circulated to Elected Members with this agenda. Results of each question are summarised in paragraph form, and illustrated by a table and graph where appropriate. A Key Findings section is included, which also summarises specific results for each suburb. What is apparent in the survey results is that residents are generally satisfied with the housing available in the Town, which would suggest that no major changes to the Town Planning Scheme are required. As anticipated however, with an ageing population, there is some demand for smaller housing and smaller lots. This will be assessed further in the preparation of the Housing Strategy. The report is available on the Town’s web site, as many residents have contacted the Town requesting a copy. An advertisement is also proposed to be included in The Cambridge Post, to advise residents that the final report is available on the web site. As stated in the previous report to Council, further analysis of the survey results during the preparation of the Housing Strategy will give the Town a clearer picture on existing and future housing needs and demands in the community, and what the Town can do to facilitate the provision of housing that meets these needs, through changes to the Town Planning Scheme. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of the progress of the survey is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the town planning scheme.



FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The 2005/06 draft budget includes an item for newspaper advertisements. CONCLUSION: The survey has provided valuable and interesting information on community attitudes towards housing in the Town of Cambridge. The high response rate illustrates a high level of interest in housing issues within the community and gives the Council confidence in using the results to assist in housing policy and strategy formulation for the Town Planning Scheme review. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the final report on the survey of community attitudes towards housing in the Town of Cambridge, dated July 2005, be received. Carried 9/0



DES05.149 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS (File Reference: ADM0048) PURPOSE OF REPORT To report on matters that have been dealt with under delegated authority and notify the Council of other proceedings in relation to Development and Environmental Services. DELEGATED DECISIONS: The following items (for the month of June 2005) have been dealt with under delegated authority, in accordance with Council’s policy, as they were deemed to comply in all respects with the requirements of the Town Planning Scheme and Council Policy:- • Home occupation (Therapeutic foot massage) - 96B Salvado Road, Wembley; • Ancillary accommodation - 12 Goonang Road, City Beach; • Transportable bathroom - 38 Chandler Avenue, Floreat (Floreat Primary School); • Two lot subdivision - 21 Simper Street, Wembley; • Two lot subdivision - 109 St Leonard's Avenue, West Leederville; • Home occupation (Human resources consultancy) - 34 Oban Road, City Beach; • Front fence - 38A Nanson Street, Wembley; • Front fence - 22 Berkeley Crescent, Floreat; • Grouped dwelling - 33B Bath Street, Wembley; • Ground lighting - two light poles - 18 Ulster Road, Floreat; (Floreat Oval). The following Notices have been issued by Building Services under delegated authority:- • Section 403 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act Notice issued on the

owners of 236 Railway Parade, West Leederville requiring the demolition and rebuilding of a dangerous section of an external wall.

• Section 3.25(1)(b) Local Government Act Notice on the owner of 7B Kimberley Street, West Leederville requiring the removal of three dangerous trees that have severely damaged the adjacent building.

NOTIFICATIONS: The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information: Applications for Review (Appeals) - received Two applications for review were lodged against decisions of the Council during June 2005. The first application was in relation to the Council's decision to refuse to grant approval to an application for retrospective approval for a roof cover to an alfresco area to the rear of a dwelling at 3 Roscommon Road, Floreat. The application has been classified as a Class 1 application under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. A Class 1 application includes proposals for development with a value up to $500, 000. The subject development falls within this category. As this application was supported by the Administration, independent representation will be engaged to assist the Town in responding to these matters.



The second application is also in relation to a decision of the Council to refuse to grant retrospective approval to an application. The application is for alterations and additions to an existing carport at 35 Brighton Street, West Leederville. This application has also been classified as a Class 1 application under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928. A directions hearing held on 7 July 2005 has resulted in the State Administrative Tribunal requesting the Council to reconsider this application. As a result a separate report on this matter is included on this agenda. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during June 2005. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period ending 30 June 2005, be received. Carried 9/0



DES05.150 BUILDING LICENCES APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY (File Reference: ADM0048) PURPOSE OF THE REPORT To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building licences approved under delegated authority in June 2005. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the criteria, it was rated at 35 points (out of 100), which requires no specific consultation. BACKGROUND: Listed hereunder are the total numbers of licences issued in the month of June 2005. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of licences issued on the same month of the previous year.

June 2005 June 2004 Building Licences 63 52 Sign Licences 0 0 Provisional Building Licences

10 6

Demolition Licences 10 12 Value of Construction $8,759,758 $3,510,578

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Licences approved under delegated authority for the month of June 2005, as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 9/0



LATE ITEM DES05.151 SUBIACO REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY – CONSTRUCTION OF SHOWROOM OVER EXISTING CARPARK LOT 3 (55) SALVADO ROAD SUBIACO – REQUEST FOR COMMENT (File Reference: PLA0061) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To determine whether the Town needs to provide comments to the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority (SRA) on the development application for 55 Salvado Road Subiaco, located near the intersection of Salvado Road and Harborne Street. BACKGROUND: The Subiaco Redevelopment Authority (SRA) Act requires that all development proposals within the redevelopment authority area, be referred to (among others) the Town of Cambridge for comment. The vast majority of these applications have no impact upon the Town in that they do not have any common boundary and/or they are compliant with the SRA Town Planning Scheme. DETAILS: The proposal is for a new Retravision Store to be located immediately to the east of an existing office building located on the corner of Salvado Road and Harborne Street. The subject site forms part of the ‘Homebase’ development. The new tenancy would have an area of 1230m2. The development will see the loss of some existing parking bays, however, some new bays will be created to compensate for this loss. Parking calculations provided for the whole Homebase site show that, with the new development, there remains a surplus of 80 bays. Vehicle access to the Homebase site remains as it is now. Mixed commercial/residential uses exist on the opposite side of Salvado Road. COMMENT: The proposal would appear to be consistent with the land use and development requirements of the SRA Town Planning Scheme. The provision of the new Retravision Store along Salvado Road will provide a more active frontage to the street. It is not anticipated that the new development would generate traffic to an extent that it would significantly impact on existing conditions. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Consideration of this application is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Plan for the provision of orderly planning to enhance the Town’s natural and built environment through effective and responsible use of the Town Planning Scheme. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: Nil



CONCLUSION: In accordance with the requirements of the Subiaco Redevelopment Act, a proposal for a new retail showroom (Retravision) at 55 Salvado Road Subiaco, is referred to the Council for comment. The application has been assessed in accordance with the SRA’s Town Planning Scheme and appears to be compliant with the Scheme requirements. It is therefore recommended that the SRA be advised that the Town of Cambridge has no comment to offer in relation to this particular development proposal. COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMIITTEEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority be advised that Council has examined the application for a new retail showroom in the Homebase Centre at 55 Salvado Road Subiaco, and has no comment to offer. Carried 9/0



8. CONFIDENTIAL ITEM

DES05.152 LOT 87 (NO. 35) BRIGHTON STREET, WEST LEEDERVILE – PROPOSED EXTENSION TO EXISTING CARPORT

(Refer Item 13.1)

COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the State Administration Tribunal be advised that the application for a proposed extension to the carport at lot 87 (No.35) Brighton Street, West Leederville has been refused on the basis of non compliance with Clause 3.3.2 of the R Codes and that the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria relating to the significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property through building bulk. Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Berry, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and O’Connor Against: Crs Barlow and MacRae


H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Minutes\05 MINUTES\July 05\F Item 10 onwards.doc 252

10. ELECTED MEMBERS MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

10.1 The following motion, of which appropriate notice has been given, has been submitted by Cr Bradley:- AREAS F AND G MOUNT CLAREMONT: INCLUSION OF PROVISIONAL SUM IN FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (File Reference: ADM0044) BACKGROUND: The report to the Mayor and Councillors to accompany the Notice Paper for the meeting is to include a copy of the Deed signed by: Chairman of Commissioners and CEO for the Town of Cambridge, and Hon Richard Court, Premier of Western Australia and Hon George Cash, Minister for Lands for the State of Western Australia on the fifth of May 1995. Also please provide explanations for the benefit of all Councillors regarding:- (a) The Deed established by the Commissioners in May 1995; (b) Why the arrangements agreed to in the Terms of the Deed were not adhered to; (c) The intentions of the Deed for the land referred to as Area D in the Deed; (d) Supporting documentation for the sale of the land to the State by the Town in the

arrangement set up between Council and the Ministers of State agreed in December 1996;

(e) The requirements of Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995 and an explanation

for the non-compliance with the Act and what outcomes this has for those responsible for the non-compliance;

(f) Actions by the State following the Sale of Land to the State including details of

subdivision and retail sale of the subject land or parts thereof; (g) Actions of the Town following the Sale of Land to the State; (h) All notes, reports, opinions, discussions and advice regarding the outcome of the Land

Sale and the bind in which the Town now finds itself; (i) A full report by the Town’s Auditor(s) on the present situation and an explanation of why

this matter, and the breach of the Local Government Act 1995 pointed out in (e), has slipped under his/their attention during his/their auditing processes;

(j) Why the Auditor should not be replaced by someone who can do the job properly; (k) The correct method of accounting for the original sale of land eg Dr Cash; Cr Sales and

a provision for the Gross Proceeds on Development; (l) The correct method of accounting for the interest that the Town of Cambridge has in the

subject land due to the incomplete contractual arrangements in the sale of the subject land and the ongoing interest that exists due to the sale arrangements being incomplete (this may include references to Accounting Standards set by a relevant authority);



(m) An estimated retail value of the subject land at the proposed level of use by the State of

Western Australia; (n) A possible strategic position to hold in relation to finalising this Sale of Land; (o) A proposed programme to bring this Land Deal to a satisfactory conclusion for both

parties; (p) The implications for Administrative Staff and/or Councillors of a Class Action suit by

Ratepayers who want to see the money owed to the Town of Cambridge recovered from the State of Western Australia.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Cr Bradley raised an issue similar to that proposed in (i) above during discussion on the monthly financial statements at the Council meeting held on 27 June 2005, viz:- Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Gow That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:- (ii) future monthly financial statements are to include a provisional sum for the land

transaction at Areas ‘F’ and ‘G’, Mount Claremont. Amendment lost 3/6

For: Crs Bradley, Gow and Huxtable Against: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Berry, Langer, MacRae and O’Connor The Mayor then suggested that Cr Bradley could submit a Notice of Motion to the July Council meeting to enable this matter to be further considered. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That:- (i) a provisional sum be included in the accounts of the Town of Cambridge to

represent the Contingent Revenue due to the Town following the Sale of Land at Mt Claremont (Areas F and G) to the State of Western Australia by the Town of Cambridge under the terms of the contract negotiated in December 1996;

(ii) the Administration be requested to provide a report detailing the history of Areas

F and G and other commentary including provision of copies of specified documentation relating to this matter since 1995.

Discussion ensued.



Extension of Time Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Huxtable That in accordance with Clause 3.3.10 of the Standing Orders, Cr Bradley be allowed to continue speaking. Carried 9/0 During discussion, the Mayor advised that in accordance with Clause 3.3.12 of the Standing Orders, the motion be divided into two separate motions. Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That a provisional sum be included in the accounts of the Town of Cambridge to represent the Contingent Revenue due to the Town following the Sale of Land at Mt Claremont (Areas F and G) to the State of Western Australia by the Town of Cambridge under the terms of the contract negotiated in December 1996; Amendment Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Berry That the motion be amended to read as follows: That the Administration investigates and seeks advice for the possible inclusion of a provisional sum in the accounts of the Town of Cambridge to represent the Contingent Revenue due to the Town following the Sale of Land at Mt Claremont (Areas F and G) to the State of Western Australia by the Town of Cambridge under the terms of the contract negotiated in December 1996. Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Berry, Gow, Huxtable, Langer, MacRae and

O’Connor Against: Cr Bradley COUNCIL DECISION: That the Administration investigates and seeks advice for the possible inclusion of a provisional sum in the accounts of the Town of Cambridge to represent the Contingent Revenue due to the Town following the Sale of Land at Mt Claremont (Areas F and G) to the State of Western Australia by the Town of Cambridge under the terms of the contract negotiated in December 1996. Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Gow, Huxtable, Langer, MacRae and O’Connor Against: Crs Berry and Bradley



Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the Administration be requested to provide a report detailing the history of Areas F and G and other commentary including provision of copies of specified documentation relating to this matter since 1995. Amendment Moved by Berry, seconded by Cr Langer That the motion be amended by adding the following words “but not including items (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (p).” Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Berry, Gow, Huxtable, Langer, MacRae and

O’Connor Against: Cr Bradley COUNCIL DECISION: That the Administration be requested to provide a report detailing the history of Areas F and G and other commentary including provision of copies of specified documentation relating to this matter since 1995 but not including items (i), (j), (k), (l), (m) and (p) listed above. Carried 8/1 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Berry, Gow, Huxtable, Langer, MacRae and

O’Connor Against: Cr Bradley Cr Huxtable left the meeting at 8.04 pm.



10.2 The following motion, of which appropriate notice has been given, has been submitted jointly by Councillors Berry, Langer and MacRae:- REDEVELOPMENT OF PERRY LAKES STADIUM SITE (File Reference: PRO0069) BACKGROUND: We wish to submit a motion that would see the Council emerge with Multiplex appointed as the development partner and the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium project proceeding forthwith, albeit on a reduced scale (partial development of the Perry Lakes site, but all of site zoned urban) to that presented in the business plan which was not accepted by the Council at its meeting held on 18 May 2005. Council Meeting 26 July 2005 The Mayor advised that in order to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion to revoke a previous decision of the Council requires firstly a motion that the matter be considered by Council. This motion must be supported by at least one third of the Council (inclusive of the mover). If this motion is carried, the motion to revoke the previous Council decision must then be carried by an absolute majority. Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr MacRae That in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion relating to the revocation of the Council’s decision dated 18 May 2005 and 28 June 2005 in relation to the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site be considered. Carried For: Crs Berry, Langer and MacRae Cr Huxtable returned to the meeting at 8.05 pm. Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) the following Council decisions in relation to the Redevelopment of the Perry

Lakes Stadium site be revoked by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY:-

(a) the Council’s decision made at its meeting held on 18 May 2005 in relation to the refusal of the Major Land Transaction as proposed in the Business Plan for the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site;

(b) the Council’s decision made at its meeting held on 28 June 2005 in relation

to the non-acceptance of any tender for the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site;

(c) the Council’s decision made at its meeting held on 28 June 2005 in relation to a development strategy for the Town of Cambridge to undertake the



Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site (including construction of sporting facilities at Ak Reserve);

(ii) the Council agrees:-

(a) to extend the Tender Validity Period for the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site (including construction of sporting facilities at Ak Reserve) to 31 August 2005;

(b) subject to legal and probity advice:-

(1) to approve by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the Major Land

Transaction as proposed in the Business Plan for the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site in accordance with Section 3.59(5) of the Local Government Act 1995;

(2) to accept the tender submitted by Multiplex Developments (WA) Pty

Ltd for the Redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site (including construction of sporting facilities at Ak Reserve);

with a view to the Town retaining control of and completing an expeditious construction of sporting facilities at Ak Reserve, to be funded by a partial development of the Perry Lakes Stadium site for housing. Cr O’Connor left the meeting at 8.06 pm and returned at 8.08 pm. Extension of Time Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Langer That in accordance with Clause 3.3.10 of the Standing Orders, Cr Berry be allowed to continue speaking. Lost 3/6 For: Crs Berry, Langer and MacRae Against: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable and O’Connor Discussion ensued. The Mayor left the meeting at 8.25 pm and returned at 8.27 pm. The Deputy Mayor took the Chair. The motion was then put and lost 3/6 For: Crs Berry, Langer and MacRae Against: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and O’Connor



11. REPRESENTATION ON STATUTORY AUTHORITIES AND PUBLIC BODIES Nil

12. LATE ITEMS 12.1 PERRY LAKES STADIUM SITE REDEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF

ASSOCIATED SPORTING FACILITIES: CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED (File Reference: PRO0069/PRO0392) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To bring to Council’s attention correspondence received relating to issues associated with the redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium site and construction of associated sporting facilities on Ak Reserve. BACKGROUND: Correspondence has been received from Multiplex and the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure relating to the Perry Lakes Stadium site and construction of associated sporting facilities on Ak Reserve. DETAILS: Details of correspondence received are as follows:- Multiplex Developments Australia Pty Ltd: Letter dated 1 July 2005 Mr Tim Roberts, Managing Director, Multiplex Developments Australia Pty Ltd has written to the Council following the Council meeting held on 28 June 2005, when Council decided not to accept the Multiplex tender. Multiplex made the following comments (in part):- • That it remains committed to the project and working with the Town to deliver the new

sporting facilities and the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site. • It urges the Town to reconsider its decision made on 28 June 2005, and rescind the

decision to cancel the tender process. This will enable the advertised Business Plan to remain valid and ensure that the project does not suffer any additional delays.

• The benefits of the Town in undertaking this course of action (as outlined by Multiplex)

are as follows:-

o Town of Cambridge will remain involved in the redevelopment of Perry Lakes and will be in a position to impact on planning and design outcomes;

o Town of Cambridge will be acting in the best interests of ratepayers by retaining control of the process;

o The Multiplex proposal will remain “on foot” with guaranteed delivery and responsibility for project funding.

o Multiplex undertakes to review the project management fee as a result of the reduction in the scale of the project. Multiplex believes this can be done whilst maintaining the integrity of the tender process.

o Any potential legal recourse that Multiplex may be forced to pursue will be mitigated.



• Multiplex understands that its fee was the sole basis for rejecting the proposal and would like to understand the decision and Council’s assessment of risk delivery more fully.

• Multiplex would meet with the Council at any time to clearly detail the benefits in

proceeding with the Multiplex proposal and take the opportunity of explaining their fee structure, the value uplift and value added to the Town.

• Multiplex states its involvement and expertise extends beyond a pure project

management role and it does not believe that there is any premium payable by utilising the services of Multiplex.

The Multiplex letter in full forms part of an attachment to the Council Notice Paper. In view of the Council’s decision on 28 June 2005 that the Council is to proceed to undertake the project itself, the Administration has not prepared a report in regard to the Multiplex letter nor sought legal advice in regard to the content of the letter, especially as it applies to the advertised Business Plan and undertaking to review the project management fee as a result of the reduction in the scale of the project. Should the Council consider rescinding its decision made on 28 June 2005 and require the Administration to examine the Multiplex proposal, legal and probity advice should be obtained. Some costs will be incurred if this course of action is to be followed. The Administration has previously submitted a detailed report in regard to Multiplex undertaking a partial land development for the Perry Lakes Stadium site at the Council meeting held on 28 June 2005. There is no impediment to the Council rescinding its decision made on 28 June 2005, and extending the tender validity period while legal advice is obtained and an Administration report prepared. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: Letter dated 11 July 2005 Following the meeting with the Mayor and most Councillors on Wednesday, 6 July 2005 and a meeting held between State Government Officers and the Town’s Executive Management, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure has written to the Council on 11 July 2005. In her letter, the Minister outlines proposals for consideration by the Council and requests to be advised if the Council would seriously entertain the proposal which would then be submitted for approval. The proposal submitted by the Minister includes:- • the State undertaking the project management of the construction and delivery of the

three sporting facilities on Ak Reserve and adjoining land; and • the Town of Cambridge providing a line-of-credit which the State will draw down for

progress payments on construction. On completion of the facilities:- • the Town of Cambridge would retain responsibility for managing and leasing the

basketball and rugby facilities; • the Town of Cambridge would cede the portion of its land on which the new athletics

stadium is sited. The state would assume ownership of and responsibility for the facility in return for the Town of Cambridge paying a capitalised contribution towards maintenance – covering the first ten years of the facility.

The Minister, in her correspondence, further outlines how the State Government would like the project to proceed. A full copy of her letter forms part of the attachment to the agenda.



Many of the matters raised in the Minister’s letter pertaining to the meeting between the State Government officers and the Town’s Executive were not discussed in detail. The only undertakings given were to examine the possibilities further. Only principles on how the project could proceed were canvassed. The Minister’s proposal put to Council for consideration is different from that already adopted by Council as a way ahead. The Town’s Administration has been working towards the completion of a Development Strategy for the Perry Lakes Stadium site as required by Council. If directed by Council, a full report can be prepared in regard to the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure’s proposal. The proposal for the State Government undertaking the project management of the construction and delivery of the sporting facilities on Ak Reserve and adjoining land has considerable merit. For the Council to enter into discussions with the State Government and to negotiate on the basis as outlined by the Minister, the Council would need to agree to rescind its decision made on 28 June 2005. Minister for Planning and Infrastructure: Letter dated 19 July 2005 A further letter has been received from the Minister, advising that State Cabinet has given approval for the detailed investigation of the resumption of the lands. Mirvac Fini (WA) Pty Ltd: Letter dated 20 July 2005 Correspondence has been received from Mirvac Fini (WA) Pty Ltd in regard to the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site, requesting the Council to negotiate with them for the purpose of finalising and agreeing contract terms with the view of accepting Mirvac Fini’s or another tender for the project. A copy of the Mirvac Fini (WA) Pty Ltd correspondence is attached. Due to the decision of the Council made at its meeting held on 28 June 2005 to complete the project itself and not to proceed with any tender, the proposals put by Mirvac Fini (WA) Pty Ltd need not be considered at this time. COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr O’Connor, seconded by Cr Huxtable That:- (i) correspondence received from

(a) Multiplex Developments Australia Pty Ltd dated 1 July 2005; (b) the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure dated 11 and 19 July 2005; (c) Mirvac Fini (WA) Pty Ltd dated 20 July 2005 be noted;

(ii) in view of the Council’s decision (CCS05.72 – 28 June 2005) for the Council to

proceed with the Perry Lakes Stadium site redevelopment and construction of sporting facilities itself, no further action be taken in respect to the matters raised



in correspondence received from Multiplex Developments Australia Pty Ltd, the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, and Mirvac Fini (WA) Pty Ltd and the correspondents be advised accordingly.

Cr Langer left the meeting at 8.32 pm and returned at 8.34 pm. Mayor Anderton advised that discussion on this item was not permitted in accordance with clause 2.10 (i) of the Standing Orders relating to the receipt of correspondence which states that “Discussion is not to be permitted on any motion that any correspondence be received or not received.” The motion was then put and carried 8/1 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer, MacRae and

O’Connor Against: Cr Berry



12.2 PERRY LAKES STADIUM SITE REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT: LETTER FROM DIRECTOR GENERAL OF DEPARTMENT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT (File Reference: PRO0069) PURPOSE: To advise the Council of the receipt of a letter from Cheryl Gwilliam, Director General, Department of Local Government and Regional Development, in relation to the Council’s decisions regarding the Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment Project. The Director General has had an adviser attending Council meetings as an observer. BACKGROUND: A letter has been received from the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development in relation to recent decisions of the Council regarding the Perry Lakes Stadium site redevelopment process. The text of the letter dated Friday, 15 July 2005 and addressed to the Mayor, is as follows:- “Dear Mayor Anderton I am concerned about the recent Council decisions regarding the Perry Lakes Stadium Site Project (the Project). A staff report to Council of 28 June 2005 stated that the Project involved finance in the order of $30 to $40 million. The report also stated that it was not recommended that the Town consider the in-house development of the Project, and the preferred option is to continue with the process of engaging a development partner. In each of the meetings of 18 May, 31 May and 28 June 2005, Council made decisions contrary to what had been proposed at a previous meeting. I am aware that at two of the meetings, at which Council voted to change direction, late items were introduced on the night by some Council members without an accompanying staff report and recommendation. Concerns have been raised with me that, on these occasions, Council members had insufficient time or detailed advice from your local government’s staff to enable them to understand the complex issues involved before being required to vote on those items. In the Report of the Inquiry into the City of South Perth, the Inquirer was critical of that Council’s decision-making processes on particular matters. He referred to the Council not having proper reports dealing with financial implications, impact on staffing levels, impact on training, impact on physical infrastructure requirements and related issues. The inquirer also said that Council members did not call for such reports, as they ought to have. In these cases, he stated that the decisions fell below the standard necessary to provide good government. While it is the right of Council members to consider, ask questions and discuss the merits of each matter before them before reaching a decision, it is a legislative function of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to ensure that advice and information is available to the Council so



that informed decisions can be made. The CEO must be given every opportunity to fulfil his duties under the Act. The presentation of late items concerning the Project prevented the CEO from providing appropriate advice. It also denied council members the opportunity to make informed and considered decisions on an issue of considerable significance to the community they serve. Such information is important if Council is later required to justify the decision it has made. As custodian of valuable community assets, local governments have a responsibility to make considered decisions about the use of such assets on the basis of sound information and advice. Councils that consistently fail in this responsibility run the risk of forfeiting their right to make these decisions. It is the Department’s intention to continue to monitor meetings of the Town of Cambridge to ensure that proper processes and procedures are being observed. In the meantime, I would appreciate your comments on what the Council intends to do to ensure that all members are fully informed before decisions are made. To this end I request that all council members at the next council meeting consider this letter.” DETAILS: The correspondence received from the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development directly refers to the decisions made by the Council at its meetings held on 18 and 31 May and 28 June 2005. The meeting held on 18 May 2005 relates to the decision of the Council to proceed with a refurbishment option for the Perry Lakes Stadium site redevelopment. The Council decision at the 18 May 2005 meeting was “agreement in principle to investigate the refurbishment option” and not a commitment. The decision of the Council made at its meeting held on 31 May 2005, was to not proceed with the refurbishment option. This followed a meeting with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure earlier that day, when the Minister advised that the Government would not fund the refurbishment option or lift the urban deferred zoning. The decision of the Council made at its meeting held on 28 June 2005, relates to the proposal submitted at the Council meeting for the Council to not proceed with the Multiplex or any tender and to undertake the project at the Perry Lakes Stadium site itself. This related to discussions held at the Elected Members Workshop held on 23 June 2005. The Director General has requested comment on the Council’s intentions to ensure that all Members are fully informed before decisions are made. As the decisions made by the Council can be explained within the context of the letter received from the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Regional Development, correspondence should be forwarded to the Director General outlining fully the circumstances regarding how the Council arrived at its decisions together with an undertaking that the Council will ensure that all Members will be fully informed before any decisions of the Council are made.



Since 26 April 2005 when Council deferred the business plan and awarding the tender for the Perry Lakes Stadium site redevelopment project, the following is a schedule of actions relating to the negotiations with the Government:- 1. 3 May 2005 Letter to Minister for Planning and Infrastructure requesting details

of the Government’s expectations in terms of the Council’s decision making on this project.

2. 9 May 2005 Letter from Minister requesting Council to meet urgently to determine whether they will move forward expeditiously. Advice required by 20 May 2005 whether the Council will proceed with proposal considered in April 2005.

3. 10 May 2005 Response to Minister advising Council meeting schedule and proposal to consider matter at Ordinary Council meeting on 31 May 2005. Request Minister to advise by 20 May 2005 actions/options being considered by the Government.

4. 11 May 2005 Minister advises that the Government will respond by 17 May 2005. Advised there is a lack of confidence from sports that the Town is capable of committed support to the project.

5. 12 May 2005 Elected Members briefing on Perry Lakes Stadium Project.

6. 18 May 2005 Special Council Meeting to consider Perry Lakes Project. Business Plan lost and alternative development strategy endorsed in principle including the refurbishment of the existing athletic stadium.

7. 19 May 2005 Correspondence to Minister advising of Council decision made on 18 May 2005. Mayor and Acting Chief Executive Officer meet with Ministers MacTiernan and Kucera to discuss decision. Ministers advise Government will not accept a refurbishment option but will consider a new facility on existing site. Government will also assist with clearing project conditions.

8. 20 May 2005 Letter to Minister formally requesting assistance to clear identified project conditions.

9. 30 May 2005 Letter from Minister responding to meeting on 19 May 2005 and 20 May 2005 correspondence. Government’s preferred position for Town to proceed with current process to relocate all sports to Ak Reserve but will accept new athletics facility on the existing site. Government will not invest funds into existing facility. Confirmed the Government will assist in clearing project conditions.

10. 31 May 2005 All Elected Members and Acting Chief Executive Officer meet with Ministers MacTiernan and Kucera to discuss project. Agreed that Government would undertake to clear project conditions and Council undertake partial land development to fund construction costs. Letter received detailing these commitments. Urban deferred to be lifted when Council signs a Design and Construct Contract with Multiplex.



Council meeting considered discussions with Ministers and decided not to proceed with refurbishment option. Reconfirmed commitment to fund sporting facilities on Ak Reserve. Requested report on project delivery method including possibility of staged land release.

11. 7 June 2005 Letter to Minister advising of Council decision on 31 May 2005 and seeking confirmation of understanding from meeting on 31 May 2005.

12. 28 June 2005 Letter received from Minister at Council meeting reconfirming undertakings. Council meeting decided to undertake in-house development strategy and not accept any tender.

13. 30 June 2005 Letter to Minister advising of Council’s decision on 28 June 2005. Letter from Minister offering alternative solution for Landcorp to purchase approximately half of Perry Lakes Stadium site and Government funding and managing the construction of replacement sporting facilities.

14. 6 July 2005 Meeting with Elected Members and Chief Executive Officer with Minister to discuss development strategy. Landcorp offer withdrawn and option for Government to manage construction of the sporting facilities and Town fund construction via loan.

15. 7 July 2005 Letter from Minister confirming discussion on 6 July 2005.

16. 8 July 2005 Meeting between management of Town, Department of Sport and Recreation and Department of Planning and Infrastructure. Discussion on how development strategy could be implemented.

17. 11 July 2005 Letter from Minister outlining the option for the State to project manage the construction of the sporting facilities and Town funding through land development. Details in letter were not all addressed at meeting on 8 July 2005.

18. 19 July 2005 Letter from Minister advising Cabinet has approved for the detailed investigation of the resumption of Perry Lakes and Ak Reserves. Stated that all stakeholders are best served by Council reinstating the tender process. Minister does not expect this to happen or progress on any other option.

In addition, a Gantt chart is attached detailing the full Expression of Interest and tender process for this project including the details provided in the above schedule.



COUNCIL DECISION: (ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr Berry That:- (i) the correspondence received from the Director General of the Department of Local

Government and Regional Development dated 15 July 2005, be noted and received; (ii) the Director General of the Department of Local Government and Regional

Development be advised of the reasons why the Council made its decisions and that all Members will be fully informed before decisions of the Council are made.

Cr Barlow left the meeting at 8.36 pm and returned at 8.38 pm. Amendment Moved by Cr Berry, seconded by Cr MacRae That clause (iii) be added to the motion as follows:- (iii) the Council’s Standing Orders be amended to include:- (a) where a recommendation is presented to Council meetings and where the

Chief Executive Officer indicates that in his/her view insufficient time was allowed for examination by Council Staff of the ramifications of the recommendation, the matter will be deferred to a future Council meeting to allow preparation of a suitable report for Members;

(b) correspondence addressed to the Mayor and relating to major issues or

projects affecting the Town, be communicated to all Council Members without undue delays, unless specifically requested by the addressor that it not be so;

(c) advice of all scheduled meetings involving the Mayor and/or Chief Executive

Officer with stakeholders to do with major issues or projects affecting the Town be promptly communicated to all Council Members in advance. The key outcomes of such meetings must also be promptly reported to Members.

During discussion, the Mayor suggested that the matters raised above and in the Director General’s correspondence could be addressed by the Governance and Audit Committee. Amendment Be Put Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the amendment be put. Carried 9/0 The amendment was then put and lost 2/7 For: Crs Berry and MacRae Against: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and O’Connor



Amendment Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Bradley That clause (ii) of the motion be amended to read as follows: (ii) the matters raised in the correspondence from the Director General of the

Department of Local Government and Regional Development be considered by the Governance and Audit Committee and any action recommended be submitted to Council.

Amendment carried 9/0 COUNCIL DECISION: That:- (i) the correspondence received from the Director General of the Department of Local

Government and Regional Development dated 15 July 2005, be noted and received; (ii) the matters raised in the correspondence from the Director General of the

Department of Local Government and Regional Development be considered by the Governance and Audit Committee and any action recommended be submitted to Council.

Carried 9/0



12.3 REDEVELOPMENT OF PERRY LAKES STADIUM SITE – TOWN DEVELOPMENT STRATEGY (File Reference: PRO0069) PURPOSE OF REPORT: To consider the in-house development strategy for the Town of Cambridge to undertake the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site and the construction of replacement Sporting Facilities on AK Reserve. BACKGROUND: The Town has been pursuing a procurement process to engage a development partner to undertake the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site. After completing this process the Town decided at its meeting held on 28 June 2005 to undertake the development in-house with a partial land release sufficient to fund the project costs for the replacement sporting facilities and partial land development (CCS05.72). This decision is detailed below: “That:- (i) the Development Strategy for the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment Project which

entails the relocation of sporting facilities to Ak Reserve and the redevelopment of the Perry Lakes Stadium site for housing be based on a partial land release. The partial land release only be sufficient to recoup project costs including:-

• Development and demolition costs (estimated at $8 million); • $20 million (indexed) for funding the three sporting facilities at Ak Reserve; • Cambridge Council contribution to the design and construction costs of the three

sporting facilities is capped at $20 million (indexed). (ii) a Development Master Plan be prepared for the whole Perry Lakes Stadium site to fulfil

the requirement for the Western Australian Planning Commission to lift the ‘deferred’ status and change to ‘urban’ zoning;

(iii) individual land titles only be issued for the lots subject to the partial land release referred

to in (i) above; (iv) a draft legally binding ‘Deed of Agreement’ be prepared for Council approval confirming: (a) the commitments by Cambridge Council, the State Government and the three

sporting organisations (Rugby WA, Basketball WA and Athletica) in relation to the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment Project, including ongoing maintenance which is to be the total responsibility of the lessees as per Council’s resolution that these facilities be cost neutral to the Town of Cambridge;

(b) the Council’s capital contribution to the Athletics Stadium is a one off contribution for

the establishment of the new facility and the Town makes no commitment to any further contribution;

(v) a development strategy for the Town of Cambridge to undertake the project, similar to that

for the Kalinda Drive/Floreat Sporting Precinct Upgrade Project, be drawn up for the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment project, including a Business Plan for public comment;



(vi) a Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment Project Status Report be presented on a monthly basis to Council keeping Council informed on all aspects of the project including any actions undertaken with delegated authority in relation to this project. The Monthly Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment Project Status Report once endorsed/approved by Council is then to be available on the Town’s website;

(vii) the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment Project is to only commence once the Deed of

Agreement referred to in (iv) above has been signed by all parties; (viii) a draft Community Information Brochure be prepared for Council approval outlining the

process relating to this matter, including the Council’s decisions and the proposed development strategy.”

The Council minutes record the reason for the decision on this matter as: “The majority of members were not prepared to support the proposed development strategy involving a preferred development partner as it was considered that the council could undertake the development itself. In doing so it will ensure that the development proceeds under the control of the Council, will provide for a superior outcome and greater benefits to the community.” As a consequence of the above decision, the Council, in considering the referred back report CCS05.31 - Request for Tender No. TAC03-04 - Redevelopment of Perry Lakes Stadium Site, decided not to accept any tender. The tender process has therefore been concluded and all tenderers are no longer being considered. This report outlines the development strategy for implementing the Council’s decision on 28 June 2005. DETAILS: 1. Clarification of Council Decision

Prior to formalising the in-house development strategy it is necessary to clarify and confirm various aspects of the Council decision made on 28 June 2005. Clause (i) – Project Costs This item is silent on how the interest on the Project Finance budget is to be treated. Details relating to a Projected Returns summary for council as the “Partial Land” developer have been assessed in the attached cash flow model at approximately $4.5 million. These costs would be over and above the listed budget allowances and this issue requires clarification and council direction.



The Council decision indicates that the cost to Council of the sporting facilities be capped at $20 million (Indexed). This cost is based on the indexed amount included in the Request for Tender document which was issued in October 2004. Costs have increased in the intervening period of eight months and it is recommended that the costs be indexed from the original base of $16.8 million in November 2001 to the time construction prices are determined. This is deemed the most equitable manner in which to deal with building cost indexation. The cost of the sporting facilities is to include professional fees but is exclusive of GST and project finance. Clause (ii) – Urban Deferred In considering the lifting of Urban Deferred, it should be noted that, with regard to item (ii) of the Council decision, the preparation of a development Master Plan has not been raised as a requirement. Even so, it is recommended that a development plan be prepared and the town planning requirements be completed for the whole site. This will guide future development of the site even though only a partial land release is currently proposed. The current understanding relating to the requirements to allow the WAPC to lift the “Urban Deferred” status to “Urban” zoning on the Perry Lakes Stadium Site is:-

Enquiries by the Town in September 2003, as to the lifting of the “deferred” status of the Urban Zoning over the stadium land, received a response from the WAPC in April 2004, requiring inter alia the preparation of a Structure Plan for the entire sporting precinct to the south of Underwood Avenue, incorporating (in addition to Ak Reserve) Challenge Stadium and McGillivray Oval. The advice went on to state: “At such time that the Structure Plan is finalised, has the in-principle agreement of the involved parties and has been endorsed by the Commission, Council should lodge a formal request to the Commission to transfer the land from Urban Deferred to Urban Zone.” The Structure Plan has been completed and is currently out for public comment (closes 22 July 2005). Council considered the plan at its May 2005 meeting (Item DES05.79) and agreed to endorse it, subject to a number of conditions concerning the accompanying report. More recently, through the various negotiations with the Minister for Planning and Infrastructure, the Town has been advised by the Minister as follows: “I will direct the WAPC to transfer the Perry Lakes Stadium land from “Urban Deferred” to “Urban” immediately the Town signs a Design and Construction Contract with Multiplex as this will constitute “satisfactory progress” as intended in the imposition of the “Urban Deferred” zone.” Whether or not Multiplex was to remain part of the project, the Minister’s latest advice has introduced a further, significant, step in having Urban Deferred lifted; i.e. Council entering into a “design and construct” contract. This will require the finalisation of a schematic design and functional brief for the sporting facilities (agreed by all stakeholders), and undertaking a tender process.



Financial commitment will have to be made by the council to proceed to this stage and a decision will have to be made whether to commence the planning for the stadium land before it is established as Urban by the WAPC.

Clause (v) – Business Plan The preparation of a new business plan is a requirement for development on both the Ak Reserve site and the Perry Lakes Stadium Site. Details in relation to the following issues are provided in the previous Business Plan document (March 2005 Version on page 18).

• Land exchange with UWA on Ak Reserve; • Leases of land and facilities to the athletics, rugby and basketball organisations and

possibly to UWA/Challenge Stadium or State Government agencies; • Amalgamations of Ak Reserve lands including dedication of the Underwood Avenue

road easement; • Redevelopment and disposal of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site.

It is proposed that the Business Plan would be prepared and advertised for the statutory period of six weeks after initial project planning has been completed with the assistance of the proposed project manager and before the deed of agreement outlined in clause (iv) is signed. Clause (iv) and (vii) – Deed of Agreement These items require the execution of the legally binding “Deed of Agreement” prior to commencement of the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment Project. Council direction and clarification is required on this issue in order to finalise the Proposed Development Strategy to be adopted. The Proposed Strategy presented in this report has assumed preliminary design and project planning is completed in order to assist with the preparation of the legal “Deed of Agreement”. When this is executed by all parties, then the program has allowed for final designs to be commenced which would allow for a public tender process to be conducted in order to procure the new sporting facilities and conduct the demolition and partial land development of the Perry Lakes Stadium site. It is evident the program can be compressed if works associated with the detailed design and preparation of construction tender packages are not delayed as a result of the “Deed of Agreement” not being executed by all parties. On this basis the signing of the “Deed of Agreement” would be the earliest date which could be used to advertise the public tender packages.

2. Town Development Strategy

Clause (v) of the Council decision defines the development strategy to be followed in relation to the in-house management of this project. The Council decision models the development strategy on the method implemented for the Kalinda Drive/The Boulevard Land Development and Floreat Sporting Precinct construction. This decision is detailed as follows:- “(v) a development strategy for the Town of Cambridge to undertake the project, similar

to that for the Kalinda Drive/Floreat Sporting Precinct Upgrade Project, be drawn up for the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment project, including a Business Plan for public comment;”



The proposed development strategy is required to address two specific issues:- 1. Replacement Sporting Facilities

Procurement of replacement sporting facilities on Ak Reserve for Athletics, Rugby and Basketball;

2. Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment;

This would include preparation of a Development Plan for the whole of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site as part of the process and subsequent partial development of the site to only recoup sufficient project costs associated with replacement of the three sporting facilities on Ak Reserve, demolition of the existing Perry Lakes Stadium Site infrastructure and “partial development” costs associated with the land development.

The proposed development strategy is detailed below. It has a common set of criteria to be completed and then can be split into the two project streams as listed above. This proposed Strategy has been prepared as a Gantt chart which is attached for reference (refer Attachment 1). The project is divided into three phases as detailed below: Phase 1 Preliminary/Establishment Phase 2 Procurement of Replacement Sporting Facilities Phase 3 Perry Lakes Stadium Site Land Development The Gantt chart illustrates the tasks and timing associated with each of these phases. The significant dates concerning the implementation of this project are: • Appoint project manager November 2005 • Obtain approval for project finance November 2005 • Engage project consultants April 2006 • Adopt Business Plan May 2006 • Complete functional brief for sporting facilities June 2006 • Sign Deed of Agreement July 2006 • Award construction contract for sporting facilities January 2007 • Commence construction of sporting facilities January 2007 • Town Planning Scheme Amendment approved June 2007 • Practical completion of sporting facilities March 2008 • Land development construction commences August 2008 • Land Development completed March 2009 • Land sales commence April 2009



Phase 1 Preliminary/Establishment The following program has been developed for the Council to proceed with prior to procuring the sporting facilities or commence the land development. No. Activity Completion

Date 1. Adopt the Development Strategy to be followed; July 20052. Adopt project budgets for consultancy teams and

project developments; July 2005

3. Obtain approvals for Project Finance (Loans) for the consultancy teams and project developments:- (a) Planning and project development concepts; (b) Construction works to both sites;

November 2005

4. Appoint Project Manager(s); November 20055. Prepare a Project Plan with the Project Manager; February 20066. Prepare and seek public comment on Business

Plan; May 2006

7. Appoint Project Sub Consultant Team(s):- (a) Sports facilities (Consider Design and

Construct option for Sports Facilities); (b) Perry Lakes Stadium Site redevelopment

(Based on the Kalinda Drive Model);

April 2006

8. Complete a legally binding “Deed of Agreement” between:-

- Town of Cambridge; - State Government; - Athletics; - Rugby; - Basketball.

This is required to confirm the commitments of each party. The Deed is to be signed by all parties prior to project commencement (refer Council decision CCS05.72 (vii) June 2005);

July 2006

9. When the Business Plan is adopted and the legally binding Deed of Agreement signed by all parties, final design and construction works tenders can be processed and accepted;

July 2006

10. Obtain lifting of the “Urban deferred“ zoning status and have “Urban” approved by the WAPC (upon construction contract being awarded for sporting facilities);

January 2007

Note: The critical path dates will be set by the sports facility project on Ak Reserve.

This will be the “practical completion” date when the new sporting facilities are occupied and the Perry Lakes Stadium Site is ready for a demolition contract;



Phase 2 Procurement of Replacement Sporting Facilities

• Engage a Project Manager; • Review the Project Plan (Consider Design and Construct option); • Sub Consultant Team to be engaged including but not limited to:-

- Sporting Facilities Architect; - Architect; - Landscape Architect; - Structural Engineer/Civil Engineer; - Traffic Engineer; - Geotechnical Engineer; - Quantity Surveyor; - Facilities Management; - Ethnographic/Archaeological; - Communications/Public Relations.

• Liaise with Athletica, Rugby and Basketball to formalise the design functional brief

of the three new facilities. Liaise also with Challenge Stadium and UWA.

Note: Rugby WA now have extra requirements for the management of Super 14’s team which have not been included in any previous development of functional briefs);

• Liaise with the State Government to agree and execute a legally binding “Deed of

Agreement” to cover commitments by Town of Cambridge, State Government, Athletica, Rugby and Basketball. This is to include facilities to be provided, financing agreements and ongoing maintenance agreements of all parties;

Note: CCS05.72 28 June 2005 (iv) (vii) requires this to be completed prior to commencement of the project.

• Satisfy project conditions and obtain approvals:-

- Obtain approval from WAPC to lift the “urban deferred” status on the current Perry Lakes Stadium site in lieu of “urban” zoning;

- Obtain WAPC planning approval for Sporting Facilities on Ak Reserve; - Local Government boundary changes with City of Nedlands; - Relocation of the Riding for Disabled; - Indigenous and European heritage survey; - Land exchange agreement with UWA; - Bush Forever issues; - Finalise agreements for the operation of the three new sporting facilities to be on

a cost neutral basis to the Town; - Finalise future lease arrangements for the three facilities; - Agree with the three sports, UWA and Challenge Stadium, maintenance

obligations for the surrounding parking facilities;

• Develop a total project construction pre-tender budget prior to preparation of a single construction tender package to conduct a public tender.

• Obtain approval for project financing (Loan Funds); • Prepare and seek public comment on a Business Plan and obtain endorsement

from Council;



• Call public construction tenders; • On “practical completion”, relocate the three sporting organisations. This now

allows for commencement of demolition and construction on the Perry Lakes Stadium Site.

Phase 3 Perry Lakes Stadium Site Land Development

• State Government to lift “urban deferred’ zoning on Perry Lakes Stadium site; • Use Kalinda Development Process from here i.e. engage Consultant Team:

o Project Manager; o Planner; o Engineer; o Landscape Architect; o Communications; o Marketing.

• Council to advise on zoning densities to be applied to the preparation of the Draft Development Plan (Master Plan);

• Prepare a Draft Development Plan for community comment. • Council to consider community comments on the plan and adopt a Development

Plan for the whole site. • Obtain WAPC/DPI approval for the Development Plan (Master Plan) which would

include zoning density; • Amend the current “Town Planning Scheme”; • Obtain conditional subdivisional approval from WAPC for the “Partial Development

Site”; • Prepare construction contract documentation on a “Partial Land” development for

the site; • Call tenders and award Perry Lakes Site demolition and civil works contract; • Complete construction works; • Obtain Certificates of Title for the partial land release; • Conduct land sales to recoup “Project Costs”;

3. Project Organisation Structure

The in-house development will require the Town to engage the necessary resources with the appropriate expertise to design, manage and implement the project. This will require various consulting arrangements to be engaged including architects, planners, engineers, quantity surveyors, property agents etc. In addition it is proposed that the entire project would be coordinated by a project manager. A Preliminary Project Organisation Structure has been prepared as attached (refer Attachment 2). The structure has been demarcated in accordance with the two main project initiatives, namely construction of replacement sporting facilities and land development of a portion of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site. Due to the size and complexity of this project it is proposed that an overall Project Director be engaged with two separate project managers being engaged for each element of the project (i.e. sporting facilities and land development). It is expected that a single project management firm could be engaged to fulfil each of these roles or the Town could employ an in-house project manager. However, it is considered important that the tasks are separated to provide a greater degree of focus and responsibility in terms of project delivery.



Due to the level of resourcing and expertise required for this project it is recommended that a project management firm be engaged. Whilst the initial appointment of a project management firm may delay the initial establishment phase it is considered that there will be minimal impact on the overall timeline for the project by engaging a firm to complete this task. The project management fee is expected to be greater than the tender threshold of $50,000, therefore it will be necessary for public tenders to be called to provide these services. Firstly it will be necessary to prepare a project brief and then advertise for at least three weeks due to the extent of the scope of works. Once the project managers are appointed it will be necessary for them to prepare a more detailed project plan and finalise the additional resources required to complete the project. The project manager is to confirm the project structure and assist the Town in engaging the necessary expertise. This process will take a further three months to complete with tenders required for each of the services. The preliminary organisation structure has been prepared so that it may be reviewed and confirmed upon the engagement of the project manager. In addition to any external resources engaged by the Council it must be recognised that there will be a large commitment by the Council’s executive and other staff in managing this project. This will have an impact on other operational issues of the Council and will have an impact on the delivery of other projects unless additional staff resources are provided to fill this gap.

4. Financial Considerations 4.1 Cash Flow Model

A cash flow model has been prepared for the Town Development Strategy based on the preliminary information currently available. This cash flow model is attached (refer Attachment 3). The model is based on the principle of a partial land development with sufficient lots sold to recover project costs. Project costs include the cost of the replacement sporting facilities on Ak Reserve, land development costs, site reestablishment costs, selling costs and finance charges (i.e. project finance). The model demonstrates that approximately 70 lots would be required to be sold to recover all project costs. This would result in approximately 25% of the total 15.5 hectares being developed after allowing 35% for roads, lanes and public open space. The model is only in a preliminary form and will be developed in greater detail during the planning stages as more information becomes available. Therefore, the model is only an estimate which will vary according to the final development scenario. The model is based on a number of assumptions as detailed below:

• No. of lots sold 66 • Average site density R25 • Average lot size 385 m2 • Provision for roads, lanes and POS 35% • Current land sales rate $1,500 (inc GST) per m2



• Land escalation rate 5% per annum • Margin scheme valuation $32.5 million • Land construction cost $75,000 (exc GST) per lot • Land construction cost escalation 3% per annum • Sporting facility construction cost $28.7 million (exc GST) • Sporting facility construction cost escalation 10% per annum • Professional fees 8% construction costs • Selling agents fees 1% gross sales • Marketing fees 1% gross sales • Project finance interest rate 6.5% per annum

Any change in the above variables will impact on the final results. Based on developing and selling sufficient land to recover project costs it will be necessary to sell more land than detailed in this model to recover any adverse development conditions that affect net revenue. The model has been indexed to allow for the increase in the various elements included in the model from current estimates until the time expenditure and revenue has been incurred or received. A discounted cash flow comparison has also been included to demonstrate the current day value of the results. A summary of the financial results of this model are provided below:

Discounted

Cash Flow Indexed

Cash Flow Revenue Gross Sales Revenue $38,110,000 $47,190,000Less GST ($2,860,000) ($3,540,000) $35,250,000 $43,650,000State Athletic Centre Payment $5,320,000 $6,570,000Total Revenue $40,570,000 $50,220,000 Expenditure (Exc GST) Sporting Facilities $26,730,000 $32,940,000Land Development $8,870,000 $10,490,000PLS Site Reestablishment $1,000,000 $1,200,000Selling Costs $720,000 $890,000Finance Charges $3,580,000 $4,530,000Total Expenditure $40,900,000 $50,050,000 Net Revenue ($330,000) $170,000

Note: Whilst the current commitment for the replacement sporting facilities is $28.7 million, the amount in the discounted cash flow is less ($26.73 million). This is because the future price is fixed at the start of construction and the cash flows thereafter are not indexed. This means that when the construction cash flows (which occur over a period of time) are discounted the financial result is less than the current committed amount. The important thing to note from the cash flow model is that the current commitment is indexed to the time construction commences so that the true value of the commitment made today is retained.

The maximum debt level incurred in the above model is $38.5 million. As the model is based on estimates only it is recommended that any finance facility allow for adverse project conditions and should be up to $40 million. The Town will only borrow the amount required to carry out the project.



4.2 Project Finance

As detailed in the Cash Flow Model, the Town will be required to fund approximately $40 million in project finance. In addition, the Town has only $100,000 available in the Endowment Lands Account to fund the preliminary activities for this project. Whilst most of the project finance will be required to fund the replacement sporting facilities and land development, there is a requirement to fund approximately $2 million to $2.5 million in establishment expenses. The Town is required to follow the provisions of Section 6.20 and 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 in relation to borrowing. Under these provisions the Town is able to borrow funds and, if the details of the proposal have not been included in the Annual Budget, the Council must give one month’s local public notice of the proposal. The Council decision to borrow must be by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY. The Local Government Act 1995 previously provided that the approval of the Treasurer was required prior to a Council undertaking any borrowings. This requirement was deleted under the recent amendments to the Local Government Act 1995. As part of the borrowing approval process, the Treasurer previously required local governments to obtain at least three quotes for any loans with one quote having to be obtained from the Western Australian Treasury Corporation (WATC). Even though the approval of the Treasurer is not now required, it is recommended that quotes are obtained for the project finance. Due to the Treasurer no longer approving local government finance, WATC has reviewed its credit policy for lending to local governments, this is to ensure that the WATC remains prudent with its lendings and the WATC will only advance to a local government once it is satisfied the borrowing will not place financial stress on the local government. This policy requires local governments to ensure that certain financial ratios remain below specified limits. The following ratios are used to determine the limits on the WATC’s credit policy:- • Debt Service Ratio not exceeding 10%; and • Gross Debt to Revenue Ratio not exceeding 60%;

for the: o immediately preceding financial year; o the current financial year; and o following financial year.

Debt Service Ratio means –

Debt Service Cost Available Operating Revenue

Gross Debt to Revenue Ratio means –

Gross Debt Total Revenue

The average debt over the life of the project is approximately $17 million, with a maximum debt of $38.5 million as detailed in the Cash Flow Model. Total interest in the Cash Flow Model is $4.5 million, this averages $1.1 million per annum. The Council has borrowed $2.8 million to fund the replacement of irrigation at the Golf Complex and has a short term facility up to $12.5 million for the Kalinda Drive /The Boulevard land development. These amounts must be taken into account when considering the Town’s debt servicing ability under the WATC credit policy. Taking into account the proposed short term facility for



Perry Lakes at $40 million the Town’s gross debt will be $55.3 million with average debt service cost of $1.5 million per annum.

WATC

Credit Policy 2003/2004

Actual 2004/2005 Estimated

Debt Service Ratio 10% 8.3% 6.0%Gross Debt to Revenue Ratio 60% 187% 106%

The WATC credit policy outlines that where the ratio exceeds the thresholds above, any lending may only be made with the prior approval of the WATC Board. The Board may request any additional information required to substantiate the ability of the Town to service the debt. As the Gross Debt to Revenue Threshold exceeds the WATC Credit Policy there will be a requirement to seek WATC Board approval to any additional borrowing. Therefore it is important that the approval for the loan borrowings be sought immediately. As the Town has approximately $2 million to $2.5 million of preliminary establishment expenses it is proposed that authorisation be provided to borrow up to an initial amount of $2.5 million with the full facility up to $40 million being available once urban deferred is lifted from the Perry Lakes Stadium Site.

4.3 Sporting Facility Costs

The Council decided in October 2004 to index the cost of the sporting facilities form the November 2001 estimate of $16.8 million for the Town’s contribution by adopting the Rawlinsons ‘Australian Construction Handbook’ Building Price Indices – Perth. The cost of the facilities to be indexed up to the date the final prices are fixed. In October 2004 when this decision was made the latest available index was for the September 2004 period and was only a forecast figure. This resulted in the Town’s contribution being indexed to $20 million at that time. Since October 2004, being eight months ago, building prices have continued to increase. Based on the forecast June 2005 Index of 163.87 compared to the September 2001 Index of 123.58 (being the Index figures available immediately prior to committing to the construction amount of the sporting facilities) indicates there has been a 32.6% increase in building costs in that time. Indexing Council’s original estimate to current figures would result in the Town’s contribution being $22.3 million as detailed below: Nov 2001 Nov 2004 June 2005 Index 123.58 147.2 (F) 163.87 (F) Rugby $3.1 m $3.7 m $4.1 mBasketball $8.5 m $10.1 m $11.3 mAthletics (Local/Regional) $5.2 m $6.2 m $6.9 mTown Contribution $16.8 m $20.0 m $22.3 mAthletics (State Upgrade) $4.8 m $5.7 m $6.4 mTotal $21.6 m $25.7 m $28.7 m

Note (F) are forecasted figures from Rawlinsons. Amounts to be adjusted according to

actual index. The cash flow model provides for further indexation of the sporting facility costs at 10% per annum up until the price of the facilities are fixed immediately prior to construction.



Based on fixing the prices in October 2006 an amount of $32.9 million has been allowed for the cost of the sporting facilities in the cash flow estimate. Provision has been made for the State Government to contribute $6.6 million towards this cost and the Town funding $26.3 million. These amounts will vary depending upon when the price of the sporting facilities is fixed and the building price index at the time. The current provisions are considered to be conservative and it is expected the actual index will result in a lower amount.

5. Deed of Agreement Clause (iv) and (vii) of the Council decision made on 28 June 2005, requires a legally binding Deed of Agreement to be signed prior to the Perry Lakes Stadium Redevelopment commencing. The Council decision outlines the Deed of Agreement is to include the commitments made by the Town of Cambridge, the State Government and Rugby WA, Basketball WA and Athletica including ongoing maintenance within the lease area which is to be the total responsibility of the lessees. In addition, the capital contribution to the Athletics Stadium is to be a one-off contribution for the establishment of the facility and the Town is to make no further contributions. The Deed should provide details (including timing of payment and determination of amount) relating to the payment of the State Government contribution to upgrade the athletics facility to a state level (State Athletics Centre payment). It is also recommended that the Deed of Agreement provides for all the project conditions that the government has previously undertaken to clear as follows:- • UWA land exchange • Bush Forever on Ak Reserve • Riding for Disabled (relocation) • Local Government boundary amendment (City of Nedlands) • Mt Claremont Sports Precinct Structure Plan • Lifting of Urban Deferred on the Perry Lakes Stadium site • Perry Lakes Stadium heritage matters The signing of the Deed of Agreement is fundamental to proceeding with the project and action on the development of this Deed should be progressed as a matter of priority. It is recommended that the Council authorises the Council’s legal advisors to prepare a draft Deed for consideration prior to forwarding to the other parties to the Deed. It is also recommended that all preliminary establishment tasks proceed prior to the Deed of Agreement being signed with only the construction of the sporting facilities not being progressed until the Deed is formalised.

6. Risk

As the Town has decided to fully manage this project, it will be subject to all risks related to this project. These risks include, but are not limited to:- • Approval risk (Planning, Heritage, Anthropological, Ethnographical, Environmental) • Design risk • Construction risk • Project cost risk • Finance risk • Negotiation with Third Party risks • Program risk



It is important that an appropriate risk management regime be in place to ensure that these risks do not impact on the delivery of the project. If the state government continue with their commitment to clear many of the project conditions this will significantly mitigate the project risks to the Town. It is considered that with the appropriate Project and Risk Management strategies, the Town is capable of managing the risks for this project.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: Policy Policy 2.38 – Allocation of Funds from Reserve Accounts and Endowment Lands Account, applies to the allocation of land sale proceeds under the Endowment Lands Act. Cambridge Endowment Lands Act 1920 Both Perry Lakes Stadium and AK Reserve are located within the Endowment Lands Area. Therefore, the requirements of the Endowment Lands Act in relation to the application of sale proceeds must be complied with. Local Government Act 1995 The EOI/Tender process proposed has been developed in such a way to comply with the statutory tendering, procurement and disposition of land processes set out in Sections 3.57, 3.58 and 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995. Prior to entering into a major land transaction or an agreement to acquire or dispose of land or develop land, the Town is to prepare and advertise a Business Plan for six weeks under Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995. As the basis of the Town undertaking the project, it will be necessary for a new Business Plan to be prepared and advertised for the statutory 42 day public comment period. Section 6.20 and 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides the power for local governments to borrow. Any decision to proceed with borrowings must be made by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: The financial implications have been outlined in this report and a preliminary financial model has been prepared providing a detailed analysis of the implications. The project will involve a significant amount of expenditure and the raising of project finance to cover these costs until proceeds from land sales are available. The Development Strategy outlined in this report demonstrates how all the financial issues will be managed. STRATEGIC DIRECTION: Plan of Principal Activities The Plan of Principal Activities includes a separate activity “Perry Lakes Stadium and Sporting Facilities Development” – Activity No. 18. The objectives included in relation to this activity are to:- • provide a funding source for infrastructure improvements in the Endowment Lands Area;



• achieve the highest and best use of the land and maximise returns from the sale. The recommendations contained in this report are consistent with the details provided in the Plan of Principal Activities. Strategic Plan The Town’s Mission is: • To provide leadership and commitment in achieving sustainable, social,

environmental and economic outcomes for the benefit of the local community. • To enhance the local lifestyle through community engagement, innovation, and

excellence in service delivery and governance. In addition, there are several references in the Strategic Plan which support the Perry Lakes Stadium and Sporting Facilities Development as follows:- • Balance diverse interests for the good of the whole community. • Ensure sustainable environmental management. • Identify and implement improvements to streetscapes, pedestrian spaces and community

facilities throughout the Town. • Assess development and redevelopment opportunities to create vibrant centres in

appropriate parts of the Town, while preserving the Town’s heritage, character and culture. • Provide quality public open space and leisure facilities. • Ensure the sustainable provision of community infrastructure. COMMUNITY CONSULTATION: This matter has been assessed under the Trial Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated 95 points (out of 100), which provides for Level 5 consultation. Level 5 (Score 81 – 100) Information given to the public and actively seek information and responses from a range of interested parties in a range of different ways. Accordingly, the consultation methods proposed are:- • Compliance with all statutory advertising requirements including the Business Plan

(Section 3.59 of the Local Government Act 1995).

• Information brochures prepared and distributed to inform residents of the current situation in relation to Perry Lakes Stadium and the proposal to develop the land and replace the sporting facilities.

Information brochures were circulated to all property owners in May 2004, November 2004 and March 2005 concerning the EOI/Tender process for the engagement of a development partner. The Council decided at its meeting held on 28 June 2005 to prepare and distribute a further information brochure to residents outlining the Town development strategy. After the Council endorses the development strategy at this meeting it will be possible to finalise an information brochure to be firstly approved by Council and then circulated. SUMMARY:



A development strategy based on the Town undertaking responsibility for full project works including raising the necessary project finance has been prepared in accordance with the direction set by Council at its meeting held on 28 June 2005. The strategy includes a project schedule (Gantt chart Attachment 1), project organisation structure (Attachment 2), cash flow model (Attachment 3) and additional details included in this report. The strategy is now in a form that can be adopted by Council to enable activities on the project to proceed. The initial tasks will include engaging a project manager securing the project finance and formalising the Deed of Agreement. These steps are fundamental to progressing the project. The program has been developed based on realistic time frames so that the project is implemented in a thorough and methodical manner. The project is a large undertaking with a number of complex issues to manage. It is important that appropriate risk management strategies are implemented so the project can be delivered in a timely and efficient manner. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Bradley That: (i) the development strategy for the Town to undertake the full development works for

the Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment project, including the replacement of the sporting facilities, be approved as outlined in this report;

(ii) the preliminary project budget detailed in the attached cash flow model be

approved based, on the indexation of the sporting facilities at $16.8 million from November 2001 up to the date final prices are fixed in accordance with previous Council decisions;

(iii) a Project Manager be engaged to provide assistance to the Town to manage all

aspects of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment Program, with a project brief being prepared for Council endorsement prior to tender;

(iv) the Town’s legal advisors be requested to prepare a Draft Deed of Agreement for

execution by the Town of Cambridge, State Government, Rugby WA, Basketball WA and Athletica outlining the undertakings and commitments with respect to each of those parties in relation to this project;

(v) the Administration be authorised to progress the securing of project finance in

accordance with Section 6.20 and 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 up to $40 million on the following basis:-

• initial funding up to $2.5 million for preliminary/establishment tasks;

• the balance of the funding up to $40 million be subject to Urban Deferred

zoning on the Perry Lakes Stadium site being removed. Discussion ensued. Amendment Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Bradley That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:-



(vi) the Business Plan covering both development sites be prepared for approval at the

next Council meeting; (vii) commence preparation of the sub consultants’ briefs, advertise and assess for

approval at the Council meeting immediately following finance approval; (viii) commence preliminary functional briefs for design and costings of the sporting

stadiums to enable the newly appointed Project Manager to finalise the design and costings and allow for an early completion of the Deed of Agreement.

Amendment lost 4/5 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Bradley, Gow and Huxtable Against: Crs Barlow, Berry, Langer, MacRae and O’Connor Amendment Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Langer That a footnote be added to the motion as follows: Footnote: It is noted that the above Development Strategy does not preclude the firms that submitted tenders in the previous Request for Tender process from submitting proposals for components of the works pursuant to the Town Development Strategy. Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer, MacRae and

O’Connor Against: Cr Berry Amendment Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Langer That clause (i) of the motion be amended by adding the following words “including the commencement of project planning before the Deed of Agreement is signed.” Amendment carried 8/1 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Berry, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and

O’Connor Against: Cr MacRae COUNCIL DECISION: That: (i) the development strategy for the Town to undertake the full development works for

the Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment project, including the replacement of the sporting facilities, be approved as outlined in this report including the commencement of project planning before the Deed of Agreement is signed;



(ii) the preliminary project budget detailed in the attached cash flow model be

approved based, on the indexation of the sporting facilities at $16.8 million from November 2001 up to the date final prices are fixed in accordance with previous Council decisions;

(iii) a Project Manager be engaged to provide assistance to the Town to manage all

aspects of the Perry Lakes Stadium Site Redevelopment Program, with a project brief being prepared for Council endorsement prior to tender;

(iv) the Town’s legal advisors be requested to prepare a Draft Deed of Agreement for

execution by the Town of Cambridge, State Government, Rugby WA, Basketball WA and Athletica outlining the undertakings and commitments with respect to each of those parties in relation to this project;

(v) the Administration be authorised to progress the securing of project finance in

accordance with Section 6.20 and 6.21 of the Local Government Act 1995 up to $40 million on the following basis:-

• initial funding up to $2.5 million for preliminary/establishment tasks;

• the balance of the funding up to $40 million be subject to Urban Deferred

zoning on the Perry Lakes Stadium site being removed. Footnote: It is noted that the above Development Strategy does not preclude the firms that submitted tenders in the previous Request for Tender process from submitting proposals for components of the works pursuant to the Town Development Strategy. Carried 6/3 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Barlow, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable and Langer Against: Crs Berry, MacRae and O’Connor Cr MacRae left the meeting at 9.50 pm.



12.4 Clause 2.11 of the Council’s Standing Orders permits Elected Members to move motions involving urgent business that is not included in the Notice Paper for that meeting provided that:- (i) the Presiding Member has first consented to the business being raised; and (ii) the Presiding Member considers that either:-

(a) the urgency of the business is such that the business cannot await inclusion in the Notice Paper for the next meeting of the Council; or

(b) the delay in referring the business to the next meeting of the Council could have

adverse legal or financial implications for the Town. The following item, involving a matter which has been set down for trial on 23 August 2005, has been included on the agenda at the request of the Mayor:- WITHDRAWAL OF LEGAL ACTION: UNAUTHORISED FRONT FENCE, LOT 540 ALDERBURY STREET, FLOREAT (File Reference: LEG0081/PRO1248) BACKGROUND: The Council has recently commenced legal action to prosecute the owners of 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat, for constructing a solid limestone front fence to a height of 1.2 metres. The owners have made representations seeking the Council’s approval of the fence as constructed due to concerns about traffic noise. I would therefore request that this matter be reconsidered with a view to withdrawing the Council’s current legal action. The Council should be able to resolve this situation without the need for recourse to legal enforcement. It is suggested that the Council’s previous decision could be rescinded, and no further action be taken. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: In July 2004, the Council refused an application for a 1.4 metre high solid limestone front fence at 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat. Despite the Council decision, the property owner constructed the fence to a height of 1.2 metres. In November 2004, the Council was advised that the Town had initiated legal action against the property owners for the unauthorised construction of the front fence. In March 2005, following representations from the owners, the Council reconsidered the matter and agreed that subject to the top row of blocks being removed and the property owners paying the Council’s legal costs to date, the fence could be approved and legal action would be withdrawn. Despite the case proceeding to a first hearing on 22 April 2005, no alterations have been undertaken to the fence, nor has any reimbursement of costs been received. Further representation to Elected Members by the property owner has, however, resulted in the Administration being requested to reconsider the issues involved.



Whilst Council does not condone unauthorised building work, with regard to the front wall at 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat, it is considered that having regard to the following factors:- the wall is largely overgrown with ivy and, as such, its visual impact is greatly reduced;

the overall height of the wall is not considered excessive in this instance;

the property owner’s concerns regarding traffic noise;

the Council should take no further action in relation to this matter. It will be necessary for the Council’s previous decision dated 22 March 2005 as follows:- “(iii) in the event of the property owners failing to accept Council’s requirements, legal

proceedings against the owners will continue.”; to be revoked.

Council Meeting 26 July 2005 The Mayor advised that in order to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion to revoke a previous decision of the Council requires firstly a motion that the matter be considered by Council. This motion must be supported by at least one third of the Council (inclusive of the mover). If this motion is carried, the motion to revoke the previous Council decision must then be carried by an absolute majority. Moved by Cr Gow, seconded by Cr Huxtable That in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 10(1) of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996, the proposed motion relating to the revocation of the Council’s decision dated 22 March 2005 in relation to the unauthorised front fence constructed at 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat be considered. Carried For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Gow and Huxtable COUNCIL DECISION: Moved by Mayor Anderton, seconded by Cr Huxtable That:- (i) the following Council decision made at its meeting held on 22 March 2005 in

relation to the unauthorised front fence constructed at 134 Alderbury Street, Floreat:-

“(iii) in the event of the property owners failing to accept Council’s

requirements, legal proceedings against the owners will continue.”

be revoked by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY;



(ii) no further action be taken by the Council in relation to this matter. Carried by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Berry, Bradley, Gow and Huxtable Against: Crs Barlow, Langer and O’Connor Cr MacRae returned to the meeting at 9.55 pm



13. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS

Meeting Behind Closed Doors Moved by Cr Barlow, seconded by Cr Huxtable That the following item be regarded as confidential in accordance with section 5.23 of the Local Government Act 1995. Carried9/0

13.1

DES05.152 LOT 87 (NO.35) BRIGHTON STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE – PROPOSED EXTENSION OT EXISTING CARPORT Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor COUNCIL DECISION: (COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION) Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr O’Connor That the State Administration Tribunal be advised that the application for a proposed extension to the carport at lot 87 (No.35) Brighton Street, West Leederville has been refused on the basis of non compliance with Clause 3.3.2 of the R Codes and that the proposal does not satisfy the performance criteria relating to the significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property through building bulk. Carried 7/2 For: Mayor Anderton, Crs Berry, Bradley, Gow, Huxtable, Langer and O’Connor Against: Crs Barlow and MacRae

14. CLOSURE There being no further business, Mayor Anderton thanked those present for their

attendance and declared the meeting closed at 9.58 pm.