NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL · 2017-03-16 · MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS . TOWN OF...

MAYOR AND COUNCILLORS TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE NOTICE OF ORDINARY MEETING OF THE COUNCIL An Ordinary Meeting of the Council will be held at the Council’s Administration/Civic Centre, 1 Bold Park Drive, Floreat, on Tuesday 23 February 2016 at 6.00 pm. JASON BUCKLEY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 18 February 2016 ******************************************************************************************************* OUR VISION Cambridge "Over the next decade" Cambridge is a place where things are happening. Stylish new and enhanced development will create hubs of community activity - places where families and friends get together, where business thrives and access is easy. Housing will become more diverse to accommodate people at different life stages and our suburban landscape will enhance its appeal through beautiful green and open streetscapes. BUSINESS PHILOSOPHY To make decisions in the interests of both current and future generations based on the following ideals: To develop productive relationships with industry, the State Government and other Local Governments

to deliver improved cost effective services; To strive to meet the needs of our communities through strong community consultation, engagement

and collaboration; To embrace the principles of sustainability in our decision making to balance the needs of both current

and future generations through environmental protection, social advancement and economic prosperity; To continually improve our services through planning, adaptability and careful management of risks. VALUES In everything we do, we will seek to adhere to a set of values that guides our attitudes and behaviours: Friendly and Helpful Teamwork Creativity Integrity. ABOUT OUR LOGO The swan is representative of our state of Western Australia, and particularly of our very own Lake Monger. The graceful arc of the swan’s neck, integrated with the letter “C” is distinctive in its representation of the Town of Cambridge. The swan is centred in a diamond shape that symbolises prosperity. The upper green triangle denotes our beautiful parks with the peak representing Reabold Hill. The lower blue triangle represents our ocean and lakes. On a broader scale, the colours of blue and green represent strength and reliability. The logo is contemporary in design whilst maintaining a classical appeal.

BUSINESS

1. Opening

2. Attendance

3. Public Question Time

4. Petitions

5. Deputations

6. Applications for Leave of Absence

7. Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting of Council 15 December 2015

8. Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

9. Committee Reports

Development Committee 15 February 2016 Community and Resources Committee 16 February 2016

10. Council Reports

10.1 Update of Expenditure on Action Opposing the Supreme Court Application forJudicial Review - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31

11. Urgent Business

12. Motions of Which Notice has been Given

12.1 Cr Timmermanis - Issue of Permits for Use of Town Controlled Property12.2 Mayor Shannon - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Motion to Obtain

Independent Legal Opinion on the Merits of the Town's Defence Strategy 12.3 Mayor Shannon - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Legal Action Report12.4 Mayor Shannon - Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Court Documents

Provided to Elected Members 12.5 Mayor Shannon - Use of the Town's Website to Promote Leisure and Sporting

Events Occurring within the Town 12.6 Mayor Shannon - Amendment to Quarry Amphitheatre Operational Guidelines12.7 Mayor Shannon - Report on Current Herbicide Use and Alternatives to Herbicide

Use 12.8 Cr Bradley - Chinese New Year Celebrations

13. Confidential Reports

13.1 Leederville Sports Club - Breach of Lease of Grassed Car Park13.2 Non-Compliant Dwelling House, West Leederville - Appeal - Progress Report

14. Closure

Disclaimer

Visitors are reminded that mobile phones should be turned off during Council meetings

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE

16 FEBRUARY 2016

ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. DECLARATION OF OPENING

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE

3. PUBLIC QUESTION TIME

4. DEPUTATIONS AND PETITIONS

5. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

6. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS' INTERESTS

7. REPORT

DV16.1 Lot 31 (No. 9) Barrington Street, West Leederville - Carport and Patio

Addition to Existing Dwelling - Referred Back 3 DV16.2 Lot 3 (No. 60) Kalinda Drive, City Beach - Additional car parking bays for

Ocean Gardens Retirement Village 9 DV16.3 Lot 782 (No. 253) Cambridge St, Wembley - Eight Multiple Dwellings 13 DV16.4 Lot 500 (No. 31) Connaught Street, West Leederville - 10 Multiple

Dwellings - Amended Plans 23 DV16.5 Lot 157 (No. 192) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Proposed Offices and

Consulting Rooms (Group) - St John of God Raphael Services 29 DV16.6 Lot 150 (No. 2) McCourt Street, Corner Railway Parade, West Leederville -

Proposed Change of Use from Consulting Rooms (Group) to Hospital (Day Surgery) 39

DV16.7 Lot 5 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of use from Shop (Photo Processing Centre) to Consulting Rooms (Yoga Therapy) 44

DV16.8 Lot 6 (No. 262) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Change of Use from Shop to Office and Commercial Signage 49

DV16.9 Lot 23 (No. 24) Salvado Road, Wembley - Advertising Signage 54 DV16.10 Lot 595 (No. 49) Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Second storey additions and

alterations 58 DV16.11 Lot 38 (No. 121) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Two Storey

Grouped Dwelling to Rear of Existing Single House 65 DV16.12 Lot 2 (No. 132) Alderbury Street, Floreat - Two Storey Dwelling 71 DV16.13 Lot 889 (No. 20C) Jukes Way, Wembley - Proposed Two Storey Dwelling 76 DV16.14 Lot 693 (No. 12) Lilika Road, City Beach - Proposed Additions and

Alterations including an Additional Storey 82 DV16.15 Lot 1441 (No. 10) Glengariff Drive, Floreat - Pool house to Rear of

Dwelling 87 DV16.16 Lot 16 (No. 184) Railway Parade, West Leederville - Front fence 91 DV16.17 Lot 1 (No. 15) Bendigo Way, City Beach - Pergola 94 DV16.18 Lot 420 (No. 5) Adina Road, City Beach - Retrospective Approval for

Shade Sails to Rear of Dwelling 98 DV16.19 Lot 523 (No. 14) Marimba Crescent, City Beach - Aviary 102

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 FEBRUARY 2016 i

DV16.20 Local Planning Strategy and Review of Planning and Development Policy Guidelines - Resourcing Implications and Timeframe 106

DV16.21 Proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 116 DV16.22 Statutory Review of Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local

Law 123 DV16.23 Statutory Review of Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law 128 DV16.24 Statutory Review of Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 133 DV16.25 Review of Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 138 DV16.26 Parking Agreement for Lot 20 and 21 (No. 12) Salvado Road, Subiaco - St

John of God Hospital 144 DV16.27 Bushfire Prone Areas Reform Package - Report 148 DV16.28 Draft Policy 5.2 - Revised Advertising Signs Policy - Adoption by Council

for Advertising 158 DV16.29 Delegated Decisions and Notifications for December 2015 and January

2016 164 DV16.30 Building Permits Approved Under Delegated Authority for December 2015

and January 2016 167

8. CLOSURE

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016.


The Presiding Member declared the meeting of the Development Committee open at 6.01 pm.


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Tracey King (Presiding Member) 6.02 pm 9.33 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.02 pm 9.33 pm Cr Rod Bradley 6.02 pm 9.33 pm Cr Corinne MacRae 6.02 pm 9.33 pm Cr Pauline O'Connor JP 6.02 pm 9.33 pm Observers: Cr Jane Powell Officers: Ian Bignell, Director, Development and Sustainability Stevan Rodic, Manager Development Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 9.33 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil


Nil


Item DV16.1 Laura Tricker, neighbour Rylan Fabrici, applicant Item DV16.4 Graham Mitchell, neighbour Bruce Henderson, neighbour Giles Harden-Jones, applicant Item DV16.5 Beverly East, General Manager, Social Outreach

MINUTES - DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE - 16 FEBRUARY 2016 1

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016

Item DV16.7 Sara Tucker, applicant Item DV16.8 Joel Pember, applicant Item DV16.10 Lee Syminton, applicant Item DV16.11 Paul Williams, on behalf of neighbour Quentin Lau, applicant Item DV16.13 Kate Turnbull, neighbour Colin Hayes, applicant Item DV16.15 Blake Willis, applicant and Deslie Auguston, owner Item DV16.18 Geoff Cover, neighbour Trevor Hammond, applicant


Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Development Committee held on 8 December 2015 as contained in the December 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Item DV16.18 - Cr MacRae - Impartiality Interest

7. REPORTS



DV16.1 LOT 31 (NO. 9) BARRINGTON STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CARPORT AND PATIO ADDITION TO EXISTING DWELLING - REFERRED BACK

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a carport and patio at Lot 31 (No. 9) Barrington Street, West Leederville. The plans show a cantilevered skillion carport over an existing driveway and a cantilevered skillion patio roof that replaces an existing pitched patio roof. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback and carport setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the patio is small in scale and will abut an existing two storey dwelling with minimal

impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • the carport will maintain clear views into and out of the dwelling and have a bulk and

scale consistent with the immediate locality. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0506DA-2014 Owner: Mr RM Fabrici and Mrs EA May Applicant: Rylan Mayer Fabricii Zoning: 'Residential - R40' Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 211 m2

This application was originally submitted in November 2014 with plans showing a large cantilevered roof that acted as both carport and patio roof and an extension of the bedroom into the front setback. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of the neighbouring property to the west, amended plans were submitted in January, April, August and September 2015. Meetings were conducted by the Town separately with the applicant and neighbours after submission of each set of amended plans. It is the latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • Existing dwelling is single storey with a short driveway sloping up steeply 0.5 metres from

the street. The car parking area is uncovered and sits in front of a small, pitched roof storage room that abuts the balcony of the dwelling on the adjoining western lot. Behind the storage room is a patio with a pitched roof that abuts the two storey wall of the adjoining western dwelling.

• A boundary survey revealed that the eaves, air conditioning unit and bedroom windows (when opened) of the adjoining two storey dwelling to the west encroach over the subject



site boundary whilst the eaves of the subject site's storage area encroach onto the balcony of the western dwelling.

• The storage area will be removed. The pitched roof of the patio will be replaced with a cantilevered skillion roof and include a parapet wall with a nil boundary setback. The parapet wall will continue past the balcony of the adjoining dwelling and slightly overlap the carport. A new cantilevered skillion carport roof will be added over the existing driveway. Both new roofs will have the same pitch as the main roof of the existing dwelling and slightly overlap the main roof.

• It will be the applicant/owner's responsibility to ensure all lot boundaries are correct and that the sections of parapet wall visible to the adjoining property have a surface finish to the satisfaction of the Town. Conditions have been included in these regards.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the lot boundary and carport setback. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the western boundary of the subject site, being No. 11 Barrington Street. Submissions were received from the owners of No. 11 objecting to the nil boundary setback of the patio and the size of the carport roof on the grounds that it will block views, reduce amenity of the bedroom and be incompatible with the streetscape. In response, the applicant reduced the width and limited the height of the carport. All amended plans have been shared with the adjoining neighbours. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre from western boundary

Nil setback from western boundary

Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and

adjoining properties; and • minimise the extent of overlooking and resultant loss of privacy on adjoining properties. Buildings built up to boundaries (other than the street boundary) where this: • makes more effective use of space for enhanced privacy for the occupant/s or outdoor living

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

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


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The Town's Policy 3.2: Buildings on the Boundary allows walls to be built up to the boundary where the wall abuts an existing wall of similar or greater dimension. The proposed single storey patio includes a parapet wall with a nil boundary setback that will, for the most part, abut an existing two storey dwelling. However, a section of the parapet wall will extend approximately 0.3 metres above the finished floor level of the second storey balcony and a small part of the carport of the adjoining dwelling. The parapet wall is necessary to satisfy the fire code requirements of the BCA for the proposed patio. As the balcony on the adjoining lot is on the second storey and the proposed parapet wall is only single storey, it will present minimal bulk and have minimal impact on the amenity of the adjoining dwelling. A large gap between the proposed carport and patio roofs will further reduce any perceived bulk when viewed from the neighbour's upper balcony and allow adequate ventilation to the patio of the subject site. The patio will present no loss of direct sun to adjoining lots or any overlooking issues. The cantilevered skillion roof of the patio replaces an existing pitched roof. The new patio roof will slightly overlap the main roof of the existing dwelling on the subject site. However, the height of the proposed roof at the point it abuts the adjoining dwelling on the boundary will remain the same. Accordingly, it will present minimal impact to building bulk or ventilation to adjoining residences. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the western boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the patio is small in scale and will abut an existing two storey dwelling with minimal

impact on the amenity of the adjoining property. Setback of garages and carports Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Front setback

Min 1.0 metre from carport posts and roof to street boundary.

11.0 metre from carport posts and 0.3 metres from roof to street boundary

Design principle: The setting back of carports and garages to maintain clear sight lines along the street and not to detract from the streetscape or appearance of dwellings; or obstruct views of dwellings from the street and vice versa.

The carport consists of a cantilevered skillion roof supported only by two steel columns on the western boundary. Like the patio, the carport roof will also slightly overlap the main roof of the existing subject site dwelling. In consultation with the adjoining neighbours, the maximum height of the carport roof has been limited to a height equal to the third roof tile of the existing subject site dwelling as indicated on the 'North (Street) Elevation' plans. This will ensure the carport presents minimal bulk to the adjoining property, does not dominate over the dwelling, will remain in keeping with the streetscape of the immediate locality and will not obstruct views into or out of the dwelling. The proposed carport will abut the existing carport of the western adjoining lot. Though the support columns will abut the boundary, the roof will be separated 0.5 metres from the adjoining boundary to satisfy the fire code requirements of the BCA. It should be noted that the carport on the adjoining western lot pre-dates the current BCA and streetscape requirements,


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 being semi-enclosed and not setback adequately from the lot boundary. Thus, it presents more bulk to the street than the proposed skillion carport roof. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the carport from the street front boundary satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reason:- • the carport will maintain clear views into and out of the dwelling and have a bulk and

scale consistent with the immediate locality.

POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

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

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:

There are no financial implications related to this report.

STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

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

COMMUNITY CONSULTATION:

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

1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment

ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport and patio submitted by Rylan Mayer Fabrici at Lot 31 (No. 9) Barrington Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 10 September 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the west to be

rendered, painted or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town; (ii) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; (iii) the applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the approved

plans are correct.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Committee Meeting 6 October 2015 During discussion, Members expressed concern with regard to the dominance of the carport roof on the streetscape and the impact of the patio roof on the adjoining neighbour. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/4. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for a carport and patio submitted by Rylan Mayer Fabrici at Lot 31 (No. 9) Barrington Street, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 10 September 2015, for the following reasons:- (i) the height and design of the carport roof has a negative impact on the streetscape; (ii) the nil setback and height of the patio roof has a negative impact on the amenity of the

adjoining property. During discussion, Cr MacRae suggested that the item be deferred to enable the applicant to consider redesigning the carport and patio. COUNCIL DECISION: That the item relating to Lot 31 (No.9) Barrington Street be deferred. FURTHER REPORT (Post Council Meeting 13 October 2015) To address the concerns raised by the Committee, the applicant has submitted amended plans showing:- - the carport roof modified from a Colorbond roof with a skillion pitch to a tiled roof with a

gabled pitch matching the dwelling; - the setback of the carport posts from the western side boundary increased from nil to 0.5

metres; - the overall height of the carport reduced from 3.46 metres to 3.12 metres above the

finished floor level of the dwelling; and - no modifications to the patio are now proposed. Any modifications to the patio will be

subject to a separate application. The amended plans were advertised to the owners of the adjoining property to the west who have submitted comments that are attached to the agenda and summarised below:- - the design creates an unnecessarily dominating structure which does not connect visually

with the streetscape's aesthetic or character; - the carport presents as being quite out of proportion: it is too high for its width; and - the carport will have an unnecessary and unacceptably negative impact on our use of our

master bedroom verandah.

The owners of the adjoining property to the west have also submitted a modified plan showing a lower height for the proposed carport so the posts are a similar height to the posts of their carport.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The existing driveway slopes up from the street. No modifications are proposed to this driveway. The carport is therefore higher facing the street where the ground is lower, to ensure a minimum height at the rear of the carport where the ground is higher. The design incorporates a decorative frieze rail and the height from ground level to this rail at the rear of the carport is only 2.05 metres and at the front of the carport is 2.35 metres. Whilst it is noted that the carport will reduce vision of the street from the neighbour's master bedroom balcony, the carport is a relatively small, open structure which is set back from the west side boundary. In contrast, the neighbour's carport directly in front of the master bedroom balcony is a double carport with a nil setback from the side boundary. The plans for this carport approved in May 2004 show a single carport. If this carport was constructed in accordance with the approved plans, there would be more vision of the street from the master bedroom balcony. The carport required a Council determination for variations to front and side setback requirements (DES04.54). Overall, it is considered the proposed carport complements the existing dwelling and the streetscape and is therefore recommended for approval. Any modifications to the patio will be subject to a separate application. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a carport submitted by Rylan Fabrici at Lot 31 (No. 9) Barrington Street, West Leederville as shown on the amended plans dated 7 January 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the carport to remain open on all sides. No solid door is to be installed; (ii) the applicant is responsible for ensuring that all lot boundaries as shown on the

approved plans are correct;

(iii) this approval does not include approval for any modifications to the patio. Carried 5/0



DV16.2 LOT 3 (NO. 60) KALINDA DRIVE, CITY BEACH - ADDITIONAL CAR PARKING BAYS FOR OCEAN GARDENS RETIREMENT VILLAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for an additional car parking area at the Ocean Gardens Retirement Village (No. 60 Kalinda Drive, City Beach). The application involves the demolition of two existing units, located to the south of the retirement village, and the construction of a small 14-bay car parking area for the use of both staff and visitors. This proposal is considered to be consistent with the use and function of the retirement village, and the additional car parking bays will be of convenience to both visitors and staff of Ocean Gardens. The application is therefore supported subject to conditions of approval which include the provision of appropriate landscaping of the car parking area, retention of existing vegetation and a construction management plan, to the satisfaction of the Town.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0423DA-2015 Owner: Ocean Gardens Inc Applicant: Ocean Gardens Inc Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: 'Retirement Village' - AA (Existing Use) Land area: 60000 m2 This application was originally submitted in October 2015. An initial assessment of the plans by Planning and Infrastructure Services required the submission of additional information and justification, which was provided in December 2015. As a separate matter, the Council approved an application for a 4 storey multiple dwelling development on this site in April 2014 (0325DA-2015), now known as the 'Palm Gardens' apartments. A building permit was issued by the Town for this development in November 2015. It is noted that this car park proposal does not relate specifically to that multi-unit building, given that adequate car parking provision is accounted for within the scope of that development. The Town has considered and approved a construction management plan for the Palm Gardens development. For the information of Elected Members, it is noted the Town is currently assessing a scheme amendment (Amendment No. 34) for the Ocean Gardens village area. This proposes to change the zoning of the whole site from Residential R30 to a 'Special Use Zone', as well as incorporate Lot 560 Balandi Way into this new zone (which is currently part of a Special Control Area - Ocean Mia). The 'Special Use Zone' will have special development provisions that specifically relate to the retirement village. The proposed scheme amendment does not impact the consideration of this car park proposal. DETAILS:

Development description • The proposed car parking area is located along the southern boundary of the retirement

village, which abuts a property owned by the Water Corporation. Two single storey units are currently located on the site of the proposed car park. Advice from the applicant



indicates that the units proposed to be demolished have been vacant for some time, with the last resident moving out around 4 years ago.

• The car parking area comprises of 14 car bays, which are to be accessed off an existing internal road way (The Grove). Car park and driveway levels are to match existing natural ground levels.

• Existing significant vegetation and trees are to be retained and protected, as shown on the provided site plan.

• It is envisaged that the car park will be in-use for up to 10 years, before the site is eventually considered for further redevelopment in accordance with a Master Plan (or an equivalent approved structure plan).

• A demolition permit has already been issued for the removal of the two existing units, however as of writing the subject buildings remain undemolished.

• Infrastructure Services have reviewed the application, and subject to compliance with the applicable Australian Standards, are satisfied with the proposal.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided a submission which outlines the rationale behind the new car parking area, this is attached to the agenda for the perusal of elected members. Neighbour submission Given the relatively minor nature of the application, and its location within a private retirement village, the Town was not required to conduct consultation in accordance with provisions of the Town Planning Scheme No. 1. However, the applicant has advised that Ocean Gardens have conducted their own internal consultation on car parking matters, which has included informing the Resident Committee at a meeting with the Board. Comment Adequate and convenient provision of car parking is considered essential for retirement villages. The Town is aware of matters that have been raised in recent times regarding provision of car parking for residents, staff and visitors within the Ocean Gardens Retirement Village. As such, this proposal is seen as a positive development that will provide for further convenient parking opportunities within the estate, particularly for visitors and staff, in close proximity to the village's main facilities and central administration. Ocean Gardens envisage that the car park will be in use for up to 10 years, pending further development of a Master Plan and potentially a structure plan which will guide the future development of the village in the medium to long term. The Town recognises the importance of the amenity of residents and visitors to the retirement village during and post-construction of the car park. Therefore, it is recommended that the proponent submit a construction management plan to the Town for consideration which will detail matters of importance including noise, construction timeframes, parking management and community information. Further, conditions regarding retention of significant mature vegetation and way-finding signage to denote the location of the car park for staff and visitors are also included to ensure that the function and amenity of the car park is at an appropriate standard.


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


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:






1. Summary of applicant's submission.

COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a car parking area submitted by Ocean Gardens Inc at Lot 3 (No. 60) Kalinda Drive, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 26 October and 23 December 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) prior to the submission of an application for a Building Permit, or the

commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable:-

(a) public safety and amenity; (b) site plan and security; (c) contact details of essential site personnel, construction period and operating

hours; (d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated

matters; (j) stormwater and sediment control; (k) street tree management and protection; (l) asbestos removal management Plan; and/or (m) any other matter deemed relevant by the Town;

(ii) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied with at all times during development;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (iii) existing mature trees surrounding the car parking area, as indicated on the

approved site plan, are to be protected during construction and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) a landscaping and reticulation plan, showing the location and type of vegetation surrounding the car park, to the satisfaction of the Town, to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit;

(v) way-finding signage is to be provided along The Grove and at the entrance to the car park, to the satisfaction of the Town, indicating the location of the car parking area and clearly denoting its use for staff and visitors of Ocean Gardens; and

(vi) the 14 car parking bays and entrance driveway area is to be sealed, kerbed, line marked and drained to the Town's specifications, prior to the operation of the car park.

Carried 5/0



DV16.3 LOT 782 (NO. 253) CAMBRIDGE ST, WEMBLEY - EIGHT MULTIPLE DWELLINGS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey residential development comprising eight multiple dwellings at No. 253 Cambridge Street, Wembley. The plans show four dwellings facing the street and car parking, stores and the remainder of the dwellings behind. All vehicular access will be from Halifax Lane at the rear. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building size and boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the development is two storey and is of a bulk and scale that is consistent with the

desired built form of the locality; • the development is stepped, following the slope of the land, so the height impact of the

boundary walls is reduced; • the boundary walls are single storey and adjacent to the driveway and side wall of the

neighbouring grouped dwelling development; • the proposed setbacks from the boundary allow for adequate daylight and ventilation for

the building and neighbouring properties; • overlooking from the Unit 5 front balcony is towards the street and the front area of the

neighbouring property that is visible from the street.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0483DA-2015 Owner: Elite Property Group (Wa) Pty Ltd Applicant: J C Developments (WA) Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R40/60 Use class: Dwelling (multiple) ‘AA’ – use not permitted unless Council has granted planning approval Land area: 921m2 This application was originally submitted on 4 December 2015. These plans were advertised to the owners of the adjoining properties. To address some of the concerns raised by the Town's Administration, the applicant revised the plans. Modifications were mainly to the street elevation, landscaping, height, and visual privacy variations. The latest plans, received on 5 February 2016, are the subject of the following report. The land is dual coded R40/60. The R Code applied to this property is Residential R40. The Wembley Precinct Planning Policy specifies that within the R40/60 area, development to the R60 standards will only be permitted if the development involves the amalgamation of two or more lots (resulting in a minimum lot area of 1200m2) or, the lot is already 1200m2.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 DETAILS:

Development description • There is an original brick and tile bungalow on the site. The site slopes up from front to

rear approximately 3.0 metres.

• The proposed development is to the east side of the lot, with ground floor boundary walls along the east side boundary and the driveway from Hallifax Lane along the west side boundary.

• Four dwellings front Cambridge Street, two on the ground floor and two above. In the front setback area, the ground floor dwellings have landscaped courtyards with open style fencing and the upper floor dwellings have open style balconies.

• An open vergola with posts is shown over the front balconies. The balconies satisfy the open style requirements for a minor incursion in the (upper floor) front setback area apart from a privacy screen on the western side which has been proposed to restrict overlooking into the front courtyard of Unit 1/255 Cambridge Street. This courtyard is private and screened from Cambridge Street by a high solid wall. Furthermore, a dividing wall is required between the two balconies to provide fire rating.

• The remaining four (one ground floor and three upper floor) dwellings, stores, bin store, clothes drying and car and bicycle bays are behind the front four dwellings.

• 11 car bays are provided, 9 resident bays and 2 visitor bays. The minimum R-Code requirement is 10 (8 resident bays and 2 visitor bays). Three bicycle spaces are required; a bike store is proposed adjacent to the clothes drying area.

• The eight dwellings comprise six two bedroom, two bathroom units and two single bedroom units.

• Landscaping is proposed for the majority of the front setback area (and includes mature trees), along the western side boundary adjacent to the driveway, and adjacent to the rear boundary.

• It is noted that there are two upper floor dwellings (Units 6 and 7) that are located over the carpark and stores rather than plot ratio area of another dwelling. These dwellings have been assessed as multiple dwellings, in accordance with a recent State Administrative Tribunal decision ([2014] WASAT 172) which determined that a unit visually suspended above an open parking area was a multiple dwelling.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to building size, lot boundary setbacks and building height (now compliant). A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission There are grouped dwelling developments on both sides of the subject site and Hallifax Lane at the rear. The Town notified the owners of dwellings at No. 251 (east) and No. 255 (west) Cambridge Street. Three comments were received, two from the east side and one from the west side.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 From the east side, one submission is requesting a continuous brick wall along the east boundary (which is conditioned) and the second submission is an overall objection to the development. From the west side an objection to the high wall along the west boundary was received. The west side has the driveway and no boundary walls, however, a new 1.8 metre high brick wall is proposed along the boundary. An advice note regarding the Dividing Fences Act is included to address this submission. Assessment against the design principles Building size Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Plot ratio

Max 0.6 (552.6m2) 0.641 (590.123m2, excess of 37.523m2)

Design principles: Development of the building is at a bulk and scale indicated in the local planning framework and is consistent with the existing or future desired built form of the locality.

The bulk and scale of the development is not out of character with other unit developments in the vicinity, including the adjoining property to the east. The development is two storey and meets open space, height and front setback deemed-to-comply requirements. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed size of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the development is two storey and is of a bulk and scale that is consistent with the

desired built form of the locality. Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Ground floor side setback Left/east Min 1.5 metres for Unit 2 to Store 2 wall Nil Min 1.5 metres for Store 6 to Unit 3 wall Nil

Right/west Min 1.0 metres for gatehouse

Nil

Upper floor side setback Left/east Min 2.8 metres for Unit 5 front balcony

(major opening as it is unscreened)

1.6 metres

Min 2.5-2.8 metres for screened Unit 5 balcony to part bed 1 wall

1.6 metres

Min 2.3 metres for Unit 5 bed 2 wall

2.0 metres

Min 2.3 metres for screened Unit 8 balcony

1.6 metres


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • ensure adequate daylight, direct sun and ventilation for buildings and the open space

associated with them; • moderate the visual impact of building bulk on a neighbouring property; • ensure access to daylight and direct sun for adjoining properties; and • assist with the protection of privacy between adjoining properties.

Left/east The plans show boundary walls along the eastern side boundary for the ground floor of the development. The boundary walls provide privacy between properties. The walls are on the west side of the adjoining property, partly adjacent to a driveway, and therefore do not have a significant impact on access to direct sun and ventilation to the adjoining property to the east. One objection requested a brick wall where there is no boundary wall, so the finish of the wall along the boundary matches the boundary walls i.e. rendered or brickwork (the plans show Florentine brickwork). A condition is included in this regard. Furthermore, the development is cut in on the east side which reduces the height of the boundary wall as viewed from the adjoining property. The proposed boundary walls range in height from 2.0 to 2.9 metres above natural ground level. The highest boundary wall is at the front of the site, adjacent to the neighbouring driveway. The original plans submitted had this front boundary wall with a height of 38c (3.3 metres above FFL) facing the street, however, the latest plans have this wall at 45c (3.9 metres above FFL) to match the height of the top of the balustrade. The additional height is considered to provide additional bulk on the neighbours and the streetscape and a condition is included to lower this wall back to 38c. Overall, subject to the boundary wall and dividing wall being finished to a high standard, the bulk of the boundary walls could be considered acceptable, particularly due to the development mainly having a low pitch beyond the boundary walls. With regard to the upper floor, due to the long lengths of walls, there are some variations to the deemed to comply requirements. As previously stated, the walls do not obstruct direct sun from the north as the affected adjoining property is to the east. There are no privacy issues apart from the front balcony which faces the street and overlooks the adjoining property's driveway and areas visible from the street. The walls facing the east side boundary have varied setbacks and comply with building height, therefore reducing bulk impact on the adjoining property. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the east side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the development is stepped, following the slope of the land, so the height impact of the

boundary walls is reduced; • the boundary walls are single storey and adjacent to the side wall of the grouped

dwellings and a driveway; • the proposed setbacks from the boundary allow for adequate daylight and ventilation for

the building and neighbouring properties; • overlooking from the Unit 5 front balcony is towards the street and the front area of the

neighbouring property that is visible from the street. Right/west


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 A small gatehouse is proposed in front of the pedestrian gate adjacent to the west boundary. This gatehouse was not on the original plans submitted or advertised to neighbours. The gatehouse is a small structure, with a length of 2.0 metres along the western boundary and a flat roof with an overall height of 2.7 metres. In considering the design principles, the gatehouse will have no significant impact on access to sun and ventilation and any overshadowing will be over the neighbour's driveway. The only issue is whether the structure moderates the visual impact of building bulk on the neighbouring property. The neighbouring dwelling currently has an outlook to the street that will be interrupted by the proposed development, in particular the proposed dividing wall behind the street setback line. The gatehouse will add to this bulk as it is higher than the proposed dividing wall. It is considered that this gatehouse be removed from the plans as no neighbour consultation has been undertaken on the gatehouse. A separate application can be submitted at a later date. A condition is included in this regard.











Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for eight multiple dwellings submitted by J C Developments (WA) Pty Ltd at 78 (No. 253) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 5 February 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in red as

shown on the approved plan. Specifically:-



(a) the top of wall height for the ground floor boundary wall for Unit 2 facing

Cambridge Street to be lowered from 45c to 38c; and (b) deletion of the gatehouse adjacent to the western side boundary;

(ii) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) the dividing fence along the eastern side boundary, behind the front setback line, to be

masonry and to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to match the boundary walls prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) the portion of the Unit 4 and Unit 5 balconies within the front setback area to be open

style, without a roof, and with the balustrade facing the street and along the eastern side to be clear glass and no higher than 1.2 metres;

(v) the infill panels of the fencing and gates in the front setback area to have a surface with

an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1; (vi) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan, to be installed and reticulated

prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vii) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (viii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside No. 253 Cambridge Street to be removed and

the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwellings;

(ix) the visual privacy screen for the Unit 8 balcony to be designed to restrict views to the

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

(x) the visual privacy screens for the Unit 4, 6, 7 and 8 balconies and the foyer for Units 7

and 8 to be designed to restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the west in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of part 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings;

(xi) the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas to be designed and provided in

accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended). A traffic engineer to provide advice stating that design of the car park and the car park once completed, is in accordance with AS2890.1;

(xii) all vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved plan to

be sealed, kerbed and drained to Town's specifications, and the parking bays being line marked and maintained in good repair, prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xiii) the two designated visitor car parking bays to be clearly delineated (marked/signed),

available for use for the life of the development and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (xiv) a minimum of three resident bicycle parking spaces to be sign posted, designed and

provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xv) the preparation of a Waste Management Plan detailing the number and size of general

waste and recycling bins, storage method and collection details. The plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit, and to satisfy the requirements of the Town's Infrastructure Services;

(xvi) the implementation of, and adherence to, the approved Waste Management Plan; (xvii) prior to the submission of an application for a Building Permit or a Demolition Permit, or

the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable:-


hours; (d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated matters; (j) stormwater and sediment control; (k) street tree management and protection; (l) asbestos removal management Plan; and/or (m) any other matter deemed relevant by the Town;

(xviii) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied with at

all times during development. Footnote: The applicant be advised that:- 1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property boundaries,

the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences.

2. All air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located in a

position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.

3. A protective fence to be installed around the street tree within the affected building

development area. This protective fencing is to be maintained in good order at all times.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members queried whether the front balconies would remain clear glazed and not obscured in the future. Members agreed that a small tree should be planted in each courtyard.

Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That clauses (iv) and (vi) be amended to read as follows:- (iv) the portion of the Unit 4 and Unit 5 balconies within the front setback area to be open

style, without a roof, and with the balustrade facing the street and along the eastern side to remain clear glass and no higher than 1.2 metres;

(vi) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan to include a small tree in each

courtyard fronting Cambridge Street and to be installed and reticulated prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town.

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for eight multiple dwellings submitted by J C Developments (WA) Pty Ltd at 78 (No. 253) Cambridge Street, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 5 February 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the proposed development to comply with all details and amendments marked in

red as shown on the approved plan. Specifically:-

(a) the top of wall height for the ground floor boundary wall for Unit 2 facing Cambridge Street to be lowered from 45c to 38c; and

(b) deletion of the gatehouse adjacent to the western side boundary;

(ii) the surface finish of the boundary walls facing the adjoining property to the east to

be rendered, painted or face brickwork prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iii) the dividing fence along the eastern side boundary, behind the front setback line,

to be masonry and to be rendered, painted or face brickwork to match the boundary walls prior to the occupation of the dwellings and to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) the portion of the Unit 4 and Unit 5 balconies within the front setback area to be

open style, without a roof, and with the balustrade facing the street and along the eastern side to remain clear glass and no higher than 1.2 metres;

(v) the infill panels of the fencing and gates in the front setback area to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (vi) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plan to include a small tree in

each courtyard fronting Cambridge Street and to be installed and reticulated prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;

(vii) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (viii) the redundant vehicle crossover outside No. 253 Cambridge Street to be removed

and the kerbing, verge and footpath to be reinstated to the specifications and satisfaction of the Town prior to the occupation of the dwellings;

(ix) the visual privacy screen for the Unit 8 balcony to be designed to restrict views to

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

(x) the visual privacy screens for the Unit 4, 6, 7 and 8 balconies and the foyer for

Units 7 and 8 to be designed to restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the west in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of part 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwellings;

(xi) the car parking spaces and manoeuvring areas to be designed and provided in

accordance with AS2890.1 (as amended). A traffic engineer to provide advice stating that design of the car park and the car park once completed, is in accordance with AS2890.1;

(xii) all vehicle parking, manoeuvring and circulation areas indicated on the approved

plan to be sealed, kerbed and drained to Town's specifications, and the parking bays being line marked and maintained in good repair, prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xiii) the two designated visitor car parking bays to be clearly delineated

(marked/signed), available for use for the life of the development and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xiv) a minimum of three resident bicycle parking spaces to be sign posted, designed

and provided in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards and indicated on the strata plan as common property prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit;

(xv) the preparation of a Waste Management Plan detailing the number and size of

general waste and recycling bins, storage method and collection details. The plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit, and to satisfy the requirements of the Town's Infrastructure Services;

(xvi) the implementation of, and adherence to, the approved Waste Management Plan;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (xvii) prior to the submission of an application for a Building Permit or a Demolition

Permit, or the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable:-


hours; (d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan; (e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated


(xviii) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied

with at all times during development. Footnote: The applicant be advised that:- 1. In relation to the fencing proposed to be constructed along the side property

boundaries, the applicant is advised to liaise with the owners of the adjoining properties in accordance with the Dividing Fences.

2. All air-conditioning units are to be screened from the street, and are to be located

in a position to minimise the impact on adjoining properties. Applicants are reminded that air conditioners generate noise that may be unacceptable to neighbours.

3. A protective fence to be installed around the street tree within the affected building

development area. This protective fencing is to be maintained in good order at all times.

Carried 5/0



DV16.4 LOT 500 (NO. 31) CONNAUGHT STREET, WEST LEEDERVILLE - 10 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS - AMENDED PLANS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an amended plans application for the 10 multiple dwelling development approved by Council on 24 February 2015. The amended plans show an increase in the finished floor and ground levels of the development, inclusion of feature walls, modification to some pitched roofs and minor setback reductions. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building height design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period. The clearing of the site has revealed that the existing approved levels are significantly lower in the south-western corner as compared to adjoining properties and that substantial excavation is required. However in their current form the amended plans are not supported. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the additional building height will create an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining

properties as overshadowing and building bulk impact is increased; and • the level of fill in the north-eastern corner is significant and is likely to have a detrimental

impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the east.

Accordingly, the amended plans are recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0519DA-2014.01 Owner: Riviera Homes WA Applicant: Harden Jones Architects Zoning: Residential R40 Use class: Dwelling (multiple) ‘AA’ – discretionary use that requires planning approval Land area: 1217 m² The original application for ten multiple dwellings was submitted on 1 December 2014. To address concerns raised by the Town’s Administration and the owners of neighbouring properties, amended plans were submitted on 2 February 2015. The application was considered at the 17 February 2015 Development Committee meeting where Members expressed concerns regarding the overshadowing of the neighbouring Units 2 and 3 at No. 29 Connaught Street to the south, landscaping, parking, access and waste management, and its impact on the amenity of surrounding residences. In response, the applicant submitted amended plans on 24 February 2015, the day of the Council meeting. The amended plans received on 24 February 2015 showed finished floor level, and subsequent building height, modifications (a 0.3 metre reduction for Unit 2 and a 0.214 metre increase for Unit 3) and a compliant plot ratio.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 At the Council meeting held on 24 February 2015, the amended plans were considered and approved, subject to conditions. The existing dwelling has been demolished and a building permit has been submitted but is on hold as changes from the planning approval are proposed. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site is located at the northern end of Connaught Street, near the corner

shared with Barrington Street. This location is unique as the northern end of Connaught Street functions like a driveway extension to the site.

• The site is rectangular in shape and has been cleared of the previous dwelling and garden. There is a downwards slope from west to east, and also south to north.

• There is an existing four grouped dwelling (townhouse) development to the south at No. 29 Connaught Street and a vacant site to the north at No. 122 Kimberley Street where a 19 multiple dwelling development has been approved. The west boundary abuts the rear of Nos. 120A and 120B Kimberley Street and the east boundary abuts No. 10 Barrington Street.

• The layout of the development has not changed from the approved plans. The plans show three dwellings and car parking on the ground floor, and seven dwellings on the upper floor. The plot ratio is unchanged (0.6:1).

• The amended plans show the following changes to the approved plans:-

o an increase in all finished floor levels and finished ground levels, and a subsequent increase in building height, of 450mm;

o alterations to the facades with the inclusion of feature walls, and a subsequent

increase in some wall heights, of 300mm; o modification of the Unit 4 to 8 pitched roofs resulting in a flat roof facing the south

boundary and the pitched roof set back from this boundary; o an increase in overshadowing onto the adjoining properties to the south; o a reduction of 100mm in the setback of some ground floor walls from the northern

boundary; and o a reduction of 93mm in the setback of the upper floor Unit 4 bedroom 1 from the

northern boundary.

• The approved plans showed variations to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply requirements for the ground and upper floors from the northern boundary. Due to the increase in height and the reductions in setback (see above), the variations have subsequently increased, however the owners of the adjoining property to the north have not raised an objection to the amended plans and therefore the setback of the development from the north boundary is not further discussed.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided a written response to the comments received from neighbours. A summary of the applicant’s response is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The owners of the nine properties adjoining the subject site were notified of the amended plans and invited to comment. Six objections were received from the owners of Units 1 to 4/29 Connaught Street to the south and Nos. 120A and 120B Kimberley Street to the west which are summarised in an attachment to this agenda. Concerns were raised that the increase in levels and subsequent increase in building height will detrimentally impact on the amenity of adjoining properties as bulk and overshadowing impact will increase. Assessment against the design principles Building height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Wall height

Max 6.0 metres Northern elevation (Unit 10 to 4): 7.5 metres – 6.2 metres Western elevation (Unit 4): 6.2 metres - 5.3 metres Southern elevation (Unit 4 to 10): 5.3 metres - 6.2 metres Eastern elevation (Unit 10): 6.2 metres - 7.5 metres

Roof height

Max 9.5 metres - 10.5 metres (ridges range from <4m to <2m to 0m)

6.2 metres to 9.1 metres (Note: overall height complies)

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; • access to views of significance; • buildings present a human scale for pedestrians; • building facades designed to reduce the perception of height through design measures; and • podium style development is provided where appropriate.

Two proposed modifications will increase wall height:- − an increase in finished floor levels by 0.45 metres (as height is measured from natural

ground level); and − the addition of feature walls on the north and west elevations which increase the wall

height by 0.3 metres. With regard to the design principles, the main issue is whether the proposed building height creates an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties. When the proposed


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 development was first considered by Council in February 2015, Elected Members expressed concerns regarding the overshadowing of the neighbouring Units 2 and 3 at No. 29 Connaught Street to the south and as a result, the applicant reduced the finished floor level of Unit 2 by 0.3 metres. Owners of adjoining properties to the south and west have expressed concern that the proposed increase in building height shown on the amended plans will adversely affect the amenity of their properties. The development will be more visible from their properties and overshadowing will increase. Whilst overshadowing complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements, the increase in overshadowing has an adverse affect on neighbour amenity which is a consideration when assessing against the building height design principles. Furthermore, the feature walls could be seen to increase rather than reduce the perception of height. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the additional building height will create an adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining

properties as overshadowing and building bulk impact is increased. Site works Deemed-to-comply

provision Proposed

Filling within 1.0 metre of a lot boundary

Max 0.5 metres East: 0.08 metre cut to 1.49 metres fill in north-east corner North: Ground level to 1.49 metres fill West: Ground level to 1.62 metres cut South: Ground level to 1.62 metres cut

Design principles: Development that considers and responds to the natural features of the site and requires minimal excavation/fill. Where excavation/fill is necessary, all finished levels respecting the natural ground level at the lot boundary of the site and as viewed from the street. An increase in finished ground level across the whole site of 0.45 metres from the approved plans is proposed. Due to the downwards slope of the site from west to east and north to south, the most significantly impacted portion of the site will be the north-eastern corner where fill is proposed to be 1.49 metres high. The lowest level of the site, being the south-western corner, is proposed to be cut in 1.62 metres. As the site is now cleared, it is evident that the level of cut shown on the approved plans, particularly around the south-western corner, is significant. The site has a cross fall of 3 metres from west to east. The adjoining properties to the south and west are already at higher levels than the subject site so there may be concerns that neighbouring retaining walls will be undermined by the proposed development. The development is stepped, with three different benching levels. Whilst there is some merit in increasing the levels of the development closest to the south-western corner and the driveway adjacent to the southern boundary, the fill along the northern and eastern boundaries, particularly in the vicinity of the north-eastern corner of up to approximately 1.5 metres, is considered excessive.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Should the applicant wish to reduce the amount of cut given the site's lower position to adjoining properties, further amendments will be required to ensure that the level of fill for Unit 3 (north-eastern corner) remains generally unchanged from the approved plans and overshadowing is reduced. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed site works for the development does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the level of fill in the north-eastern corner is significant and is likely to have a detrimental

impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the east.









1. Summary of applicant and neighbour comment Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members noted that the applicant has submitted revised plans prior to the meeting and considered whether assessment comment should be provided by the Administration prior to the next meeting of Council. Members agreed to proceed with the Administration recommendation and plans presented at tonight's meeting.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the amended plans application for 10 multiple dwellings submitted by Harden Jones Architects at Lot 500 (No. 31) Connaught Street, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 21 December 2015, for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Building Height Policy and the design principles of part 6.1.2 Building height of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions and the design

principles of part 6.3.6 Site works of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(iii) the additional building height creates an adverse impact on the amenity of

adjoining properties by increasing building bulk and overshadowing impact; (iv) the increase in finished ground levels will result in a significant level of fill in the

north-eastern corner of the site that will have a negative impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the east.

Carried 5/0



DV16.5 LOT 157 (NO. 192) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED OFFICES AND CONSULTING ROOMS (GROUP) - ST JOHN OF GOD RAPHAEL SERVICES

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for offices and consulting rooms (group), being the new premises for St John of God Health Care’s Raphael Services, at No. 192 Cambridge Street, Wembley. Raphael Services provides counselling and support for families in the perinatal and infant periods. The plans show minor internal modifications to the building to accommodate the proposed use. The application requires a Council determination as a parking concession is required under the Town’s Parking Policy. The proposal is considered to satisfy the criteria to allow a parking concession given its location and availability and attractiveness of alternate modes of transport, and the specific operation of the consulting rooms (i.e. no overlap of appointments and only one administrative officer). Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval, subject to conditions restricting the use and intensity of the consulting rooms and requiring a parking management plan to be prepared and adhered to.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0027DA-2016 Owner: G Taylor and M Venables Applicant: St John of God Health Care Outreach Services Pty Ltd Zoning: Commercial Use class: Office - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval)

Consulting Rooms (group) - 'AA' (use not permitted unless Council grants approval)

Land area: 708 m² The owners of the property have provided the Town with a summary of the previous uses of the building:- • Prior to the owners purchasing the property in 2003, the owners understand that there

had been at least three tenancies and businesses operating from the site including De Puy, a paramedic entity that manufactured and sold artificial joints and accessories, a carpet shop and other businesses operating over the two floors. At that time, there were 12 parking bays on the plans and being used.

• After purchase, the owners annexed the top floor which was used as a design studio (i.e.

an office use). The ground floor was let to the Disability Services Commission. • At its meeting held on 22 March 2005, Council approved a therapy centre for the

Disability Services Commission subject to the following conditions:-

(i) client visitation hours of operation being limited to the hours between 9.00am – 12:00pm and 1.30pm – 3.30pm weekdays;



(ii) not more than one client per therapy room being on the premises at any one time and appointments per consulting room are to be separated by at least 15-30 minutes;

(iii) there being a maximum of three (3) therapy rooms; (iv) as outlined in the submission to Council, the therapy centre will have no staff

permanently located at the premises; (v) provision of nine (9) car bays clearly marked with a minimum of one disabled

car bay.

Footnote: The application is supported on the basis of the specific use proposed by the Disabilities Services Commission. Conditions of approval are tailored to reflect this use. Use of the therapy rooms as normal medical consulting rooms could not be supported due to insufficient on-site parking.

• The Disability Services Commission (DSC) vacated the building in 2013. The property

was then used as a temporary site office for the developer during construction of the adjacent building at No. 190 Cambridge Street.

• Since the completion of the building at No. 190 Cambridge Street, the property has been

vacant. DETAILS:

Development description • The proposal is to use the entire property at No. 192 Cambridge Street for St John of God

Health Care‘s Raphael Services. In particular, the site will be the administrative base for this not for profit service across the Perth metropolitan area and also offer limited counselling for the surrounding community.

• Raphael Services has operated since 2003 from St John of God Hospital Subiaco but is now required to find alternative premises. The majority of service delivery takes place at locations around Perth, including Midland, Fremantle and Mt Lawley (satellite services). Future plans involve video conferencing tele-health facilities to support rural WA.

• On site work will involve: Administration: management, triage and administration for the metropolitan wide service (currently

one full time staff member); administration officer to manage on-site counselling bookings; and team meetings in the group meeting room one half day/week with up to 10 staff

(occasionally max 15) based at the site and also from satellite services when no clients are scheduled to attend the service.

Counselling: four consulting rooms to provide service to local families;

by appointment only, scheduled on an hourly basis with 50 minute sessions and a 10 minute gap;



clients are typically met and managed by the counsellor; occasionally group counselling sessions with up to 8 persons will be run in the

group meeting room when there is no counselling scheduled in the consulting rooms.

• Hours of operation are 8:30 am to 5:00 pm, Monday to Friday. The majority of the staff are part-time.

• The site is bounded by a mixed use development (consulting rooms, hospital and multiple dwellings) to the east, a restaurant to the west, and Elverd Lane to the rear.

• Currently, there are 12 marked on-site car bays, six at the front and six at the rear. One of the front six bays is proposed to be converted to a walkway to the front entrance as it is difficult to access due to the location of the street tree. This will reduce the number of on-site bays to 11, including one bay for persons with a disability.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided a detailed submission which is attached to this agenda. Comment Land use The previous approved use of the ground floor as a therapy centre for the DSC and the upper floor office use are not dissimilar to what is proposed with this application. The site is zoned Commercial, but is in close proximity to the Medical zone. Offices and consulting rooms (group) are uses that are appropriate in this area, subject to adequate on-site parking to ensure that commercial vehicles do not encroach into residential streets. This is outlined in the Statement of Intent of the Wembley Precinct Policy (Policy 6.4) for the Commercial zone. The main issue in assessing this application is whether the parking provision is adequate for the proposed use. Parking Previous approval The parking assessment for the previous DSC therapy centre, outlined in the 22 March 2005 Council report was:- Required Provided Consulting rooms 4 bays per consulting room

3 consulting rooms proposed, therefore require 12 bays

Office (upper and ground floor)

1 bay/30m2 of NFA 160m2 of NFA therefore require 5 bays

TOTAL 17 bays 9 bays (shortfall of 8) The parking shortfall was supported on the following basis:- 1. The breakdown of the consulting room car parking requirement was seen as:-

− 1 bay/practitioner − 1 bay receptionist/support − 1 bay/client being consulted − 1 bay/client waiting for consultation



The DSC did not have a reception and there was a gap in appointments, and therefore the parking requirement was effectively reduced from four to two bays per consulting room.

2. Conditions were imposed on hours of operation, client appointments, number of

consulting rooms and no permanent staff. Proposed use The previous approval was specific to the DSC use and conditions such as ‘no permanent staff’ and hours of operation of 9:00 am - 12:00 pm and 1:30 pm - 3:30 pm weekdays is limiting to future occupants of the building. The parking assessment for the proposed use is:- Car parking Required Provided Consulting rooms 4 bays per consulting room

4 consulting rooms proposed, therefore require 16 bays

11 bays (shortfall of 8 bays)

Office 1 bay/30m2 of NFA 98m2 of NFA therefore require 3 bays

TOTAL 19 bays

Bicycle parking Required

Short-stay Long-stay Provided Consulting rooms 1 space/4 practitioners

Therefore require 1 space 1 space/8 practitioners Therefore require 1 space

5 spaces

Office 1 space/500m2 NFA, min 2 spaces Therefore require 2 spaces

1 space/200m2 NFA Therefore require 1 space

TOTAL 3 spaces 2 spaces End of trip facilities

required for 2 long-stay spaces are 2 lockers and no shower

2+ lockers and one shower and change room facility provided

A car parking concession is sought for the following reasons:- 1. There is a gap between appointments for the consulting rooms and only one

administration officer for the four consulting rooms. Using similar principles to those applied to the previous DSC use, the consulting rooms parking requirement could be reduced to two bays per consulting room (8 bays) and one for the administration officer (total of 9). This could be conditioned.

2. The site is well located, close to regular public transport – bus and rail.

3. Staff and clients will be actively encouraged to use alternative forms of travel:- • public transport (bus and rail); • free SJG shuttle bus service every 20 minutes from Subiaco train station to the

property; • cycling as the site is on a high frequency cycle route; and • bicycle parking and end of trip facilities provided to support keep fit forms of travel

to work.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 4. Staff also have access to parking at the Subiaco Oval. The applicant’s submission also details the parking management strategies Raphael Services will adopt, including:- • The administrative role at the site will have responsibility for managing parking to avoid

problems at or near to the site. • Car bays can only be used if pre-authorised by administration. • Only two roles in the Service have the right to car bay access; the Service Manager and

the Medical Director. • Priority for rear bay parking allocations will be given to clients not able to use alternative

forms of transport and to attendees not familiar with the site. This is to minimise parking and to reduce accident risk at the building.

• Every car bay will be administered online to ensure optimum management. • If bays are allocated to staff they will be encouraged to car pool. • No formal commitment to car bay provisions will be made to staff. • Users of allocated bays will be encouraged to enter the car park front ways and park

outward facing, particularly using the front car park onto the busy Cambridge Street. • Our commitment to Occupational Health and Safety ensures we will develop processes to

ensure site safety. • Guidance will be provided by administration when necessary to help visitors to park

and/or to leave the site safely. The table below summarises possible concessions that could be applied to the proposal: Requirement Provided 4 Consulting rooms 4 rooms x 4 bays = 16 bays 3 bays for office 98m2 NFA

Total = 19 bays

11 bays (SHORTFALL of 8 bays)

Reduction in bays for 1 receptionist for 4 consulting rooms (consistent with previous DSC approval) 3 x 4 = 12 bays + 1 receptionist bay = 13 bays 3 bays for office

Total = 16 bays

11 bays (SHORTFALL of 5 bays)

Reduction in total number of bays by 20% due to attractiveness of alternative modes of transport 16 bays x 0.8 = 12.8 bays (13 bays)

Total = 13 bays

11 bays SHORTFALL of 2 bays * Could pay cash-in-lieu for the 2 bays


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Reduction of 4 bays due to a gap in appointments (ie. no waiting clients per consulting room needing a bay, consistent with previous DSC approval) 13 – 4 = 9 bays

Total = 9 bays SURPLUS of 2 bays (Need to condition a gap of 15 minutes)

With one receptionist for the four consulting rooms, the parking requirement for consulting rooms could be reduced to 3 bays per consulting room and only one additional bay for the receptionist, ie. 13 (4x3+1) bays for the consulting rooms. Including the 3 parking bays required for the office, the site requires a total of 16 bays. Should the Council agree to a 20% reduction due to location and availability and attractiveness of alternative modes of transport, the parking requirement would reduce to 13 bays (ie. shortfall of two bays). Should the Council also agree to a further reduction in the consulting rooms requirement as per the previous DSC assessment, on the basis of a similar use and a gap in appointments, this would reduce the parking requirement from 13 to 9 bays (the site would have a two bay surplus). This could be conditioned. The DSC was conditioned a gap of at least 15 to 30 minutes, however a gap of 10 minutes is proposed. To be consistent with the previous parking concession, the condition requires a gap of at least 15 minutes. Should the Council not wish to condition the gap between appointments, an alternative is to provide the Town with cash-in-lieu of the two bay shortfall, equating to $30,000 (2 x $15,000) as the property is in the Commercial rather than Medical zone. It is acknowledged that demand for street parking in the area is high and therefore the main consideration in assessing this application is whether the use could result in an overflow of car parking into surrounding residential streets. The parking management proposed by SJG Raphael Services is considered sustainable and unlikely to result in parking congestion in surrounding residential streets. However, conditions of approval specific to the proposed use are required. Unconditionally approving four consulting rooms and almost 100m2 of office space with only 11 on-site bays would set an undesirable precedent for further development in the area seeking similar variations. The following conditions are proposed to restrict the use and intensity of the consulting rooms and ensure a parking management plan is prepared and adhered to:- • all client attendance to be appointment based and appointments to be separated by at

least 15 minutes;

• group counselling sessions to have a maximum of eight clients and to be held outside of consulting room appointments;

• team meetings to have a maximum of 15 attendees and to be held outside of group counselling sessions and consulting room appointments;

• a maximum of one administration officer for the consulting rooms;

• hours of operation limited to 8:30am to 5:00pm Mondays to Fridays;



• Raphael Services to communicate in writing to clients, prior to attending the premises, and staff, that there is limited parking on site and advise of the alternate transport (bus, train, shuttle bus, cycling) options available (i.e. on brochures, website);

• standard conditions for bicycle parking; and

• preparation and operation of, and adherence to, a Parking Management Plan.









1. Summary of applicant's submission


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for consulting rooms (group) and offices submitted by St John of God Health Care Outreach Services Pty Ltd at Lot 157 (No. 192) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a maximum of four consulting rooms to operate from the premises; (ii) all client attendance to be appointment based and appointments to be separated by at

least 15 minutes;

(iii) group counselling sessions to have a maximum of eight clients and to be held outside of consulting room appointments;

(iv) team meetings to have a maximum of 15 attendees and to be held outside of group

counselling sessions and consulting room appointments;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (v) a maximum of one administration officer and four practitioners on site at any one time for

the consulting rooms; (vi) hours of operation limited to 8:30am to 5:00pm Mondays to Fridays; (vii) Raphael Services to communicate in writing to clients, prior to attending the premises,

and staff, that there is limited parking on site and advise of the alternate transport (bus, train, shuttle bus, cycling) options available;

(viii) the preparation of a Parking Management Plan for staff and visitors of the building to the

satisfaction of the Town. The plan should outline how the parking for the proposed use will be managed and identify practical strategies to minimise parking demand and conflict between different users;

(ix) the operation of and adherence to the Parking Management Plan; (x) a minimum of two long-stay bicycle spaces to be provided in the bicycle parking (long-

stay) area; (xi) a minimum of two lockers to be provided as end of trip facilities for the two long-stay

bicycle parking spaces for the development. The lockers are to be of suitable volume and dimensions to allow storage of clothing, towels, cycling helmet and footwear, well ventilated, secure and lockable;

(xii) a minimum of three short-stay bicycle spaces to be provided in a suitable location in front

of the building; (xiii) a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a building

permit, showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping areas as shown on the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of the building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town;

(xiv) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (xv) the front and rear car parking areas being drained and sealed and marked with 11

parking bays, with one being designated and marked as a bay for persons with a disability in accordance with AS 2890.6 – 2009;

(xvi) the car parking areas, including the sealed surface and line marking, to be maintained at

all times to the satisfaction of the Town; (xvii) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from

requiring planning approval.

Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members agreed that the 5 parking bays at the front of the building are to be reserved for staff only and the applicant is to pay cash-in-lieu for the 2 bays shortfall. It was also suggested that the gap between appointments be separated by at least 30 minutes.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr Bradley That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (xviii) the five bays at the front of the building to be reserved for staff only and to be sign posted

accordingly; (xiv) the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution of $30,000 (shortfall of 2 car bays) to the

Town, to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. The payment shall be made in full prior to the commencement of the use and before an application is made for an occupancy permit.

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for consulting rooms (group) and offices submitted by St John of God Health Care Outreach Services Pty Ltd at Lot 157 (No. 192) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a maximum of four consulting rooms to operate from the premises; (ii) all client attendance to be appointment based and appointments to be separated by

at least 15 minutes;

(iii) group counselling sessions to have a maximum of eight clients and to be held outside of consulting room appointments;

(iv) team meetings to have a maximum of 15 attendees and to be held outside of group

counselling sessions and consulting room appointments;

(v) a maximum of one administration officer and four practitioners on site at any one time for the consulting rooms;

(vi) hours of operation limited to 8:30am to 5:00pm Mondays to Fridays; (vii) Raphael Services to communicate in writing to clients, prior to attending the

premises, and staff, that there is limited parking on site and advise of the alternate transport (bus, train, shuttle bus, cycling) options available;

(viii) the preparation of a Parking Management Plan for staff and visitors of the building

to the satisfaction of the Town. The plan should outline how the parking for the proposed use will be managed and identify practical strategies to minimise parking demand and conflict between different users;

(ix) the operation of and adherence to the Parking Management Plan; (x) a minimum of two long-stay bicycle spaces to be provided in the bicycle parking

(long-stay) area; (xi) a minimum of two lockers to be provided as end of trip facilities for the two long-

stay bicycle parking spaces for the development. The lockers are to be of suitable



volume and dimensions to allow storage of clothing, towels, cycling helmet and footwear, well ventilated, secure and lockable;

(xii) a minimum of three short-stay bicycle spaces to be provided in a suitable location

in front of the building; (xiii) a detailed landscaping and reticulation plan to be submitted prior to the issue of a

building permit, showing the location and type of proposed trees, shrubs and lawns to be approved by the Town. The landscaping areas as shown on the approved plan are to be installed by the applicant prior to the occupation of the building, and thereafter maintained by the applicant to the satisfaction of the Town;

(xiv) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained; (xv) the front and rear car parking areas being drained and sealed and marked with 11

parking bays, with one being designated and marked as a bay for persons with a disability in accordance with AS 2890.6 – 2009;

(xvi) the car parking areas, including the sealed surface and line marking, to be

maintained at all times to the satisfaction of the Town; (xvii) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt

from requiring planning approval; (xviii) the five bays at the front of the building to be reserved for staff only and to be

sign posted accordingly; (xiv) the applicant paying a cash-in-lieu contribution of $30,000 (shortfall of 2 car bays)

to the Town, to be held in reserve for future parking improvements in the vicinity of the subject site. The payment shall be made in full prior to the commencement of the use and before an application is made for an occupancy permit.

Carried 5/0



DV16.6 LOT 150 (NO. 2) MCCOURT STREET, CORNER RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - PROPOSED CHANGE OF USE FROM CONSULTING ROOMS (GROUP) TO HOSPITAL (DAY SURGERY)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application to convert the third floor of the existing building at No. 2 McCourt Street, which is approved for consulting rooms, to a day surgery (hospital use). The application requires a Council determination due to the location of the site in the Medical Zone and the management of the existing car park. The hospital requires less car parking than consulting rooms so the application will result in a surplus of parking bays for the site. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policies as a hospital is appropriate in the Medical Zone and the car parking provided is sufficient for the proposed use. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0404DA-2015 Owner: Mayo Medical Pty Ltd Applicant: Bateman Architects Pty Ltd Zoning: Medical Use class: Hospital - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 1756 m2 At its meeting held on 23 February 2010, Council approved a four storey medical centre comprising 32 consulting rooms at Lots 498, 499 and 500 (No. 330 - 334 Railway Parade, corner McCourt Street, West Leederville). The fire station was proposed to be retained and restored with its future use subject to further investigation and consultation with Council. 128 car bays were required for the 32 consulting rooms, however, 110 bays were provided. In addition, the applicant paid a cash-in-lieu of parking contribution of $90,000. Subsequent to the approval, the lots were amalgamated and the street number changed to No. 2 McCourt Street. The building was constructed and the Town was advised that the car park would be operated by CPP (City of Perth Parking). The Town reminded the owner that the car park was only for use by tenants and visitors with business in the building and that it was not to be used as a parking station, offering paid parking, to the general public. At its meeting held on 26 May 2015, Council approved two consulting rooms in the vacant fire station building. Parking provision for 34 consulting rooms (32 approved plus two in the fire station) was assessed as compliant with the current Parking Policy which allows a concession due to proximity to alternative transport modes.

DETAILS:

Development description • The application is for a day hospital on the third floor of the existing building at No. 2

McCourt Street. • The approved plans for the building show 10 consulting rooms on the third floor but these

have not been occupied.



• The day surgery will be privately owned and have a total of 25 beds and 120m2 of administration area.

• The day surgery will require a new plant room on the roof to service the operating theatres and a clinical waste store and medical gas store on the lower basement floor.

• Changing the use from consulting rooms to day surgery will reduce the parking requirement for the third floor from 40 bays for 10 consulting rooms to 13 bays for the day surgery, resulting in a net surplus of bays.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided a submission with the application which is summarised and attached to this agenda. Comment Land use A 'day surgery' is considered to fall under the use class of hospital under Town Planning Scheme No. 1. The Statement of Intent for the Medical zone contained in the West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy states that medical uses such as consulting rooms and hospitals will be contained in this area and adequate car parking will be provided to ensure that commercial vehicles do not encroach into residential streets. The proposed day surgery is an appropriate use in the Medical zone and requires less parking than the approved consulting rooms on the third level. Building design, height and setbacks The plans show a new mechanical plant room and plant decks on the roof to service the day surgery. The plant room will by 14 metres long by 11.5 metres wide and add 4 metres to the height of the building. The plant room will have a flat roof and cladding to match the existing building. The plant room will be situated on the north portion of the building and behind the fire station building. There is no floor space on this deck. The West Leederville Precinct Planning Policy requirements for the Medical zone states that the Responsible Authority shall determine the maximum height of a building, taking into consideration such matters as the scale and building height of nearby development, the proximity of heritage places or areas, streetscape and street width. Whilst the plant room will be set back from the existing roof line, it is still likely to be visible from properties to the north, McCourt Street and Turvey Lane due to its size and height. The proposed plant room will be visible beyond the fire station building but will not obstruct views of this heritage building from the street. If the plant room is constructed in the same materials and cladding as the existing building, it will appear integral to the design of the building and not a later add-on. A condition can be included in this regard. Parking Number of car bays The current approved use of consulting rooms (group) for the third floor in its entirety requires 40 car bays whilst the proposed hospital requires 13 bays based on 25 beds (1 bay per 3 beds) and 120m2 of net administration area (1 bay per 30m2). Some car bays in the lower basement will be removed to accommodate the gas bottle store and medical waste store. The change of use will still, however, result in a parking surplus rather than a parking shortfall.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Operation of the car park In assessing this application, it came to the Town's attention that the building's car park, operated by CPP, was being advertised as a public parking station on signage and on the CPP's web site even though it should only be for use by tenants and visitors with business in the building. The owner has since removed the word 'public' from the dynamic LED signage and the fixed sign at ground level adjacent to the old fire station states 'specialist parking only' and ceases to refer to 'public parking'. He has, however, advised that the car park has been open and used as parking for AFL matches. Given that AFL matches will cease to be held at Subiaco Oval in 2017, the Council may be willing to allow the owner to continue opening the car park for AFL matches for this year and next. Ambulance bay There is an existing marked ambulance bay by the main entry off McCourt Street, behind a boom gate. The applicant has advised that an operational policy will be developed with St John Ambulance whereby they will have a code to operate the boom gate. Deliveries The ambulance bay will also function as a delivery/loading bay for medical gases and hospital supplies and for vehicles accessing the clinical waste and dirty linen store. The majority of deliveries will be out of normal business hours. In particular, medical gases will be transported by lift to the lower basement, medical gas store. The applicant has advised that the medical gas supplier has visited the site and confirmed they have a vehicle which will fit into the ground floor, where the clearance height is 2.8 metres.

Waste management The building has an existing bin store adjacent to Turvey Lane and a new clinical waste and dirty linen store is proposed in the lower basement for the hospital. A Waste Management Plan has been submitted with the application. Waste from the building is currently managed by a private service provider which will continue this role. Medical waste will be collected by a suitable licensed service provider, with the vehicle parking in the ambulance/delivery bay and accessing the clinical waste store via the lift. Other matters Given the location of the site, on a relatively busy intersection, and the amount of works likely to be required to convert the third floor into a hospital, a condition has been imposed requiring a Construction Management Plan. In addition, a condition is included requiring an Acoustic Report to ensure the noise emanating from the new plant room and decks are compliant with the relevant requirements.












Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from consulting rooms (group) to hospital (day surgery) submitted by Bateman Architects at Lot 150 (No. 2) McCourt Street, corner Railway Parade, West Leederville, as shown on the amended plans dated 8 January 2016 and 11 January 2016 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the colour and cladding of the plant room is to match the colour and cladding of

the existing building;

(ii) the hospital is to have a maximum of 25 beds;

(iii) any signage on site being subject to a separate development application;

(iv) the preparation of a Waste Management Plan detailing the number and size of general waste and recycling bins, storage method and collection details. The plan is to be submitted prior to the issue of a Building Permit, and to satisfy the requirements of the Town's Infrastructure Services;

(v) the implementation of, and adherence to, the approved Waste Management Plan;

(vi) prior to the submission of an application for a Building Permit or a Demolition Permit, or the commencement of development, whichever is earlier, a Construction Management Plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Town. The Construction Management Plan must address the following issues, where applicable:- (a) public safety and amenity; (b) site plan and security; (c) contact details of essential site personnel, construction period and operating

hours; (d) community information, consultation and complaints management Plan;



(e) noise, vibration, air and dust management; (f) dilapidation reports of nearby properties; (g) traffic, access and parking management; (h) waste management and materials re-use; (i) earthworks, excavation, land retention/piling methods and associated


(vii) the Construction Management Plan as approved by the Town must be complied

with at all times during development; (viii) adequate sound attenuation of the premises is to be undertaken to ensure that

noise received inside, or emitted from the premises does not exceed the levels stipulated in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and the NCC 2013 Building Code of Australia. A report from an Acoustic Consultant will be required to be submitted to the Town's Health Services prior to issue of a building permit. This report is to evaluate and detail whether the noise emitted from the premises will comply with the provisions of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 when received at surrounding premises (this includes commercial, industrial and residential premises).

Footnote: The applicant is reminded that the car park is only for use by tenants and visitors with business in the building and is not to be used as a parking station, offering paid parking, to the general public. Carried 5/0



DV16.7 LOT 5 (NO. 357) CAMBRIDGE STREET, WEMBLEY - CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP (PHOTO PROCESSING CENTRE) TO CONSULTING ROOMS (YOGA THERAPY)

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for change of use from a shop to a consulting room (counselling/yoga therapy) at Tenancy 5, No. 357, Cambridge Street, Wembley. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the parking provisions of the Town's Planning policies. The proposal is considered to be consistent with surrounding commercial development within the Wembley Town Centre precinct and the site has sufficient parking for customers. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0510DA-2015 Owner: Genting Nominees Pty Ltd Applicant: Sarah Tucker Zoning: Local Centre Use class: Consulting Rooms- ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Tenancy area: 62 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing set of commercial tenancies comprising coffee shop, hairdresser, 'Curves

Wellness Centre', takeaway food outlet and shops. • Existing tenancy currently vacant but previously a photographic processing centre. • Proposal for counselling services provided through yoga therapy both one on one and in

group sessions focussing on improving both mental and physical health. • Applicant is a qualified and experienced social worker providing counselling to all age

groups in a yoga environment. • Previous use of tenancy as a 'shop' required 3 car parking bays, proposed use as

consulting room requires 4 car parking bays. Applicant's submission The applicant has provided written justification for the proposal. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The proposed use is considered to be most comparable to a 'Consulting room' use. This is an "AA" (discretionary) use in a Local Centre zone. It is considered that the proposed use is consistent with the objectives and purpose of the Local Centre zone and is therefore a use which may be permitted and that does not require advertising.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Land Use The proposed business is considered to fall under the use class 'consulting rooms'. Consulting rooms are defined under Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS No.1) as:- "Premises used by no more than two practitioners for the investigation and/or treatment of physical or mental injuries or ailments (not including a hospital) in the practice of a profession of a person who is a legally qualified medial practitioner, dentist physiotherapist, chiropractor, podiatrist or similar practitioner, but does not include a masseur and does not include premises practising therapeutic massage or similar services". The practitioner is a legally qualified social worker and will provide counselling services to all ages, either on a one on one basis or in small group sessions. The counselling is undertaken in a setting including the use of yoga so that sessions focus on both mental and physical health. This is somewhat different to a health studio giving yoga classes. A health studio is defined under TPS No. 1 as:- "Land or buildings designed and equipped for physical exercise, recreation and sporting activities including outdoor recreation". The proposed business has its focus in providing counselling services. Yoga is used to complement traditional verbal counselling and is a growing field internationally. Wembley Precinct Planning Policy Within the area zoned Local Centre in Wembley, the aim is as follows:- • The existing range of local shopping and community facilities will be consolidated within

these areas to serve the day to day needs of the local residents. • Any new development should be built up to the street boundary and be of a height and

scale similar to the majority of existing buildings. Continuous shop fronts and weather protection over the footpath for pedestrians should be provided.

• Careful control will be exercised over the nature of any uses proposed and their design

and site layout to ensure minimal impact on any adjacent residential development. Additionally, adequate car parking must be provided to ensure that retail parking does not encroach into residential streets.

The proposed use is considered to be consistent with the intent of the Local Centre zone in Wembley. The Centre will provide therapy and counselling for local people of all ages and demographics. The therapy sessions focus on improving both mental and physical health through yoga. Yoga therapy and using yoga to complement traditional verbal counselling is a growing field internationally and becoming increasingly recognised locally as beneficial to many client groups. Group sizes will vary depending on the target group for the session. The applicant plans for an average of eight participants with a maximum of fifteen. For children and adolescents, the group size will be limited to ten. It is this part of the business that differs from a normal consulting room and therefore the group sessions need to be considered specifically. The main issue with the proposal is parking. On the basis of the use being classed as consulting rooms, four bays per practitioner are required. It should be noted that if the use was classified as a 'Health Studio' (currently a use not permitted in a Local Centre zone but will become a discretionary use should Amendment No. 27 to Town Planning Scheme No. 1 be


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 gazetted), then one car space per 15 square metres of floor area would be required. This would equate to four car bays (based on a floor area of 60 square metres), the same as required for the consulting room use. The previous use of 'shop' for the photo processing studio required 3 bays based on floorspace so that the proposed change of use results in a one bay shortfall for the tenancy. There are 32 car bays available overall for the complex - twenty on the side of the building and twelve accessed via the rear ROW. Based on the existing tenancies which include a take-away food outlet, three shops and two consulting rooms (three including the proposed tenancy), 26 car bays are required. On this basis, it is considered that there is adequate on site carparking available on site to cater for the change of use from shop to consulting rooms. The applicant considers that the busiest periods of operation will be outside business hours so that parking demand on site will be reduced. On this basis, it is considered that limiting the larger class sizes to hours outside of core business hours would be appropriate. A maximum group size of 8 is also considered appropriate based on the focus of the business being counselling through yoga and so that parking demand is reduced. It is noted that during numerous site inspections over the last month, there have always been empty car spaces available. Further, the business is on a high frequency bus route allowing for a choice in modes of transport available to the site.











DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a consulting room (counselling/yoga therapy) as submitted by Sarah Tucker at Lot 5 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 31 December 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt from

requiring planning approval;

(ii) hours of operation limited to between 6am and 8pm Monday to Saturday;

(iii) no more than eight clients in group sessions; and

(iv) group sessions only to be conducted between the hours of 6am to 9am and 5pm to 8pm;

(v) a minimum of one practitioner to operate from the premises at any one time.

Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members agreed that the consulting room be allowed to operate on a Sunday between 6am and 8 pm if required and group sessions be allowed to operate from 3.30 pm to 8pm. It was also agreed that the windows are to remain predominantly clear glazed to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That a further clause (vi) be added to the motion and clauses (ii) and (iv) be amended to read as follows:- (ii) hours of operation limited to between 6am and 8pm Monday to Sunday; (iv) group sessions only to be conducted between the hours of 6am to 9am and 3.30pm to

8pm; (vi) the windows to remain predominantly clear glazed to the satisfaction of the Town. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a consulting room (counselling/yoga therapy) as submitted by Sarah Tucker at Lot 5 (No. 357) Cambridge Street, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 31 December 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a separate application to be submitted for any proposed signage that is not exempt

from requiring planning approval;

(ii) hours of operation limited to between 6am and 8pm Monday to Sunday;

(iii) no more than eight clients in group sessions; and



(iv) group sessions only to be conducted between the hours of 6am to 9am and 3.30pm

to 8pm;

(v) a minimum of one practitioner to operate from the premises at any one time;

(vi) the windows to remain predominantly clear glazed to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 5/0



DV16.8 LOT 6 (NO. 262) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - CHANGE OF USE FROM SHOP TO OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL SIGNAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a change of use from a shop to an office at No. 262, Railway Parade, West Leederville. The proposed new use comprises a graphic and website design studio within an existing building on the subject site. New signage associated with the office is also proposed. The property falls within the designated 'Cambridge High Street Node' as prescribed under the Town's West Leederville Precinct Policy (Policy 6.5). The application has been assessed in accordance with the 'traditional strip centres' provisions of Policy 5.1: Parking. This special calculation compares the requirement of the previous use with that of a proposed use, to ascertain the additional number of car bays which are to be paid by cash-in-lieu. Given that an 'office' use has a less intensive requirement for car parking (1 bay per 30sqm NFA [net floor area]) compared with that of a 'shop' (1 bay per 20sqm NFA), the required number of bays is reduced over the previous use and therefore the application can be supported without the requirement of a cash-in-lieu contribution. The total number of staff employed by the proposed office, being 22 persons, is a large amount for the space and it is acknowledged that the 4 bays provided on-site will not be adequate to cater for all staff and clients of the studio. The site's ideal location, 40 metres from the platform of the West Leederville train station and 150 metres from bus routes on Cambridge Street, is recognised as a mitigating factor in this regard, as well as the availability of short term on-street car parking for clients. The application is therefore recommended for approval, subject to the submission of a transport management plan prepared by the proponent detailing how on-site parking will be managed, and how alternative transport options will be promoted to staff and clients. An increased number of bicycle bays, over and above what is required under Policy 5.1, is also recommended to offset the reduced number of on-site car bays.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0020DA-2016 Owner: Wee Investments Trust Applicant: Juicebox Pty Ltd Zoning: Commercial Use class: Office - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) Land area: 422 m2 DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site contains a single storey building, which incorporates one tenancy with a

shopfront addressing Railway Parade. The previous tenant in the building was a surf shop (Surf Sail), which has since relocated to another site in Cambridge Street, West Leederville.

• Four (4) dedicated car bays are available to the north of the site. These are accessed off the adjoining right of way (Hislop Lane). These bays are unlikely to meet current Australian Standards, however, are existing and after inspection by the Town are considered usable.



• The proposed new use is a graphic and website design studio (Juicebox) which is to operate during regular business hours. The business comprises 22 staff (19 full time and 3 casual), most of whom are between the ages of 21 and 30. The applicant envisages that some clients will also visit the studio during the day, and has stated that the location of the business has been chosen due to the close proximity to the train station and the Perth CBD.

• Internally, the building is to comprise of reception and meeting rooms, office desk space as well as communal areas and end-of-trip facilities. The office component has a floor area of 210sqm, with the remaining 82sqm dedicated to the communal and ancillary spaces. Minor cosmetic changes are also proposed to the building façade.

• New signage is also proposed in conjunction with the change of use. The signage generally meets the provisions of the Town's current signage policy (Policy 5.2), however care will need to be taken to ensure that the window signs do not obscure views to and from the street. A condition and advice note is included with the recommendation to this effect.

• Environmental Health Services have reviewed the proposal and have noted no issues in their assessment.

Applicant's submission The applicant has provided a written summary outlining the application and justification for the car parking issues. This submission has been attached to the agenda. Neighbour submission Under Town Planning Scheme No. 1, an office use is classed as an 'AA' use within the Commercial zone, meaning that the application is not required to be advertised. Comment Land use The subject site is located within the Cambridge High Street Node, a primary commercial area within the West Leederville precinct. A key objective of this node is for a 'lively activated street character' that allows for the accommodation of 'retail, commercial and mixed-use development, taking advantage of its proximity to the West Leederville train station'. The proposed use of an office is seen as an improvement from the previous surf shop use, which had its shop-front windows obscured by signage and merchandise. As such the office will provide for a more active street character along Railway Parade, with staff and clients coming and going throughout the day. Given the current weak office market in Perth, this type of use is encouraged within the node to better ensure that a more 'mixed-use' environment within the centre is achieved in-line with the Town's strategic vision for the area. The office will also contribute towards increasing the working population within the centre, which could have a positive flow-on effect for other local business (such as cafés and shops) within the immediate vicinity of the site. The proposed new office use is considered to be in-keeping with the envisaged character and function of the Cambridge High Street Node, and therefore satisfies an assessment based on land use credentials. The other key aspect of this change of use proposal, however, is car parking.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Parking A base car parking requirement of 7 bays has been determined, based on a NFA of 210sqm and a requirement of 1 bay per 30sqm NFA. As stated, the applicant can provide 4 dedicated bays on site, meaning a shortfall of 3 bays is proposed. The Town's Parking Policy, however, contains a special application of car parking ratios for areas deemed to be 'traditional strip centres'. The site could be classified as a traditional strip centre given that this is a well-established building located along a significant transport route, with dedicated on-site parking access via a right-of-way and 'shop fronts' addressing the street. Furthermore, Policy 5.1 identifies this specific site as a 'traditional strip centre'. This special provision for these centres is explained in the policy as follows:-

These centres generally have limited on-site parking available and little opportunity to provide parking bays. Where a change of use or additions are proposed, which result in an increased parking requirement (in accordance with Table 1), the Responsible Authority may determine the parking requirement solely based on the additional number of bays the new use generates compared to the most recently approved use. The shortfall is to be paid by cash-in-lieu with no further parking concessions applicable. In this circumstance, a cash-in-lieu payment in excess of 25% of the parking requirement can apply.

In the table below, a summary is provided that illustrates how this strip centres provision can be applied in this scenario: Special Application of Parking Ratios (Policy 5.1) - 'Traditional Strip Centres' Use Number of Bays Comment

Shop - Current Use 11 bays required • Based on 210sqm NFA • 1 bay per 20sqm ('Shop') • 1 bay per 30sqm ('Office') Office - Proposed Use 7 bays required

Shortfall in number of bays required between current and proposed uses

Nil • No additional bays required over previous 'shop' use. Cash-in-lieu applicable Nil

The table above shows that as assessed under 'traditional strip centres' provisions, no additional car bays or cash-in-lieu is required given that an 'office' use has a less intensive requirement for car parking compared with that of a 'shop'. Given this, there is scope to support the application purely based on this car parking assessment. The number of staff employed by the proposed office, being 22 persons, is a large amount for the space and it is acknowledged that the 4 bays provided on-site will not be adequate to cater for all staff and clients of the studio. In spite of this, the location of the site is highly favourable to this type of use, as it provides excellent opportunity for the utilisation of alternative transport modes by both clients and staff of the design studio. The site is located less than 40 metres from the platform of the West Leederville train station. Further, bus routes on Cambridge Street are approximately 150 metres to the north of the site. There are also cycle routes along the Fremantle train line which can also be accessed from the site. Given these points, the shortfall in car bays is supported in this instance.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 In spite of the above, it is considered that the applicant should provide further information and clarification on transport matters to ensure that parking issues do not arise from the establishment of the office. It is therefore recommended that a transport management plan be prepared by the proponent, detailing how on-site parking will be managed and how alternative transport options will be promoted to staff and clients. This will provide both the applicant and the Town with greater certainty regarding the ongoing operation of the graphic design business. Further, adequate cycle facilities are proposed to be provided (including end of trip facilities), however, it is recommended that the number of cycle racks or storage space be suitable to cater for at least 8 bicycles (3 spaces are required under the parking policy). Conditions are included in the recommendation to reflect both of these aspects.









1. Summary of applicant's submission. Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 Prior to consideration of this item, Cr MacRae disclosed an interest affecting impartiality and declared as follows:- "with regard to Lot 6 (No.262) Railway Parade, West Leederville, I declare that my daughter, who does not reside with me, together with her business associate, has been asked to design the fit-out for the premises and as a consequence there may be a perception that my impartiality maybe affected. I declare that I will consider this matter on its merits and vote accordingly."



Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a change of use from shop to office and commercial signage, submitted by Juicebox Pty Ltd at Lot 6 (No. 262) Railway Parade, West Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 15 January 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) a minimum of eight (8) bicycle spaces, or alternatively an appropriately sized

bicycle store room, are to be provided on the site for the use of staff of the office, to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) details of the provision and location of the bicycle parking facilities and employee 'end-of-journey' facilities, including lockers for the storage of clothing, towels, helmets and the like, to be provided to the satisfaction of the Town prior to the issue of a Building Permit;

(iii) the preparation of a Transport Management Plan for staff and visitors to the

proposed office to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the issue of a Building Permit. The Transport Management Plan is to include incentives for use of alternative modes of travel, availability of on-street parking for clients, allocation of on-site parking bays and strategies to be employed to manage parking demand on the site;

(iv) the operation of, and adherence to, the Transport Management Plan;

(v) the four (4) car bays at the rear of the site are to be to be line-marked and appropriately signed to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the operation of the office; and

(vi) all windows facing Railway Parade are to be clear-glazed and not tinted, allowing views into and out of the premises.

Footnote: In respect to Condition 6, the applicant is advised that any signage affixed to the windows, and facing onto Railway Parade, is to allow for adequate street surveillance to the satisfaction of the Town. Carried 5/0



DV16.9 LOT 23 (NO. 24) SALVADO ROAD, WEMBLEY - ADVERTISING SIGNAGE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for signage above existing signage on the corner of Salvado Road and Station Street for Genesis Cancer Care. The plans show a new metal sign above the existing Perth Radiation Oncology sign. The application requires a Council determination as variations to the Town's Advertising Signs policy are proposed. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant policy for the following reason:- • the freestanding advertising signage for the site is confined to the corner of the property

and does not clutter the site and the advertising relates directly to the business/property. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0237DA-2015 Owner: Genesis Care Property Pty Ltd Applicant: Genesis Care Property Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential/Commercial Use class: Advertisement - ‘AA’ (use not permitted unless Council grants approval) or

‘P’ (permitted) if the signage is exempt from planning approval Land area: 2458 m2 This application was originally submitted on 15 June 2015 with plans showing a proposed sign with an area of 9.9 metres above the existing sign on the corner. The Town’s Administration requested amended plans showing a smaller sign. Amended drawings were received on 22 January 2016 showing a smaller sign. These drawings are the subject of the following report.

DETAILS:

Development description • The site is ‘Perth Radiation Oncology’, a cancer treatment centre, which is operated by

Genesis Cancer Care. • Genesis Cancer Care would like a sign advertising their services provided, which could

be varied from time to time. • Rather than new freestanding signage facing Salvado Road and/or Station Street, one

sign located above the existing Perth Radiation Oncology sign facing the corner of Salvado Road and Station Street is proposed. This sign will be the same width as the existing sign and 1.0 metre high.

• The area of the new sign is 6m2. Combined with the existing sign (11.7m2), the total area of signage will be 17.7m2.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Comment Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs The proposed sign has been assessed as a pylon sign as the sign is a stand-alone advertising sign supported by piers and not attached to the building. The table below summarises the variations to Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs proposed with this signage: Policy Proposed The sign has a maximum area of 5m2 6m2 added to an existing 11.7m2 sign (total of 17.7m2 of

signage)

The sign has a minimum ground clearance of 2.75 metres

Ground clearance of 1.95 metres. No concern as in reality the clearance will not be visible as the existing wall will be directly below the sign.

The sign is aligned at a right angle to the street

At 45 degrees to the street, matching the existing wall located on the truncation. No concern as it is in keeping with the existing wall and signage on this wall.

The appropriateness of the proposed size can be assessed against the aims of the policy, which are:- • To facilitate the advertisement of goods and services. • To minimise the adverse impact that outdoor advertising can cause through proliferation

or poorly located or designed signage. • To ensure that signs do not detract from the level of safety for drivers, cyclists and

pedestrians by obstructing sightlines and distracting road users. The proposed sign facilitates the advertisement of the services provided by Perth Radiation Oncology. Sightlines are not obstructed as the existing wall to which the proposed sign will be above is set back from the property truncation for the corner of Salvado Road and Station Street. The site currently does not have a proliferation of signage. The existing Perth Radiation Oncology sign is attached to a low rendered brick wall which is well integrated with established landscaping. The plans indicate that the existing sign is 6.0 metres wide and has a height of 1.95 metres above ground level. This is an area of 11.7m2 but the majority of this sign is rendered brick wall screened by landscaping. The additional 1.0 metre sign will result in a 6.0 metre wide sign that is 2.95 metres high. Whilst this is a large sign, it is the only advertising sign for the site that is not attached to the building. In comparison to the property’s street frontage total length of over 90 metres, a 6.0 metre wide sign is considered not significant. Should Council be of the opinion to support the proposed sign, conditions could be applied allowing no further signage apart from signage exempt from planning approval and that the approval is for a period of two years only, so the sign can be reviewed after this time.











Nil.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for advertising signage submitted by Genesis Care Property Pty Ltd at Lot 23 (No. 24) Salvado Road, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) approval of the signage is limited to a period of two (2) years. Any extension will require

a new planning application;

(ii) no further signage other than signage that is exempt from planning approval;

(iii) the signage to display information relating to the business operating from the site; (iv) the signage is not to be illuminated.

Committee Meeting 16 February 2016

During discussion, Members were not prepared to support the signage as it was considered too large and obtrusive. Members also expressed concern with regard to the content of the sign. The Administration recommendation was then voted upon and lost 0/5. COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Mayor Shannon, seconded by Cr O'Connor That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council REFUSES the application for advertising signage submitted by Genesis Care Property Pty Ltd at Lot 23 (No. 24) Salvado Road, Wembley, as shown on the plans dated 22 January 2016, for the following reasons:-


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (i) the sign exceeds the maximum area for a pylon sign under the Town's Policy 5.2:

Advertising Signs; (ii) the size of the sign has a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. Carried 5/0



DV16.10 LOT 595 (NO. 49) OCEANIC DRIVE, FLOREAT - SECOND STOREY ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for second storey additions and alterations at No. 49 Oceanic Drive, Floreat. The plans primarily show a new below ground gymnasium and upper floor addition enclosed by a decorative perforated metal screen. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback and street surveillance design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the adjoining property to the north-west is situated higher than the subject site, and taking

into account the permeable appearance and flat roof of the pergola, as well as the retention of the existing solid dividing wall, the visual impact of the addition upon the adjoining property is reduced;

• the screens facing the street on both the ground and upper floors are to be sliding and visually permeable, therefore allowing for an improved connectivity between the street and dwelling; and

• the removal of the existing solid front entry wall and the inclusion of a new visually permeable entry gate and pergola enclosure, will better signify the front entry to the dwelling compared with the present scenario.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to further clarification and approval of the final design and permeability of the decorative screen.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0416DA-2015 Owner: Mr JDJ Ward Applicant: Lee Syminton Architect Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 809m2 This application was originally submitted in October 2015 with variations identified in the assessment for street setbacks, side boundary setbacks, street surveillance, visual privacy and the inclusion of ancillary accommodation within the upper floor addition. The applicant has since modified the proposal to improve the design, and as such has addressed most of the initial issues. The ancillary accommodation component of the application has been deleted. The main outstanding issues relate to the lot boundary setback of the decorative screening (pergola) to the north-western boundary and street surveillance from both levels of the dwelling, these matters are further discussed in the following report.



Development description • Subject site is a generally flat lot with a slight upward slope of less than 1 metre from front

(north-east) to rear (south-west). The property currently contains a single storey dwelling with a rear garage/outbuilding, carport and swimming pool. The ground floor internal layout the dwelling is to mostly remain unchanged.

• The proposed works include a below-ground gymnasium with access staircase, new entry gate, ground floor verandah, as well as an upper floor addition comprising of a home office, library, bedroom and street facing balcony. The two storey component of the proposal includes the verandah, balcony, and flat roofed pergola on the north-western boundary and is to be surrounded by a new decorative perforated metal screen. An existing double carport is also proposed to be retained with the existing roof to be replaced.

• The site plan shows the below ground gymnasium, with a nil setback to the street (Oceanic Drive) boundary. The 3-D perspectives provided show that this feature projects slightly above ground level, to the extent that it appears like a low retaining wall which would comply with the Town's requirements (Policy 3.1: Streetscape). In spite of the nil building setback, this matter is considered a minor issue given that the majority of the building is hidden from the street (below ground), and is therefore considered to satisfy the relevant design principles.

• Landscaping within the front setback area meets the required percentage as the roof of the gymnasium is to be landscaped and existing planters are to be retained. A condition is included with the recommendation regarding landscaping provision.

• The property has access to Oceanic Drive via two existing driveway crossovers, these are proposed to be retained and not modified. The Town's Infrastructure Services have reviewed the proposal and have not identified any issues with this existing access arrangement given this is not a comprehensive redevelopment of the site, and the sightlines are adequate for reversing onto a district distributor road in this case.

• Lot boundary setbacks and street surveillance are the two outstanding matters that require a Council decision, an assessment against the relevant design principles is provided below.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification outlining the proposal and the variations proposed. A summary of the submission is attached to the agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owner of the property directly adjoining the north-western boundary of the subject site, being No. 51 Oceanic Drive, Floreat. In addition, the applicant has obtained a copy of the plans signed by this neighbour indicating no objections to the proposal. The Town has not received any written submission from the neighbour. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback (to decorative screen/pergola)

Min 1.5m (ground floor) Min 1.6 metres (upper floor)

Nil


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Design principles: Buildings set back from lot boundaries so as to: • reduce impacts of building bulk on adjoining properties; • provide adequate direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces on the site and




The proposed additions include a two storey flat roofed 'pergola' and decorative screening which surrounds the entire upper floor. The pergola material consists of perforated metal sheeting (laser cut), which is to be visually permeable and is an essential component of the dwelling. The applicant has provided 3-D perspectives to demonstrate this concept, and has also provided some preliminary design options for the screen. Because the ground floor of the dwelling is remaining virtually the same as existing, a nil boundary setback to the pergola is proposed on the right/north-western side. This section extends for a length of 11 metres and is 6.5 metres high at the boundary and is essentially a covered 'void' area. The Town's Buildings on the Boundary Policy (Policy 3.2) requires that all structures, including pergolas, be subject to the setback provisions of the R-Codes. Therefore, this two storey pergola would require a setback of between 1.5 and 1.6 metres from the boundary. It is noted that the adjoining property to the north-west is situated higher than the subject site. The dwelling on the neighbouring property has a floor level at least 2 metres higher than the existing dwelling on this site. Further, the pergola does not comprise solid building material, and the design options for the laser cut screens presented by the applicant show a visual permeability of at least 50 percent. The flat roof of the structure will also assist with mitigating building bulk concerns. The overall visual impact of this boundary structure will, therefore, be less significant than a solid boundary wall. Overshadowing considerations are not applicable given that the adjoining property of concern is to the north-west of the site, however it is noted the shadow cast on the other neighbouring property to the south-west is less than the deemed-to-comply provision of 25 percent. The applicant has noted that there are existing privacy issues between the north-western property and the subject site, due to the elevation of the neighbouring dwelling. As such, the proposed 'pergola' will provide for enhanced privacy for the occupants of both properties, with arguably less visual bulk than a high dividing fence. It is also noted that the existing solid boundary fence is to remain, with the pergola sitting on top of this wall. The Town has been provided with a signed copy of the plans from the adjoining neighbour at No. 51 Oceanic Drive, indicating no objections to the proposal. In addition, the Town wrote a separate letter to this neighbour advising of the boundary setback variation, with no submissions received in response to the notice at the close of advertising.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The metal screens are not considered highly reflective however a condition is included with the recommendation to ensure that a highly reflective material is not used. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side/north-western boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the adjoining property to the north-west is situated higher than the subject site, and taking

into account the permeable appearance and flat roof of the pergola, as well as the retention of the existing solid dividing wall, the visual impact and of the addition upon the adjoining property is less significant.

Street surveillance Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Street elevation

• Clearly definable entry points visible and accessed from the street.

• Habitable rooms facing the street are to have a clear/unobstructed view of the street and approach to dwelling.

• Front entry is existing, located side-on to the street and obscured by the existing dwelling.

• Additional habitable rooms facing street are proposed however partly obscured by perforated metal screen.

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

As stated, the new upper floor is to be surrounded by a perforated metal 'pergola' and screening. This screening will enclose the ground and upper floors; hence surveillance of the street will not be completely unobstructed. The 3-D perspectives provided with the application, alongside the street elevations, show more clearly the location and style of metal screening proposed. The screens facing the street on both the ground and upper floors are to be sliding, therefore allowing for an increased connectivity between the street and dwelling. The design of the metal screens is visually permeable and as such even when fully closed a degree of surveillance will still be achieved from the ground floor verandah and upper floor balconies, as well as internal habitable rooms. It is noted that presently the ground floor of the dwelling is almost entirely obscured by a high solid wall along the entry pathway. This solid wall is to be removed, with no new street fencing proposed; hence both the actual and perceived street surveillance from the dwelling will improve over the existing scenario. In terms of the side front entry location, this is unchanged from the existing scenario and there is no scope to change the entry point to the dwelling given that the ground floor layout is remaining unchanged. The proposed situation is, however, considered an improvement due to the removal of the existing solid front entry wall and the inclusion of a new visually permeable entry gate and pergola enclosure, which will better signify the front entry to the dwelling.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 To ensure appropriate street surveillance is achieved, it is recommended that the final screen design be presented to the Town for final consideration prior to the issue of a building permit. A condition is included to this effect. Overall in view of the above comments, subject to the Town's final approval of the metal screen design, it is considered that the proposed street surveillance satisfies the relevant design principle for the following reasons:-

• the screens facing the street on both the ground and upper floors are to be sliding and visually permeable, therefore allowing for an improved connectivity between the street and dwelling; and

• the removal of the existing solid front entry wall and the inclusion of a new visually permeable entry gate and pergola enclosure, will better signify the front entry to the dwelling compared with the present scenario.









1. Summary of applicant's justification.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for second storey additions and alterations submitted by Lee Syminton Architect at Lot 595 (No. 49) Oceanic Drive, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 5 February 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plans, to be installed and reticulated

prior to the occupation of the building and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the Town;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (ii) the final design details for the metal screening to be submitted for assessment and

approval to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the issue of a building permit;

(iii) the upper floor library and bedroom windows facing north-west and south-east to be fixed and obscure glazed to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level;

(iv) the screens are to not be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;

(v) the visual privacy screens for the front balcony to be designed to restrict views to the neighbouring properties to the north-west and south-east in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the occupation of the dwelling.

Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members queried whether or not the screens would remain fully closed fronting the street and therefore not providing surveillance to the street. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Cr MacRae That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (vi) the gymnasium is not to be converted to ancillary accommodation without prior Council

approval; (vii) one habitable room window at each level to remain open at all times to the satisfaction of

the Town. Amendment carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against" Cr Bradley COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for second storey additions and alterations submitted by Lee Syminton Architect at Lot 595 (No. 49) Oceanic Drive, Floreat, as shown on the plans dated 5 February 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the landscaping areas, as shown on the approved plans, to be installed and

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

(ii) the final design details for the metal screening to be submitted for assessment and

approval to the satisfaction of the Town, prior to the issue of a building permit;

(iii) the upper floor library and bedroom windows facing north-west and south-east to be fixed and obscure glazed to a minimum height of 1.6 metres above floor level;

(iv) the screens are to not be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;



(v) the visual privacy screens for the front balcony to be designed to restrict views to

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

(vi) the gymnasium is not to be converted to ancillary accommodation without prior

Council approval;

(vii) one habitable room window at each level to remain open at all times to the satisfaction of the Town.

Carried 5/0



DV16.11 LOT 38 (NO. 121) ST LEONARDS AVENUE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - TWO STOREY GROUPED DWELLING TO REAR OF EXISTING SINGLE HOUSE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a grouped dwelling to the rear of the existing house at No. 121 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville. The plans show a two storey dwelling to be constructed to the rear of the existing dwelling and accessed via the existing driveway and crossover. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the building height, side setback and visual privacy design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and objections have been received during the consultation period. The proposal, which has been further modified since advertising to neighbours, is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed garage is at a lower level than the adjoining property to the south and

slightly set off the boundary so that the existing fencing and planting will not be affected and its building bulk and potential to overshadow is minimal;

• the minor variation in wall height does not adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining property with most overshadowing being over the rear garden area rather than habitable rooms and outdoor living areas.;

• the proposed landscaping enhances the presentation of the home and garden whilst minimising the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0480DA-2015 Owner: M Kulshreshtha and KK Kulshreshtha Applicant: Summit Projects Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 670 m2

This application was originally submitted in December 2015 with plans showing a wider crossover and more paving in the front setback area. To address these issues, amended plans were received in January 2016. The plans were subsequently advertised and objections received. To address some of the concerns raised by the owners of neighbouring properties, the plans were revised again in February 2016. These plans have not been readvertised to neighbours but it is this latter set of plans that are the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey brick and tile dwelling with single garage to north side of house. • The site slopes up approximately two metres from the front right/northern corner of the lot

to the rear right/southern corner of the lot.



• The existing dwelling is to be retained and the garage to the side removed to make way for a battleaxe leg through to a new storey dwelling to the rear of the existing house.

• The two dwellings will share the existing crossover on to St Leonards Avenue and a shared driveway for the front potion of the lot. Two hard stand car bays are proposed in front of the existing dwelling. Subject to minor modification to this area, the proposal will comply with landscaping requirements. No front fencing is proposed as part of this application.

• The two storey dwelling to the rear has a double garage proposed with a nil setback to the southern side boundary. The boundary wall is 2.99 metres in height and approximately 6 metres in length. From the neighbours' side, the wall has an effective height of 2.1 metres.

• Due to the fall of the land, minor variations to wall height are proposed at the front of the dwelling.

• The applicant and adjoining landowner to the north have reached an agreement regarding the provision of fixed plantation shutters on the sitting room/nook windows which overlook their property. These are not, however, shown on the amended plans and should therefore form part of any approval.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the wall height, setback and visual privacy variations. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 117a and 117b and 123 St Leonards Avenue. One submission was received from the owners of No. 117b St Leonards Avenue objecting to the setbacks, height and level of overshadowing caused by the proposal. One submission was received from the owners of 123 St Leonards Avenue objecting to the height and overlooking from the proposal. It is noted that this neighbour has subsequently provided further advice that they have discussed a solution with the applicant and are now happy with the outcome. The latest amended plans were not readvertised. A summary of the submissions is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre from left/southern side boundary

Nil (0.05 metres off boundary)



areas;



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


The applicant proposes to construct the garage and store (required for the grouped dwelling) with a nil setback to the southern side boundary. This then allows adequate manoeuvring space for vehicles to turn and exit the site in forward gear. The garage/store abuts the outdoor living areas of the adjoining property to the south. The garage wall is 2.9 metres high and 5.99 metres long. It is noted that the finished floor level of the garage is 28.7 metres AHD and the level of the patio on the adjoining property is 29.7 metres AHD. An existing retaining wall along the boundary on the adjoining property is 29.5 metres AHD. This reduces the overall impact of the wall by 800mm to 2.1 metres high, only 300mm higher than a standard dividing fence. The applicant has agreed to set the wall off the boundary so that the existing dividing fence and planting along the boundary do not need to be disturbed. With the significant amount of vegetation along the northern side boundary of the adjoining property, it is unlikely that the reduced setback to the garage will have any significant impact on access to light to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas on the adjoining property. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the garage/store from the southern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed garage is at a lower level and slightly set off the boundary so that the

existing fencing and planting on the adjoining property will not be affected and so that its building bulk and potential to overshadow is minimal.

Building height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Wall height

Max 6.0 metres Max 6.3 metres

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The applicant has lowered the floor levels since the proposal was advertised so that the wall height variations, especially to the southern side of the dwelling, are minimal. In the front/southern corner of the dwelling the wall height is 6.15 metres in lieu of 6.0 metres. At the rear southern corner of the dwelling, the wall height is 5.4 metres. Therefore the majority of the wall facing the adjoining property to the north is below 6.0 metres in height. The adjoining landowner has expressed concern with regard to the resultant overshadowing of their property by a two storey dwelling at the rear of the site and considers that the proposal does not meet the overshadowing requirements of the R Codes.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 It is noted that the adjoining site contains two grouped dwellings with common property. The R Codes therefore state that overshadowing calculations are relevant to the parent lot, not one of the strata lots on the adjoining property. The applicant has provided details of the overshadowing cast onto the adjoining property by both the existing dwelling and the proposed dwelling which equates to 19.89% of the adjoining site area. A maximum of 35% coverage of the adjoining site by shadow at midday on 21 June is permissible. As the proposal is for a two storey dwelling to the rear of an existing house, there is a likelihood of back garden areas of adjoining properties to be overshadowed. The alternative is for the site to be developed with two side by side dwellings which would likely be two storey. This would mean there would be greater building bulk along a longer length of the boundary thereby casting a greater shadow over the adjoining property. It is not considered that the minor variation in wall height significantly contributes to additional overshadowing of the adjoining property to the south, however, Council could consider lowering the floor level by an additional 100mm so that the wall height to the southern side boundary met deemed to comply provisions. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the minor variation in wall height does not adversely impact on the amenity of the

adjoining property with most overshadowing being over the rear garden area rather than habitable rooms and outdoor living areas.

Landscaping in the front setback area Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Landscaping in the front setback area

Min 50% of the front setback area with 2 mature trees

49.8% of front setback area

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

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

The proposal has two hard stand car bays for the front dwelling plus vehicle manoeuvring and driveway space within the front setback area. The applicant proposes to retain two mature trees within the front garden of the existing house which will assist in providing green space within the front setback area. In the interests of providing as much landscaping in front of the dwelling as possible, it is recommended that the parking space be relocated half a metre further back from the southern boundary. This will still allow for a parking bay length of 5.4 metres plus a vehicle manoeuvring length of 6.0 metres from the southern boundary. The loss of landscaping within the front setback area is a trade-off for providing access from a common driveway and for turning areas to be provided. This vehicle access arragenemtn, however, is considered a positive result on the streetscape as crossovers are minimised ensuring street parking is maintained and the street tree retained.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that with this modification, the proposed landscaping provision in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the proposed landscaping enhances the presentation of the home and garden whilst

minimising the amount of hard surfaces in the front setback area.











Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey grouped dwelling as submitted by Summit Projects at Lot 38 (No. 121) St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 2 February 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the hard stand paving area to the front of the existing dwelling being reduced by half a

metre in overall length from 11.9 metres to 11.4 metres as marked in red on the approved plan;

(ii) the external face of the garage wall facing the adjoining property to the south to be

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

(iii) the upper storey sitting room and nook windows overlooking the adjoining property to the north to be modified to meet the deemed to comply provision of Clause 5.4.1 'Visual Privacy' of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Footnote: The applicant is reminded of their obligation under the Building Act 2011 to not interfere with the adjoining properties. Appropriate measures are to be undertaken during the construction of the dwelling to ensure no interference with the retaining walls and dividing fence to the southern side boundary. Liaison with the adjoining property owner may be required. Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, the Administration was requested to provide further information in relation to the overshadowing on the neighbouring property. It was therefore agreed that the item be submitted to Council for determination.



DV16.12 LOT 2 (NO. 132) ALDERBURY STREET, FLOREAT - TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No.132 Alderbury Street, Floreat. The plans show a two storey brick dwelling with a low pitched Colorbond roof. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the wall height, side and rear setback and visual privacy setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the side and rear setback variations have minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms

of building bulk, access to sunlight and loss of privacy; • the wall height variation occurs only in the front southern corner of the building and will

not result in any undue impact on neighbouring properties or the street; • the location of the windows, terrace and balcony overlook the open front garden and

parking areas on the adjoining property to the north and not active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0451DA-2015 Owner: Ms KA Ekeroth Applicant: Romano Homes Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 880 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey brick and tile dwelling. • Site has a curved frontage of 26.92 metres and is slightly wedge shaped so that the rear

boundary is 18.32 metres. The site slopes up approximately 1.5 metres from the front/right corner to the left/rear corner of the lot.

• Proposed two storey brick and colorbond dwelling. As the site falls away towards the front of the lot, there are privacy variations proposed to the ground floor terrace at the front of the site and wall height variations.

• The proposal meets landscaping requirements. There is some fencing and paving shown on the perspectives provided for the proposed dwelling but these are not shown on the site plan or elevations. The applicant has advised they do not form part of this application and any approval will be conditioned accordingly.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to wall height, side and rear setback and visual privacy. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 130 and 134 Alderbury Street as well as two properties to the rear being Nos 3 and 5 Lichendale Street. Two submissions were received. One, from the owners of No. 130 Alderbury Street, sought clarification regarding the level of overshadowing from the proposal. The applicant provided this neighbour with additional information and the adjoining landowner was then satisfied with the proposal. The second submission, from the owners of No. 134 Alderbury Street objected to the proposal on the basis of it being too large and inappropriate for the shape of the site. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

3.1 metres from upper storey to left/northern side boundary

2.491 metres

Rear setback

6.0 metres from rear/eastern boundary

2.005 metres




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

The proposed dwelling has an "L" shaped design which takes advantage of the northern aspect to the left/side boundary. The rear half of the dwelling is single storey. The upper storey section sits adjacent to the adjoining two storey dwelling on the left/northern side. This length of wall is 10.5 metres long and contains a major opening to the master bedroom window. This results in the upper storey setback variation. The unobscured bedroom window and front balcony overlooks the open front garden, driveway and parking area of the adjoining property to the north. The wall is also set at an angle to the boundary so that the setback ranges from 2.491 metres to 3.595 metres.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 It is noted that the adjoining property originally owned both blocks and undertook a subdivision/amalgamation application in 2014 to relocate their southern boundary approximately two metres further south to allow for parking and manoeuvring of vehicles (including a caravan) on their site and to match the line of a newly constructed limestone boundary wall. The southern property (the subject) site was subsequently sold. It is worth noting that the proposed development would comply with setback requirements if taken from the original boundary line. This is only mentioned in order to demonstrate that there is a significant distance from the dwelling on the adjoining northern property. In addition, a large caravan is parked on the side of the dwelling, effectively screening the dwelling from the proposed dwelling to the south. As the proposed dwelling is to the south of the adjoining property, there is no adverse impact in terms of access to light and ventilation. In terms of the rear setback, this is to the single storey section of the dwelling containing a laundry and pantry only. The section of building intruding into the rear setback area is approximately 20 square metres. Due to the "L" shape of the dwelling, with the two storey section of dwelling being approximately 21 metres from the rear boundary, an average of 6.0 metres is maintained. This section of building is on the southern side of the site, approximately 12 metres from the side boundary and it is considered that building bulk is minimised. The single storey building has minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms of loss of privacy or access to light and ventilation. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side and rear boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the side and rear setback variations have minimal impact on adjoining properties in terms

of building bulk, access to sunlight and loss of privacy. Building height Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Wall height

Max 6.0 metres 6.47 metres

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance. The existing dwelling on the subject site has a finished floor level of 11.45 metres. The proposed dwelling has a proposed floor level of 11.57 metres. The dwellings to either side have finished floor levels of 11.57 to 11.74 metres. The proposed floor level therefore seems appropriate for the site. As the proposed dwelling has a larger footprint than the existing dwelling, the dwelling is cut in at the rear and built up at the front. This results in wall heights for the dwelling of 5.7 metres and at the rear through to a maximum of 6.47 metres in the front/right corner of the dwelling. On the front/left corner of the dwelling, the wall height is 6.16 metres.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The applicant has provided overshadowing plans to the adjoining landowner to the south which demonstrates that the overheight section of wall will not overshadow active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas and this landowner does not object to the proposal. The proposed dwelling is consistent with the bulk and scale of this recently constructed dwelling. In view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed height of the development satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the wall height variation occurs only in the front southern corner of the building and will

not result in any undue impact on neighbouring properties or the street. Visual privacy Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Ground floor guest bedroom window (more than 0.5 metres above NGL) Upper floor Bedroom 1 window

Min 4.5 metres from left/northern side boundary

3.5 metres 3.5 metres

Ground floor front terrace (more than 0.5 metres above NGL) Upper floor balcony

Min 7.5 metres from the left/northern side boundary


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

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

blinds, window hoods and shutters).

As stated previously, the adjoining property to the north is setback approximately 6.0 metres from the boundary. Within this side space is a driveway and parking area for vehicles and a large caravan. The proposed major openings, on the front corner of the proposed dwelling, overlook these areas and not active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas. The one major opening in the side of the adjoining property to the north is screened by the location of the parked caravan. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the proposed bedroom windows, balcony and terrace from the northern side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:-



• the location of the windows, terrace and balcony overlook the open front garden and parking areas on the adjoining property to the north and not active habitable spaces or outdoor living areas.











Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling as submitted by Romano Homes at Lot 2 (No. 132) Alderbury Street, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 16 November 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the garden walls, fencing and retaining shown on the perspectives but not the site

plan or elevations do not form part of this approval. A separate planning approval will be required;

(ii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white ('Surfmist') colorbond;

(iii) a minimum of 60% of the front setback area to be landscaped to the satisfaction of the Town;

(iv) the crossover to be no wider than 6.0 metres (excluding splays).

Carried 5/0



DV16.13 LOT 889 (NO. 20C) JUKES WAY, WEMBLEY - PROPOSED TWO STOREY DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 20C Jukes Way, Wembley. Council refused an application for a two storey dwelling at its meeting held on 28 July 2015. The plans submitted have addressed some of the concerns raised with the previous application, in particular front setback, building height and roof pitch. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback, outdoor living area and visual privacy design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. In addition, a street tree is proposed to be removed for the crossover. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the boundary wall is for the garage only and is not directly adjacent to any north facing

windows in the adjoining property to the south; • the outdoor living area is capable of use in conjunction with the main internal living areas

of the dwelling and is open to winter sun; • the crossover provides legible vehicular access to the site and a mature peppermint

street will be retained; • there is no overlooking into the private living areas of neighbouring properties from the

front balcony and any further screening of the balcony would increase its bulk to the detriment of the streetscape.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 486DA-2015 Owner: Mr C Hayes and Ms M Hori Applicant: Mr C Hayes and Ms M Hori Zoning: Residential R30 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 270 m² The subject lot is one of three lots created from the subdivision of No. 20 Jukes Way, located on a bend in Jukes Way. A two storey dwelling has been approved for the corner lot of the subdivision and is under construction. This dwelling has its primary street setback on the eastern street frontage, and its secondary street on the northern street frontage. The subject lot faces the eastern street frontage and therefore has the primary street setback requirements. No plans have been submitted for the lot facing the northern street frontage. Council considered an application for a two storey dwelling at No. 20C Jukes Way at its meeting held on 28 July 2015 (DV15.86) and decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:- (i) the setback of the upper floor master bedroom does not meet the deemed to comply

requirements of the Town's Streetscape Policy or the design principles of the R Codes;


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (ii) the upper floor setback does not contribute to the established streetscape; (iii) the nil setback to the garage does not meet the deemed to comply provisions of the

Town's Buildings on the Boundary Policy or the design principles of the R Codes relating to lot boundary setback;

(iv) the garage has an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property as it increases building bulk and overshadowing;

(v) the flat roof over the master bedroom does not meet the deemed to comply provisions or design principles relating to roof pitch in Wembley under the Town's Policy 3.1: Streetscape;

(vi) the wall height of the dwelling does not meet the deemed to comply provisions of the Town's Building Height Policy or the design principles of the R Codes;

(vii) the height of the wall on the southern elevation has an adverse impact on the adjoining property;

(viii) the outdoor living area does not have sufficient area that is uncovered;

(ix) collectively, these variations represent a development that is incompatible with the planning controls for the area.

The applicant subsequently met with the owners of the adjoining property to the south and also the Town's Planning Officers to discuss amendments to the plans to address the concerns raised at the July Council meeting, rather than appealing the Council's decision at the State Administrative Tribunal. Amendments to the plans were completed and a fresh application was submitted on 8 December 2015. It is this application that is the subject of the following report. The main changes to the plan include an increase in the upper floor setback, no flat roof over the garage and therefore a reduction in the height of the boundary wall, and an increase in the setback of the dwelling from the south side boundary (apart from the boundary wall). DETAILS:

Development description • The site is cleared and relatively flat. It is rectangular in shape, with a frontage of 12.8

metres and a depth of 21.2 metres. There are two street trees in front of the site, being a large peppermint tree on the north side, and a smaller ficus tree on the southern side.

• The proposed development is a two storey dwelling with a pitched roof and double garage with a nil setback from the south side boundary. The garage boundary wall is 3.0 metres in height and 6.8 metres in length.

• Landscaping in the front setback area comprises approximately 50% which is acceptable provided two mature trees are planted. A condition is included in this regard.

• There are two trees located in the verge in front of the site, one on the northern side being a large peppermint tree, and the other on the southern side being a small ficus tree. The latter ficus tree is proposed to be removed to accommodate the crossover. Due to the location of the garage and driveway, designing the crossover around this tree would be difficult. The Town's Infrastructure Services has advised that the ficus tree could be removed.

• An open style fence is proposed around the courtyard in front of the guest bedroom. There is a minor variation to distance between piers and width of a pier to accommodate



a meter box, however, the fence as a whole is open style and consistent with the intent of the Town’s fencing requirements.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions and a response to the neighbour objection received. A summary of the applicant’s comments is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the properties adjoining the north and south side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 30 and 30A Jukes Way to the south and No. 20B Jukes Way to the north. One submission was received from the owners of No. 30 Jukes Way objecting to the proposed development. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. The owners of the adjoining property to the north (No. 20B Jukes Way) offered no objections to the development, including an upper floor side setback variation. The setback of the upper floor from the north side boundary satisfies design principles and is not further discussed in this report. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback – south

Min 1.0 metre for garage Nil





The proposed boundary wall for the garage, adjacent to the south side boundary, is 6.8 metres long and is not directly adjacent to any north facing windows or private living area in the adjoining property to the south. Compared with the previous refused plans, the carport now has a pitched rather than flat roof, which has reduced the height of the boundary wall by 0.5 metres. This in turn has reduced the bulk impact of the wall.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Overshadowing has been raised as a concern by the owners of the adjoining property to the south. As previously stated, the boundary wall is not directly adjacent to any north facing windows or private living area in the adjoining property to the south. Furthermore, the setback of the remainder of the ground floor complies with the R-Codes and the upper floor, which determines the majority of overshadowing, is set back further from the south side boundary than the minimum R-Code requirements. The extent of shadow cast at 12 midday on 21st June is less than the minimum R-Code requirements. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed nil setback of the garage from the south side boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the boundary wall is for the garage only and is not directly adjacent to any north facing

windows or private living area in the adjoining property to the south. Outdoor living areas Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Open space

At least 2/3 of the required area without permanent roof cover

53% of the required outdoor living area is without permanent roof cover

Design principles: Outdoor living areas which provide spaces: • capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling; • open to winter sun and ventilation; and • optimise use of the northern aspect of the site.

The outdoor living area at the rear of the dwelling is readily accessible from both the family and dining rooms. It is located on the northern side of the property and is therefore open to winter sun and ventilation. With regard to optimising the use of the northern aspect of the site, the family room has no openings on the north side and the alfresco will block northern sun reaching the dining room. Instead, the dining room has a large window facing west. The upper floor void, however, will bring northern light into the dwelling. Overall, reducing the roof component of the outdoor living area by 3.4 m2 to fully meet the deemed-to-comply requirements is unlikely to significantly improve the outdoor living space, rather it will reduce the effective area that can be used for an outdoor lounge or dining setting. The dwelling is set back 1.89 metres from the rear boundary so there is uncovered area adjacent to the outdoor living area that can be used for landscaping and relief from the covered areas. In addition, the large front courtyard, which is 23m2, fenced, uncovered and directly accessible from the guest bedroom, will serve the same function. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed outdoor living area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the outdoor living area is capable of use in conjunction with the main internal living areas

of the dwelling; and • the outdoor living area is on the north side of the lot and is therefore open to winter sun.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Visual privacy Deemed-to-comply provision Proposed

Front balcony Min 7.5 metres from the lot

boundary behind the front setback area

Min 5.7 metres from southern side boundary Min 1.2 metres from northern side boundary

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

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

blinds, window hoods and shutters).

The owners of the adjoining property to the south have objected to the visual privacy variation from the front balcony. Overlooking extends over the southern neighbour's front yard that is open and visible to the street. No objections to the proposed development have been received from the owners of the adjoining property to the north. The front balcony predominantly overlooks the roof of the garage on the adjoining property to the north rather than any private living areas. The privacy variations to both sides are therefore considered acceptable. Requiring screens would further increase the bulk of this balcony which is intended to be only a minor incursion in the front setback area. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the location of the proposed front balcony from the side boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • there is no overlooking into private living areas of neighbouring properties from the front

balcony; and • further screening of the balcony will increase its bulk which would be detrimental to the

streetscape.












Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a two storey dwelling submitted by Mr C Hayes and Ms M Hori at Lot 889 (No. 20C) Jukes Way, Wembley as shown on the plans dated 29 January 2016, subject to the following conditions:- (i) the surface finish of the boundary wall facing the adjoining property to the south to

be face brickwork to the satisfaction of the Town;

(ii) landscaping in the front setback area to comply with the provisions of clause 3.1.9: Landscaping of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. Specifically, two (2) mature trees, being a minimum 45 litre bag or a minimum of 2 metres in height and diameter, to be provided within the front setback area. Landscaping to be installed within three (3) months of the occupation of the dwelling;

(iii) the tree located on the northern side of the verge directly adjacent to the subject

site to be retained; (iv) the infill panels of the fencing and gate in the front setback area to have a surface

with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1;

(v) the alfresco to remain unenclosed on two sides; (vi) the crossover to be no wider than 4.5 metres (including splays). Carried 5/0



DV16.14 LOT 693 (NO. 12) LILIKA ROAD, CITY BEACH - PROPOSED ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL STOREY

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for additions and alterations to the dwelling at No. 12 Lilika Road, City Beach. The plans show an additional storey with a master suite, ensuite, retreat, study and roof deck, and minor additions and alterations to the existing two levels. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against building height design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes). The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the dwelling presents as a stepped two storey development which is consistent with the

desired height and scale of dwellings in the locality; and • the additional storey creates no significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining

properties or the streetscape.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0037DA-2016 Owner: Ms E Tobias and Ms S Krishnan Applicant: Nexus Home Improvements Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 893m2 At its meeting held on 15 December 2015, Council considered an application for additions and alterations, including a third level at the subject site and decided to refuse the application for the following reasons:- (i) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's Policy 3.3

Building Height and the design principles of part 5.1.6 of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia;

(ii) the three storey height is not consistent with the desired height and scale of dwellings in

the locality and will therefore create an adverse impact on the streetscape. In response to this decision, the applicant has submitted a new application and plans showing an additional storey with a reduced size and set back further from the ground floor therefore presenting as two storey at any point rather than three storey as proposed in the original application that was refused at the December 2015 meeting. It is this application that is the subject of the following report.



Development description • The existing dwelling is two storey, with a partly enclosed carport (garage) and games

room on the ground floor and the remainder of the dwelling, including a front balcony, contained in the upper floor.

• There is a slope from Lilika Road (west corner) up to the rear boundary (east corner) of approximately 3.0 metres. The established levels have the garage and games room at a slightly higher level than the driveway and crossover. The backyard levels at the rear of the games room match the games room, and then there are steps up to the higher level of the upper floor. The rear pool area is at a higher level than the ground floor.

• The main component of the proposal is a new floor above the existing footprint but set back further from the north-west side boundary. The additional storey comprises a master bedroom, ensuite, retreat, and study, with an open roof deck on the north-western side.

• Minor alterations to the lower two floors are proposed to accommodate an internal staircase and create an open plan living area. No modifications are proposed to the front and rear yards.

Applicant's justification Nil. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of twelve properties directly adjoining and in the vicinity of the subject site of the previous application which showed a building height of up to 9.35 metres. No objections were received. With this application, the owners of the subject site undertook their own consultation process, approaching the owners of the properties directly adjoining the north-west and south-east side boundaries in relation to visual privacy and side setback variations. The neighbours viewed the plans and no objections were received. It was considered that advertising to all neighbours again was not required given this proposal has less height impact and previously no objections were received. The proposed visual privacy and upper floor side setbacks satisfy the design principles and are therefore supported. Overlooking from the roof deck to the north-west side is generally to the neighbour's garage, clothes drying area and areas visible from the street. Overlooking from the master bedroom window to the south-east side is to the neighbour's driveway and areas visible from the street. The setback of the upper floor from the south-east side boundary is for 14 metre long wall with no major openings. There is a difference in level between the subject site and the adjoining property to the south-east, with the latter being at a lower level. The total amount of overshadowing is less than the R-Codes deemed-to-comply requirements. The upper floor is set back 15.8 metres from the street and 3.2 metres from the front of the south-east neighbour's house and does not extend for the full length of the floor below. This assists in reducing the bulk impact of the structure on the neighbouring property. Furthermore, building height facing the south-east side complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements. The visual privacy and setback variations are not further discussed in this report.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Assessment against the design principles Building height Deemed-to-comply

provision

Proposed

Overall (roof) height

Max 7.5 metres South-west (front): 7.5 to 8.66 (at a small corner) to 6.2 metres North-west (left) side: 7.5 metres to top of privacy screen for roof deck South-east (right) side: 6.2 metres North-east (rear): 6.2 metres to 7.5 metres

Design principles: Building height that creates no adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape, including road reserves and public open space reserves; and where appropriate maintains: • adequate access to direct sun into buildings and appurtenant open spaces; • adequate daylight to major openings into habitable rooms; and • access to views of significance.

The existing dwelling is a two level dwelling, with a garage and games room on the ground floor on the north-west side and the living areas and bedrooms on the upper floor. The upper floor is accessed via steps from the front yard. The levels of the neighbouring properties on both sides are lower than the subject site adjacent to the dwelling. The previous plans showed an additional level covering the width of the dwelling, which would result in the dwelling presenting as three storeys from the front, left side and part of the rear elevation. The current plans show the additional floor predominantly covering the existing upper floor on the south-east side, so building height is less than 7.5 metres. There is only a small corner of the new floor above the lower level of the garage resulting in a building height of 8.66 metres. This corner is facing the street and set back from the side neighbouring properties, and therefore does not present any adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining properties or the streetscape. A roof deck is proposed above the garage and existing upper floor on the north-west side. As this deck is open and unroofed, the height is measured to the top of its privacy screen and is in compliance with the deemed-to-comply requirements. The roof deck is set back 17 metres from the street and will not be easily visible from the street. Overall, the proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the dwelling presents as a stepped two storey development, which is consistent with the

desired height and scale of dwellings in the locality; and • the additional storey creates no significant adverse impact on the amenity of adjoining

properties or the streetscape. Materials of construction The plans submitted show that the proposed additional storey will be clad in Colorbond Maxline 340. The colour will be 'Monument', which is a dark grey. The Town's Local Law 43, Building on Endowment Lands and Limekilns Estate requires:-



All single storey single occupancy dwelling houses and all buildings other than dwelling houses shall be constructed of brick, stone, concrete or similar material, or of brick veneer.

The design principle used to assess variations to the materials of construction clause is:-

Materials of a high quality finish may be used, which result in buildings of a high architectural and structural standard.

The plans show a high quality finish for the dwelling, with the existing ground and upper levels to be rendered and the additional storey to be clad in a dark colour Colorbond material. This colour is unlikely to result in reflectivity issues for the neighbouring properties. The local law specifies that zincalume and off-white (Surfmist) Colorbond are reflective materials and are not permitted. It is common today to see dwellings incorporate a wide range of materials such as cladding in a dwelling to break up building bulk and provide interest to the façade and overall design. The proposed materials of construction are therefore supported.









Nil


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations, including an additional storey, submitted by Nexus Home Improvements at Lot 693 (No. 12) Lilika Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 1 February 2016 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the visual privacy screening for the roof deck to be designed to restrict views to the

neighbouring property to the north-west in accordance with the deemed-to-comply



provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the completion of the additions;

(ii) the external cladding not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;

(iii) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members requested that the applicant give consideration to retention of the tree in the front setback area. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That a footnote be added to the motion as follows:- 1. The applicant to give consideration to retaining the tree located in the front setback area. Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for additions and alterations, including an additional storey, submitted by Nexus Home Improvements at Lot 693 (No. 12) Lilika Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 1 February 2016 subject to the following conditions:- (i) the visual privacy screening for the roof deck to be designed to restrict views to

the neighbouring property to the north-west in accordance with the deemed-to-comply provisions of clause 5.4.1 ‘Visual Privacy’ of the Residential Design Codes of Western Australia and to be installed prior to the completion of the additions;

(ii) the external cladding not to be zincalume or off-white (‘Surfmist’) Colorbond;

(iii) the tree located on the verge directly adjacent to the subject site to be retained. Footnote: 1. The applicant to give consideration to retaining the tree located in the front setback

area. Carried 5/0



DV16.15 LOT 1441 (NO. 10) GLENGARIFF DRIVE, FLOREAT - POOL HOUSE TO REAR OF DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a pool house to the rear of the existing dwelling at No. 10 Glengariff Drive, Floreat. The plans show a structure to be constructed in the rear corner of the site with a nil setback to the left/western side boundary and a 1.5 metre setback to the rear boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the side and rear setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is, subject to modification, considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the building does not impact on access to direct sun to habitable rooms or outdoor living

areas of adjoining properties and does not have any adverse impact on the adjoining property.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval with conditions.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0470DA-2015 Owner: Mr BM Augustson and Mrs DL Augustson Applicant: Blake Willis Landscape Architects Pty Ltd Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 863 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing two storey dwelling with high pitched Colorbond roof. Existing swimming pool to

rear of dwelling. • Site has a natural slope up from front to rear of approximately 0.5 metres and up from left

to right of approximately 2.0 metres but has been levelled with retaining walls at sides and rear to retain cut in level.

• Proposed pool house to rear of existing pool with a 40 degree pitched Colorbond roof to match dwelling. The ridge of the pool house roof reaches a maximum height of 5.435 metres. The pool house is proposed to have a 2.7 metre high wall with a box gutter on top reaching an overall height of 3.3 metres abutting the western side boundary. The structure has a setback of 1.5 metres from the rear boundary.

• A 2.8 metre high feature screen wall runs across the rear of the pool house and across the rear of the garden with a "moon" window and is set back 1.5 metres from the boundary. This wall is approximately one metre higher than the 1.8 metre dividing fence. This wall meets setback requirements for a 'privacy screen' under the Town's Buildings on Boundary policy.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 • The setback of the pool house to the rear boundary is considered to meet design

principles, being on the southern side of the adjoining property. The adjoining owners to the rear do not have any objection to the pool house. On this basis, the rear setback variation is not discussed further in this report.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the pool house. A summary of the submission is attached to the agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the three properties directly adjoining the rear boundary of the subject site, being No. 4 Kildare Road, No. 3 Clanmel Road and No. 12 Glengariff Drive. One submission was received from the owners of No. 12 Glengariff Drive objecting to the parapet wall and impact on their property. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.0 metre setback from left/western side boundary

Nil





The proposed pool house is to be constructed in the rear corner of the site. It has a nil setback to the western side boundary and the overall height of the wall, including the boxed gutter above it, is 3.3 metres. This is more than one and a half metres higher than the existing boundary fence. The adjoining property has been developed with a two storey house but retained the original garage from the previous dwelling which runs along the northern boundary of their site and is setback a short distance from the side boundary. The proposed new pool house will predominantly abut up to this structure and the open paved area adjacent to it. It is not considered that the proposed pool house will have a significant impact on access to direct sun to the major openings and outdoor living areas of the adjoining property.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 It is considered, however, that the sheer height and bulk of the proposed pool house, when combined with its highly pitched roof which reaches a maximum height of 5.54 metres, does have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining property. Should the pool house have had a flat roof, then the bulk impact for the neighbouring property would be far less. It is therefore recommended the structure be set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from the left/western side boundary. This will align the pool house with the edge of the swimming pool instead of the fence. Alternatively, Council could refuse the application as proposed. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that, subject to the pool house being setback from the boundary, the proposal satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the building does not impact on access to direct sun to habitable rooms or outdoor living

areas of adjoining properties and does not have any adverse impact on the adjoining property.











Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a pool house as submitted by Blake Willis Landscape Architects Pty Ltd at Lot 1441 (No. 10) Glengariff Drive, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 26 November 2015, subject to the following condition:- (i) the pool house being set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from the western side boundary.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members queried the size of the pool house and the screen wall along the rear boundary. Amendment Moved by Cr O'Connor, seconded by Mayor Shannon That further clauses be added to the motion as follows:- (ii) the open sides of the pool house to remain open and not be enclosed; (iii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white ('Surfmist') colorbond. Amendment carried 4/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a pool house as submitted by Blake Willis Landscape Architects Pty Ltd at Lot 1441 (No. 10) Glengariff Drive, Floreat as shown on the plans dated 26 November 2015, subject to the following condition:- (i) the pool house being set back a minimum of 1.0 metre from the western side

boundary; (ii) the open sides of the pool house to remain open and not be enclosed; (iii) the roof material not to be zincalume or off-white ('Surfmist') colorbond. Carried 5/0



DV16.16 LOT 16 (NO. 184) RAILWAY PARADE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - FRONT FENCE

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a front fence at (No. 184 Railway Parade, West Leederville. The plans show a 1.7 metre limestone wall across half of the frontage with a visually permeable open gate across the driveway and for the pedestrian gate. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the fencing design principles of the Town's Planning Policy 3.1: Streetscape. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the subject site is on a district distributor road that contains many properties with solid

screening; and • the visually permeable gates across the driveway and pedestrian pathway will assist in

street surveillance and reduce the bulk of the solid fencing. Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0481DA-2015 Owner: C & B Foy Applicant: C & B Foy Zoning: Residential R60 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 465 m2

DETAILS:

Development description • Existing single storey house with hard stand parking at the front of the dwelling (there is

no rear ROW). • Proposal is to replace an existing timber slat fence (with 1:1 permeability but hedge

behind) across the front boundary with a solid limestone wall and to provide visually permeable gates across the driveway and the pedestrian path.

• The site has approximately 50% paving and 50% landscaping within the front setback area with the paving being the hard stand carparking for the site. The paving consists of concrete blocks with landscaping between.

• The proposed solid limestone wall has a height of 1.7 metres and is 5.665 metres long over a 12.172 metre frontage.

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


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Assessment against the design principles Street walls and fences Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Height of a solid wall

Max 0.75 metres 1.7 metres

Design principles: Front fences are low or restricted in height to permit surveillance (as per Clause 5.2.3) and enhance streetscape (as per clause 5.1.2), with appropriate consideration to the need:- • for attenuation of traffic impacts where the street is designated as a primary or district

distributor or integrator arterial; and • for necessary privacy or noise screening for outdoor living areas where the street is

designated as a primary or district distributor or integrator arterial.

Whilst the Town does not generally support solid walls along the front boundary, the design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R Codes) recognise that in the case of dwellings situated on major roads (such as primary or district distributor roads) additional consideration needs to be given to providing some screening from traffic impacts. Railway Parade is a designated distributor road and it is reasonable for residential properties along this stretch of the street to require some screening from traffic noise and headlights. It is noted that the applicant is providing visually permeable gates across the driveway and pedestrian pathway which will assist in street surveillance and reduce the bulk of the solid fencing. In terms of impact on the streetscape, it is noted that numerous residential dwellings along Railway Parade have solid walls within the front setback area and it cannot be described as an 'open' streetscape. The proposal is therefore not out of context with the existing streetscape. In certain circumstances it is considered reasonable to require a wall to be recessed with a planter to assist in reducing the bulk of the solid wall. However, in this case it is considered unnecessary due to the walls short length, the material proposed and because at least half the front boundary remains open with visually permeable gates for their full height. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed fencing in the front setback area satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the subject site is on a district distributor road that contains many properties with solid

screening; and • the visually permeable gates across the driveway and pedestrian pathway will assist in

street surveillance and reduce the bulk of the solid fencing.










1. Summary of applicant's justification


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a front fence as submitted by C and B Foy at Lot 16 (No. 184) Railway Parade, West Leederville as shown on the plans dated 7 December 2016, subject to the following condition:- (i) the infill panels of the gates to the driveway and pedestrian path to be visually

permeable with a surface with an open to solid ratio of no less than 4:1. Carried 5/0



DV16.17 LOT 1 (NO. 15) BENDIGO WAY, CITY BEACH - PERGOLA

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for a pergola at No. 15 Bendigo Way, City Beach. The plans show a series of timber slats attached to the eastern side of the dwelling. The pergola is intended to grow vines and does not have support posts or a solid roof cover. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the pergola is a simple, light-weight structure with no solid roofing material or boundary

posts, and attached to an existing two storey dwelling wall, hence the visual impact upon the adjoining property to the east will not be significant.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for approval subject to no solid roof covering being installed, aside from vines, to the satisfaction of the Town.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0485DA-2015 Owner: Mrs KN Thistlethwaite and Mr PD Thistlethwaite Applicant: Kareena Nicole Thistlethwaite Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 755m2 DETAILS:

Development description • The subject lot is a flat site containing an existing two storey dwelling with a swimming

pool. The site abuts parkland to the rear/south. • The 'pergola' is to be installed along the eastern side of the dwelling. The proposal

consists of 12 x timber slats positioned perpendicular to the wall. The slats are attached to the wall by metal chains and as such there are no posts proposed.

• The base of the timber slats are to be positioned 3 metres above the existing natural ground level immediately below (which is a side access pathway). The top of the steel support chains are 3.5 metres above ground level.

• The timber slats are 1.5 metres in length, and hence project to the boundary line. The plans show a slat width of approximately 150 millimetres.

• The applicant is intending to use the pergola to grow vines and is not proposing any solid roofing material.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification outlining the rationale behind this proposal. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the property directly adjoining the eastern boundary of the subject site, being No. 13 Bendigo Way, City Beach. One submission was received from these owners raising concerns in respect to the visual impact of the structure (projecting above the fence line) and overshadowing. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback

Min 1.5 metres Nil (to the edge of the timber slats, no support posts are proposed)





Under the R-Codes, pergolas are not defined as building structures and therefore are not subject to lot boundary setback requirements. However, under the Town's Buildings on the Boundary policy (Policy 3.2), privacy screens and other structures over 2 metres high are to be set back from side and rear lot boundaries in accordance with the 'lot boundary setback' provisions of the R-Codes. The exact wording of this policy requirement is as follows: - Privacy screens and other structures over two metres high behind the front setback line: • are considered in accordance with the boundary setback acceptable development

requirements outlined in Table 2 of the R-Codes; and • are not to exceed 3.5 metres in height above natural ground level. The pergola is a very light-weight structure, comprising of a series of timber beams, each of which are individually affixed to the wall via a chain. Given that no solid roofing cover or boundary support posts are proposed, the visual impact of this proposal is less significant than a typical pergola/patio structure. In this sense, the proposal could be considered more akin to a dwelling eave, which under the R-Codes can project 750 millimetres into a setback area. The pergola is attached to an existing two storey dwelling wall, meaning there will be no additional overshadowing impact upon the adjoining property, however in any case the shadow cast by direct (i.e. northern) sun would be negligible due to the north-south orientation of both


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 properties. The applicant is envisaging growing vines on the structure, hence this may also assist with reducing the blank, relatively unarticulated appearance of the existing two storey wall as viewed from the eastern side property. The neighbour's concerns regarding the visual intrusion of the pergola, however, are noted. The pergola is 3.5 metres above ground level and will project approximately 700 to 800 millimetres above the existing fence line (refer to 'Elevation 2' plan), and will be visible from the primary outdoor living area of the eastern property. As such, it is recommended that a condition of approval be included to restrict any roof covering of the pergola, aside from vines, to prevent any future modification of the pergola that may impact negatively upon the visual amenity of the neighbour's outdoor living area. It is also recommended that the width of each slat be restricted to no more than 150 millimetres (as is shown on the plans), to ensure that the light-weight appearance of the proposal is maintained. Overall in view of the above comments, and notwithstanding the neighbour concerns, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side/eastern boundary satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the pergola is a simple, light-weight structure with no solid roofing material or boundary

posts, and attached to an existing two storey dwelling wall, hence the visual impact upon the adjoining property to the east will not be significant.









1. Summary of applicant's justification and neighbour comment.



Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for a pergola submitted by Kareena Nicole Thistlethwaite at Lot 1 (No. 15) Bendigo Way, City Beach, as shown on the plans dated 8 December 2015, subject to the following conditions:- (i) no roofing material is permitted to the pergola, aside from the growing of vines, to

the satisfaction of the Town. Any other proposed roofing material is to be the subject of an additional amended planning application to the Town; and

(ii) the pergola slats are not to exceed 150 millimetres in width. Carried 5/0



DV16.18 LOT 420 (NO. 5) ADINA ROAD, CITY BEACH - RETROSPECTIVE APPROVAL FOR SHADE SAILS TO REAR OF DWELLING

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for retrospective approval for two shade sails at No. 5 Adina Road, City Beach. The plans show the shade sails attached to the rear of the dwelling and to parts setback 0.8 metres from the rear boundary. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the rear setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes) and the Town's Planning Policies and an objection has been received during the consultation period. The proposal is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reasons:- • the height and proximity of the shade sails from the rear boundary has a detrimental

impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining landowner.

Accordingly, the proposal is recommended for refusal.

BACKGROUND:

Application: 0496DA-2015 Owner: Ms LM Hammond Applicant: Lucie Mai Hammond Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 832 m2

A two storey dwelling was approved on the subject site in 2012 under delegated authority as the proposal, subject to minor variations to the side boundary setback which were supported by the adjoining landowner, met the requirements and design principles of the R Codes. The dwelling met deemed to comply criteria for lot boundary and visual privacy setbacks to the rear boundary. In November 2015 the Town's Compliance Services sent a 'Request to Comply' notice to the owners to submit an application for planning approval for two shade sails that were constructed in close proximity to the rear boundary. DETAILS:

Development description • Existing two storey dwelling set back approximately 8.65 metres from the rear boundary. • Site slopes down from the front/north (Adina Road) to the rear/southern boundary • Two shade sails attached to the rear of the dwelling and stretching across the rear back

garden and pool area to posts set back 0.8 metres from the rear boundary. • Where the shade sails are attached to the dwelling, they reach a maximum height of 3.4

metres. The posts along the rear setback range in height from 2.2 metres to 3.0 metres. • The two shade sails are in a dark grey shade cloth material.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Applicant's justification The applicant has provided written justification for the variations to the deemed-to-comply provisions relating to the shade sail setback and height. A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 3 and 7 Adina Road as well as the property to the rear being No. 8 Larundel Road. One submission was received from the owners of No. 8 Larundel Road objecting to shade sails on the basis of loss of privacy (visual and acoustic). A summary of the submission is attached to this agenda. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Rear setback (Policy 3.2: Buildings on boundary Cl. 2.)






Under the R-Codes, shade sails are not defined as building structures and therefore are not subject to lot boundary setback requirements. However, under the Town's Buildings on the Boundary policy (Policy 3.2), privacy screens and other structures over 2 metres high are to be set back from side and rear lot boundaries in accordance with the 'lot boundary setback' provisions of the R-Codes. The exact wording of this policy requirement is as follows:- Privacy screens and other structures over two metres high behind the front setback line:- • are considered in accordance with the boundary setback acceptable development

requirements outlined in Table 2 of the R-Codes; and • are not to exceed 3.5 metres in height above natural ground level.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 There are two shade sails proposed, one (28 square metres in area) is attached to the dwelling and extends out to two poles that are 3.0 metres high and set back 800 mm from the rear fence. The sail is attached 2.2 metres above ground level on the middle pole. The second sail (30 square metres in area) attaches to the dwelling and a separate post and then connects to a 2.2 metre post and to the top of the middle 3.0 metre post. All three posts are set back 800mm from the rear boundary. The total length of shade sail between the three posts is 9.5 metres, hence a setback of 1.5 metres is required from the rear boundary. Where the shade sails are attached to the dwelling, they reach a maximum height (above natural ground level) of 4.4 metres. The shade sails therefore slope down towards the rear boundary. The location of the shade sails does make more effective use of the outdoor living space for the occupants of the building and does not restrict direct sun to the adjoining property nor any impact on the development context or streetscape. The main design principle to address is therefore whether the shade sails have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the rear. The shade sails are currently reasonably screened from the adjoining property by virtue of screen planting on both sides of the dividing fence. The adjoining landowner has the higher screen planting and has not pruned deliberately in order to achieve a higher level of privacy. This planting has been done to screen the outdoor living areas and habitable rooms of the dwelling on the subject property. Although these are approximately 8.5 metres from the rear boundary (and hence meet deemed to comply requirements), due to the difference in ground levels between Adina Road and Larundel Road, the height of the dividing fence and its ability to act as a privacy screen, is reduced. The other issue with the shade sails is that they have been affixed to the dwelling so that they reach a maximum height of 4.4 metres above the ground level at the rear of the property and then slope down to the poles close to the rear boundary. This increases the bulk of sail as viewed from the property to the rear as well as channelling sound down to the rear boundary. The purpose of setbacks from side and rear boundaries it to provide for separation between buildings to enable access to sunlight, ventilation and to assist in protecting privacy and ameliorating the impact of building bulk. The shade sails extending from the higher level of the dwelling to the rear boundary is therefore considered to cause building bulk and have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the rear. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the shade sails from the rear boundary does not satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • the height and proximity of the shade sails from the rear boundary has a detrimental

impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining landowner.






DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 STRATEGIC DIRECTION:




1. Summary of neighbour comment


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1,

Council REFUSES the retrospective application for shade sails as submitted by L Hammond at Lot 420 (No. 5) Adina Road, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 18 December 2015, for the following reasons:- (a) the proposal does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Town's

Policy 3.2: Buildings on the Boundary and the design principles of part 5.1.3 (lot boundary setback) of the Residential Design Codes; and

(b) the height and proximity of the shade sails from the rear boundary has a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the adjoining landowner.

(ii) the shade sails and supporting posts being removed within 30 days of the Council's decision.

Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley



DV16.19 LOT 523 (NO. 14) MARIMBA CRESCENT, CITY BEACH - AVIARY

SUMMARY:

The Town has received an application for an aviary at No. 14 Marimba Crescent, City Beach. The structure is to be located in the rear/north-western corner of the property and has a maximum height of 4.3 metres above ground level, with a length of 10 metres and total area of approximately 35m2. The application requires a Council determination as an assessment is required against the lot boundary setback design principles of the Residential Design Codes of WA (R-Codes), due to the size and non-typical nature of the proposal. The proposal is considered to satisfy the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • despite the size and reduced setbacks of the proposed aviary, its location in the rear

corner of the property away from significant neighbouring outdoor living areas, and generally open-style appearance, is not considered to have a significant bulk impact on adjoining properties.


BACKGROUND:

Application: 0460DA-2015 Owner: Mr MC Trewin Applicant: Michael Christian Trewin Zoning: Residential R12.5 Use class: Dwelling (single) ‘P’ – permitted Land area: 1108m2 This aviary proposal was submitted to the Town in conjunction with a decking proposal, within the same application. Both the aviary and decking were assessed and advertised concurrently. The decking component was approved under delegated authority in January 2016, as it was considered a minor addition to the dwelling which satisfied design principles for visual privacy following consultation with the adjoining land owner. The aviary is large in size and was considered to be a building structure subject to setback requirements applicable to dwellings, outbuildings and the like. Typically, aviaries would be considered minor structures but in most instances would be smaller than this proposal. The Town's proposed revised Animals Local Law (subject to a report on this agenda) stipulates a maximum height of 2 metres for miscellaneous bird enclosures. The proposed aviary structure is, therefore, the subject of the following report. DETAILS:

Development description • The subject site slopes up approximately 7 metres from front (south) to rear (north). The

site contains an existing circa-1960s single storey dwelling.



• The proposal is located within the rear north-western corner of the property within an existing retained garden area. The existing ground level beneath the aviary has a slope of approximately 2 metres.

• Two birds are proposed to be housed within the aviary. The applicant has advised that the birds are a rare parrot species in Western Australia, with around 100 in captivity.

• Materials of construction are to mostly comprise of a black metal frame and mesh covering. The rear/northern side of the enclosure is to be Colorbond.

• Due to the difference in ground level, the aviary ranges in height between 2.6 metres (rear) and 4.3 metres (front).

• Boundary setbacks are the main area of non-compliance, with a side/western setback of 0.3 metres (1.5 metres required) and rear/north setback of 1.2 metres (6 metres required). This is discussed in more detail under design principles below.

• The Town's Environmental Health Services have reviewed the proposal and have not identified any issues with the location of the aviary, as well as the number and type of birds proposed. The Town's current Local Laws only pertain to chickens and pigeons in respect to permitted numbers per property, and the separation of pens/aviaries from adjoining properties. The Town's proposed revised Animals Local Law (subject to a report on this agenda), however, stipulates a maximum height of 2 metres for miscellaneous bird enclosures.

Applicant's justification The applicant has provided a written summary of the proposal and has outlined the rationale behind the location and size of the aviary. A summary of the applicant’s justification is attached to this agenda. Neighbour submission The Town notified the owners of the two properties directly adjoining the side/western and rear/northern boundaries of the subject site, being Nos. 16 Marimba Crescent, City Beach and No. 9 Takari Crescent, City Beach. No submissions from either neighbour were received at the close of the advertising period. Assessment against the design principles Lot boundary setback Deemed-to-comply provision

Proposed

Side setback (West)

Min 1.5 metres 0.3 metres

Rear setback (North)

Min 6 metres 1.2 metres



areas; • does not compromise the design principle contained in 5.1.3 P3.1;



• does not have any adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property; • ensures direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas for


The overall maximum height of 4.3 metres is considered to be higher than a typical structure of this nature. The excess height is required due to the existing natural slope within the rear setback area of the property, and also to allow for the minimum vertical clearance required for the bird species. Due to this significant slope the overall height ranges between 2.6 and 4.3 metres over a length of 10 metres, this equates to an average height of approximately 3.5 metres. It is noted that the Town permits structures (other than 'buildings') to be up to 3.5 metres in height with a nil boundary setback (Policy 3.2: Buildings on the Boundary). The aviary is flat roofed and is to comprise mostly of metal bars and mesh, and therefore will be a somewhat open-style structure (aside from the Colourbond backing material). Because of this the structure could be viewed in a similar fashion to an outbuilding, being a non-habitable structure located toward the rear of the property. The aviary is positioned in the rear corner of the subject site, and as such its impact on adjoining properties will be less significant. It is noted that directly adjacent to the proposed structure on the adjoining property is a garden area which does not appear to be frequently used and in any case would not be considered an outdoor 'living area'. It is also noted that the adjoining property to the west contains a vine structure along the boundary, projecting above the dividing fence, for a significant length of the property boundary. The rear/northern site is raised further above the subject site and the aviary would be further screened by existing vegetation on that property. A compliant 1.5 metre boundary setback would not result in any significant improvement in terms of visual amenity because of the existing topography, and the height of the existing dividing fence, meaning the aviary would still be visible from adjoining properties. The applicant has stated that an increased setback is not possible in this instance given the size of the aviary required for the species of bird, as well as the location of the structure adjacent to an existing retaining wall and existing mature vegetation. The location of the structure on the western boundary ensures that there will be no issues relating to overshadowing. It is noted the adjoining property owners to the west and north were consulted on the setback variation, however no comments were received within the consultation period. Overall in view of the above comments, it is considered that the proposed setback of the development from the side and rear boundaries satisfies the relevant design principles for the following reason:- • despite the size and reduced setbacks of the proposed aviary, its location in the rear

corner of the property away from significant neighbouring outdoor living areas, and generally open-style appearance, is not considered to have a significant bulk impact on adjoining properties.










1. Summary of applicant's justification. Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, the Administration was requested to clarify the bird species prior to the next meeting of Council.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That, in accordance with Part 4 of the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No. 1, Council APPROVES the application for an aviary submitted by Michael Christian Trewin at Lot 523 (No. 14) Marimba Crescent, City Beach as shown on the plans dated 23 November 2015. Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs King, MacRae and O'Connor Against: Cr Bradley



DV16.20 LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY AND REVIEW OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY GUIDELINES - RESOURCING IMPLICATIONS AND TIMEFRAME

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 each local government is to prepare a Local Planning Strategy (LPS) to establish the strategic planning framework for the future of the local government area. The LPS is to give consideration to a diverse range of issues including housing and demographics, transport and infrastructure, commercial activity and employment, tourism, community facilities and the natural environment. It is a high-level strategic document that serves to guide review of the Town Planning Scheme and of planning policies, rather than being a statutory document that changes building controls in itself. The LPS should be prepared in accordance with the format set out by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) in the Local Planning Manual, which includes:-

• Part 1 (the Strategy which contains the vision, objectives and Strategy map); and • Part 2 (Background Analysis).

Recent advice from the Department of Planning has indicated that it is no longer necessary to prepare separate Housing, Commercial or Transport strategies and that instead it is acceptable to prepare an all-encompassing LPS. Once the local government has prepared the LPS and it is endorsed by Council, which is generally a 9 to 12 month process in itself, it is submitted to the WAPC for endorsement prior to formal public advertising. Following advertising, it is then presented back to Council and the WAPC for final endorsement. The total timeframe is estimated to be two years. The preparation of a LPS is a significant project and will require specialist inputs from consultancies to address certain requirements such as commercial and economic analysis and substantial costs are expected in relation to preparation of materials, advertising and consultation. A project officer would be required to focus on completing the project in the proposed timeframe. It is estimated that a budget of approximately $300,000 will be needed to prepare the LPS over the course of two years, in addition to the existing Town Planning Scheme Review budget.

BACKGROUND:

Council adopted a progressive approach to review the Town Planning Scheme at its meeting held on 26 February 2008 (Item DV08.20). This approach was to enable strategic studies and plans, such as the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan, to be implemented in a timely manner upon completion. Further, this was intended to allow for Town Planning Scheme amendments and review of planning policies to occur whilst a LPS and all its component strategies including a Housing Strategy, Commercial Strategy and Transport Strategy were developed over time, an approach which was supported by the Department of Planning. At its meeting held on 25 May 2010, Council adopted a working LPS (DV10.44) to form the basis of the preparation of a more detailed LPS and to provide a guiding framework for the Town's future strategic planning work. At that time, Council was advised that more detailed


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 strategies such as Local Housing Strategy, Commercial Strategy and Transport Strategy would follow, with the aim to have these consolidated into a more comprehensive LPS which would be subject to community consultation. Since this time, the Town has undertaken a number of projects which were intended to inform the preparation of the LPS including the Access and Parking Strategy, Housing Options Study, as well as centre plans such as the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan and Wembley Centre Plan, which were undertaken following direction from the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee. More recently, following a Notice of Motion to Council (Item 12.6) at its meeting held on 24 November 2015, Council resolved that:- (i) The Chief Executive Officer be requested to obtain a report for the February meeting of

Council from the Director of Development and Sustainability as to the resources required and estimated time for completion for an urgent review of the Planning Services including the draft Local Housing Strategy and the Local Planning Strategy and a review of Planning and Development policy guidelines to constrain the height level and building bulk of developments in residential streets and interface between main distributor streets and residential homes; and

(ii) A motion to prioritise an urgent review of the Town’s Local Housing Strategy, Local

Planning Strategy and the Town’s relevant Planning and Development policy guidelines be adopted.

The purpose of this report is to provide information to Council regarding the role and function of an LPS, requirements for preparing a LPS, subsequent resourcing implications and estimated timeframes. DETAILS: Purpose and role of a Local Planning Strategy In accordance with Part 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the Town is to prepare a LPS for its Town Planning Scheme. A LPS is a high level strategic planning document that sets a long-term (10 to 20 year) planning framework for the Town, addressing social, environmental and economic factors which effect land use and development. An LPS is not a statutory planning document, that is, it does not contain specific development requirements, but rather guides decision-making and gives direction to what planning requirements and zoning, in general, should be included or changed in the Town Planning Scheme and other planning mechanisms such as planning policies. The Town Planning Scheme and planning policies would be reviewed upon completion of the LPS. The LPS will also inform what future projects the Town may undertake such as additional detailed plans, studies and projects. The following diagram illustrates the relationship between the LPS and the statutory planning mechanisms which are used to implement the LPS.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Relationship between Local Planning Strategy, Statutory Planning and Development Control The December decision of Council sought a review of Planning and Development policy guidelines to constrain the height level and building bulk of developments in residential streets and interface between main distributor streets and residential homes. Under the planning framework, this would be a separate project to the preparation of an LPS. It would involve the review of the Town Planning Scheme and planning policies, in response to an LPS. It should be noted that in 2015, the Residential Interface Node was introduced into the West Leederville Precinct Policy to prevent future undesirable impact of development along streets such as Northwood Street, West Leederville on the adjoining low residential density areas. This tightened the height and bulk controls. The Wembley Activity Centre Plan also seeks to carefully control future impact of development in the Wembley Centre on the surrounding residential area. There are, however, some gaps in the locations along Cambridge Street where the policy is outdated and non-specific with regard to the outcome of the future built form, for instance, smaller commercial locations along Cambridge Street and a policy review could focus on these areas. Format and content of LPS The Local Planning Manual, which was released by the WAPC in 2010, provides guidance on the preparation of local planning strategies and what an LPS should contain. The Local Planning Manual can be viewed on the Department of Planning website at http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/Local_Planning_Manual.pdf. The WAPC is to review the Local Planning Manual in the near future although it has been advised by the Department of Planning that the existing manual will not change significantly and that it can still be relied upon to give sufficient guidance to the content and structure of Local Planning Strategies. An LPS covers a diverse range of topics which effect land use and development over the Town including demographic analysis; housing; commercial and retail floor space; centres; open space and recreation; transport and infrastructure; community facilities and urban design and heritage. The LPS should profile and assess the current situation, forecast future needs and establish high-level strategies and actions for each topic. Over the past decade, local governments were required to prepare a number of separate strategies on different topics such as a Local Housing Strategy, Commercial Strategy and Transport Strategy and it was on this basis that the Town had embarked on a more incremental approach to prepare a LPS given the high level of resourcing involved in preparing individual strategy. However, more recently the Department of Planning has advised that it is preferable to prepare a consolidated LPS which covers all the above matters in a holistic manner. Accordingly, it is not considered that a separate Local Housing Strategy or other documents such as a Commercial Strategy or Transport Strategy need to be prepared individually.

STRATEGIC PLANS STATUTORY PLANNING INSTRUMENTS

LOCAL PLANNING STRATEGY TOWN PLANNING SCHEME

LOCAL PLANNING POLICIES CENTRE PLANS

URBAN DESIGN STUDIES

DESIGN GUIDELINES LOCAL DEVELOPMENT PLANS

Statutory tools to implement

Strategic Plans

Zoning Density

Land Use

Height Setbacks Building Design


http://www.planning.wa.gov.au/dop_pub_pdf/Local_Planning_Manual.pdf

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 A standard format for a LPS is recommended in the Local Planning Manual which is based on two parts - the “Strategy” (Part one) which includes the strategies, map and actions and “Background Information and Analysis” (Part two) which includes the research and data to support the strategy, as outlined in the diagram below. It is strongly recommended to follow the format outlined in the Local Planning Manual closely so as to assist the WAPC to review the document in a timely manner for public advertising. Further details in relation to the content and format of the LPS are included in the Local Planning Manual. Format of Local Planning Strategy

Timeframe and Process for developing a Local Planning Strategy The following chart outlines the main steps involved preparing an LPS and the estimated timeframes. The WAPC must approve the LPS prior to formal public advertising, although community consultation is encouraged when preparing the LPS. Based on the experience of many other Councils, it would take approximately 9 to 12 months to prepare the LPS to submit to the WAPC to certify for public advertising and approximately two years overall to have a finalised LPS approved by the WAPC. Over the first 9 to 12 months, steps would include appointing consultants, undertaking research and studies, community consultation to input into the LPS, preparing the draft LPS documentation and Council adoption of the draft LPS. However, timeframes will vary depending on the level of community consultation, stakeholder involvement in the process, Council reporting and WAPC response times. In order to have a LPS in place within two years, the process would need to begin in the near future.

Local Planning Strategy

Strategy

Vision and Principles

Objectives

Strategic Plan (Map)

Strategies and Actions (tables)

Background Analysis

Introduction Planning Context

Local

State/ Regional

Local Profile

Physical and Natural environment

Population and Housing

Economy, employment, retail & commercial

Urban Design, Character, Heritage

Transport and Infrastructure

Community Development, Recreation & Open Space

Analysis of Key Issues



Resourcing Implications Tasks involved in preparing a Local Planning Strategy There are a number of components involved in preparing the LPS which are outlined as follows. Some of these tasks can be undertaken in-house, while others will require specialist input from consultants. Consultation with the community will also be an area which requires significant resourcing to organise and undertake consultation activities such as workshops, focus groups and interviews. Tasks/activities Resourcing requirements Background and Analysis Section Desktop based collation of background material, study and research into various topics, demographic profile compilation and analysis, review of state and regional policies.

For the most part a Project officer to undertake research in-house

Specialist research and analysis Some specialist and consultant input for certain topics such as:-

• Population projections/future population profiling (Department of Planning/ABS data may be able to be drawn on);

• Modelling future housing needs; • Assessment of the local economic profile,

identification of future economic role and retail floor space modelling and commercial floor space viability assessment;

• Technical matters such as natural resource management, physical and natural features, water management, climate change and similar topics.

• Audit of infrastructure, traffic and future needs assessment.

STAGE IN PREPARING LPS

LG prepares LPS inc. community consultation

LPS adopted by Council

LPS sent to WAPC for assessment

WAPC instructs modification (if needed) and certifies for advertising

LG formally advertises LPS

LG reviews submissions, presents LPS to Council

LPS forwarded to WAPC for final endorsement

ESTIMATED TIMEFRAMES

9 - 12 months

3- 6 months with WAPC

Advertising: Minimum of 21 days

60 days for WAPC assessment



• Audit of recreational and community facilities and future needs assessment.

Some external consultant expertise will be needed, while other sections of the Town's Administration i.e. Sustainability, Community Development and Technical Services may be needed to provide information.

Document Preparation Preparation of background document (it is expected this would be in the order of 100-150 pages of written material/graphics and maps).

• Mostly in-house by project officer with some consultant inputs

Document formatting/presentation. • Project officer to co-ordinate • Graphic design consultant

Detailed Mapping • Outsourced to graphic artist Document review • Project officer, Senior Planning officers,

Planning Manager, Director Development and Sustainability

Printing • Printing costs Consultation Co-ordinating input/direction from Elected Members (workshops, Council Reports).

• Project officer, Senior Planning officers, Planning Manager, Director Development and Sustainability

• Specialist workshops may be needed requiring consultant input

Community consultation in preparing LPS and then advertising the LPS i.e.

• mail outs; • workshops/focus groups; • community surveys; • on-line consultation; • engagement with key

stakeholder groups.

• Project officer to co-ordinate consultation with administrative assistance for mail outs etc

• Dissemination of material costs • Survey preparation and on-line consultation

to be outsourced • Workshops and/or focus groups - specialist

facilitation and coordination needed • Community consultation engagement officer

(as discussed in the report to this month's Community and Resources Committee Item on Community Engagement)

• Communications Team involvement Preparation of summary material, brochures, discussion papers.

• Project officer to co-ordinate • Graphic design consultant • Communications Team involvement

Engagement with external agencies (state government departments, infrastructure providers).

• Project officer to co-ordinate

Collating and reporting on outcomes of community consultation.

• Project officer, Planning Manager, Director Development and Sustainability

• Specialist consultant input


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Other administrative tasks Preparation of Requests for Quotations and appointment of consultants.

• Project officer • Project officer, Planning Manager, Director

Development and Sustainability • Contracts Officer

Reporting to the Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee and Council in relation to various steps.

• Project officer, Planning Manager, Director Development and Sustainability

Project Plan A specific project timetable or project plan would be need to be prepared to be presented to Council for endorsement, which will depend upon the direction of Council and the budget Council resolves to provide to resourcing this project. The project plan would focus on the preparation of the LPS, that is, the steps up to sending to the WAPC for endorsement to advertise. The plan is needed to clearly identify the roles of various stakeholders, the Town's Planning Services, other directorates, Elected Members, estimated timing of Council items, budgeting, key milestones, a detailed community consultation programme and resourcing. Budget and Expenditure It is estimated that the total cost involved in preparing the LPS will be in the order of $200,000 for the first year, with an additional $100,000 for the following year. This is in addition to any budget allocated to working on existing projects in Strategic Planning. The budget would be allocated to the following components:- Year 1 (2016/17):- • Specialist consultants to undertake specific tasks (as discussed above); • Undertaking community consultation including holding workshops, open days and

surveys if required; • Graphic design work, mapping, and preparation and printing of material; • Advertising and mass distribution of information/brochures; and • Project officer (additional staff resource to be dedicated to the project) - approximately

$85,000.

Year 2 (2017/18):- • Formal advertising processes and further consultation; • Modifications to documentation; • Project officer (additional staff resource to be dedicated to the project) - approximately

$85,000.

A project officer would be required to focus on co-ordinating the project and it is estimated that this position would be required for a two year period. The existing quota of Planning officers are either allocated to development assessment; undertaking statutory processes; or working on existing strategic projects and scheme amendments. These projects and tasks include:- • Wembley Activity Centre Plan (completion of the plan, advertising, developing policy,

future scheme amendment); • Ocean Village Local Centre Plan/ City Beach Precinct Policy review; • Scheme Amendment 27 (proposed modifications, West Leederville Precinct Policy review

- Residential Node); • Existing and new Scheme Amendment proposals;



• Implementation of Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (incorporation of deemed provisions into Town Planning Scheme); and

• Comment and review of State Government strategies, policies and regulations as they are released.

Future projects There are a number of new projects that should be commenced over the coming three years (2016-2018) which will be important in implementing the LPS. These projects include:- • Review of Town Planning Scheme and commercial development standards (after LPS is

completed); • Municipal Inventory Review (Heritage Review); • Public Art Strategy and policy review; • Establishment of Design Advisory Committee; and • West Leederville Activity Centre Structure Plan (as required by WAPC).

It is anticipated that to proceed with these projects in addition to the LPS, the usual funding of approximately $200,000 per annum into the Town Planning Scheme Review account will be required over the next three years (the budget for the LPS would be additional to this amount). Existing work towards LPS To date the Town has undertaken various projects which will either serve as a useful starting point in preparing the LPS. Local Planning Strategy - Working Document In 2010 Council adopted a "Local Planning Strategy - Working Document" to provide a framework to the future development of a more detailed LPS and guide subsequent strategic planning projects. The Working Document can be accessed online via http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/c774f32e-eee2-4f97-b1f1-9daa0116bbba/LPS%20-%20Working%20Document.pdf. The document was prepared based on a brief desktop study undertaken in-house and contained a number of 'direction statements' relating to key themes such as housing, transport, commercial development and parks and recreation. The document also mapped major features of the Town and key opportunities for future development at a broad level over the whole Town. The Working Strategy provides a starting point for the preparation of the LPS, although, as it is six years old, much of the content requires review and updating. In aiming to put together a Local Housing Strategy previously in accordance with the format required of the WAPC and to work towards an LPS, Planning Services has from time to time progressed work on a Background document with a compilation of census data on housing and demographics. This document remains in early draft form but would cover a number of the topics which would need to be included in the Background document for the LPS and therefore would also provide a starting point for the upcoming project. However, it will need to be reviewed, updated and substantially added to, in order to satisfy the requirements of the WAPC. Strategic Community Plan The Town prepared a Strategic Community Plan in 2013 which outlines the Town of Cambridge community's long term vision, values, aspirations and future needs for the period to 2023 and guides the priorities for the Town's future. This plan will serve as an important reference in formulating a Local Planning Strategy, particularly given the extensive community engagement process which was involved in its preparation.


http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/c774f32e-eee2-4f97-b1f1-9daa0116bbba/LPS%20-%20Working%20Document.pdf

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/c774f32e-eee2-4f97-b1f1-9daa0116bbba/LPS%20-%20Working%20Document.pdf

DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Centre Plans and Existing Strategic Projects Over recent years the Town has progressed various planning studies and prepared centre plans for its major commercial areas and activity centres. These include the West Leederville Activity Centre Plan which was adopted by Council in 2011 and the Wembley Activity Centre Plan which is currently being progressed. Planning for the future development of Ocean Village Shopping Centre has also recently commenced. The Town had also commenced the preparation of a centre plan for Floreat District Centre, though, given low levels of interest in development of the centre at this time, this project has been deferred pending the preparation of the LPS. The centre plans which the Town has prepared or is in the process of developing will be important inputs into the formation of the LPS. It will be important to consider the relationship between the LPS and centre plans which are currently being progressed for consistency in strategic direction. The commercial element of the LPS would however have a broader focus and is to review the amount and role of commercial floor space and retail demand over the Town In particular, the LPS will also need to explore the future role and function of a number of other smaller local centres such as those along Grantham Street.


It is estimated that the preparation of the LPS would require a budget in the order of $200,000, over the next 12 months (2016/17) and a further $100,000 for the following year (2017/18). Up to $85,000 would be allocated to a project officer ($170,000 over two years) with the remaining $130,000 for consultants and other costs over the course of two years. Preliminary work on the LPS can be commenced and funded from the current year Town Planning Scheme Review cost centre. Each financial year approximately $200,000 is allocated to the Town Planning Scheme Review. Given the focus on the LPS over the next two years and proposed budget to be allocated to this project of an average of $150,000 per year, it may be that less funding will be needed for other projects over the next two years, although there remain a number of other projects which need to be progressed, the funding for which will also need to considered in preparing future operating budgets.


The requirements for preparing and approving a LPS are outlined in Part 3 - Local Planning Strategies under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (as outlined in this Report). The LPS will provide the framework for a review of the Town Planning Scheme to produce a new Town Planning Scheme (Local Planning Scheme No.2). The LPS will also provide the basis for future review of local planning policies.


Consideration of a LPS will build on many of the priorities under with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023. The priorities that the LPS will focus on are as follows:- Priority Area - 'Our Planned Neighbourhoods' • Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

responsive to future needs. • Successful commercial retail and social hubs. • Efficient Transport Networks.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Priority Area - 'Our Community Life' • Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy. • An active, safe and inclusive community.

Priority Area - 'Our Natural Environment' • Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example. Priority Area - 'Our Council' • Transparent, accountable governance. • The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done. • A strong performing local government.


The formal requirements for community consultation in preparing a LPS are contained in Part 3 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 (as outlined in this Report). Formal advertising of the LPS occurs once it has been certified for advertising by the WAPC, although community input is encouraged in preparing the LPS to ensure it reflects the values and attitudes of the community it represents. It is proposed that a detailed Community Consultation Plan be prepared as part of a Project Plan which would be adopted by Council. The plan would address a range of matters which would need to be given further consideration in undertaking community consultation such as the type of consultation activities and when these would occur throughout the process. In particular, the consultation phases of the preparation of the LPS will require additional resourcing given the need to organise consultation activities and undertake associated administrative tasks.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) the preparation of a Local Planning Strategy be commenced; (ii) the details contained in this report be noted and additional expenditure of $300,000

be allocated to the project over two years, comprising of an additional $200,000 in the 2016/17 Town Planning Scheme Review budget and $100,000 in the 2017/18 budget to complete the project;and

(iii) a further report be presented to Council with a detailed Project Plan outlining

community consultation, key milestones and stages in preparing the Local Planning Strategy, resources and budget and role of Council, staff and consultants.

Carried 5/0



DV16.21 PROPOSED TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE PARKING LOCAL LAW 2016

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law, or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2015. All local laws have now been reviewed and are presented to Council for consideration (except the Standing Orders). This will be considered when the Chief Executive Officer returns from leave.

DETAILS:

The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date:- Local Law Date of

Adoption by Council

Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments

Due Date of Statutory Review

Animals 24 April 2001 22 March 2002 9 January 2007 23 September 2007

March 2010

Health 24 April 2001 22 March 2002 9 January 2007 7 September 2007

March 2010

Local Government and Public Property

24 April 2001 22 March 2002 9 January 2007

March 2010

Parking 24 April 2001 22 March 2002 9 January 2007 23 September 2007

March 2010

Private Property 24 April 2001 22 March 2002 9 January 2007 10 October 2008

March 2010

Standing Orders 11 April 2007 2 May 2007 1 July 2008 May 2016 Trading in Public Places

24 April 2001 22 March 2002 9 January 2007 March 2010

Review Process The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates:-


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Adoption of New Local Laws Presiding Member to give notice of Council intention to adopt new local laws

23 February 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising ( 6 weeks) inviting submissions from public

5 March - 18 April 2016

Send copies of proposed local laws to Ministers 8 April- 29 April 2016 Consider submissions 24 May 2016 Council to adopt new local laws 24 May 2016 Publish in Government Gazette 3 June 2016 Send copy of Gazetted law to Minister (s) 3 June 2016 Give local Public notice of adoption of new local law 10 June 2016 Send documents to Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, at Parliament House

10 June 2016

The proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016: An extensive review of the Town’s current parking Local Law has been undertaken by the Town. In carrying out the review, reference was made with other local governments, including the Cities of Perth, Stirling, Subiaco and Vincent. These local governments were identified as having extensive involvement with parking. This review has identified significant changes and amendments were necessary to the current local law. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new proposed Parking Local Law is the preferred way to proceed as opposed to an amendment to the current Parking Local Law. The local law has been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (eg the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘must’). A full copy of the revised draft local law can be found in Attachment 1. The proposed Local Law has been structured as follows and has the following changes: PART 1 - PRELIMINARY New definitions have been included, to remove any ambiguity in interpretation of the requirements. Considerable reference is made to definitions already prescribed in the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Road Traffic Act 1974. PART 2 – PARKING BAYS, PARKING STATIONS AND PARKING AREAS This part sets out the various parking bays, parking stations and the methods for determination and payment. PART 3 - PARKING GENERALLY This part sets out the various restrictions and offences for parking and stopping. It includes the offences for parking on carriageways, reserves, private land, laneways and right-of- ways and parking for events. PART 4 – PARKING AND STOPPING IN ZONES FOR PARTICULAR VEHICLES This part sets out the various restrictions and offences for parking and stopping on a carriageway – including ‘no stopping’. This part also sets out the various restrictions and offences for parking and stopping in a loading zone, taxi, bus zones and construction sites.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 PART 5 – OTHER PLACES WHERE STOPPING IS RESTRICTED This part sets out the various restrictions and offences for parking and stopping in in zones, bicycle paths, obstructions, verges, crossovers, a loading zone, taxi, bus zones and construction sites. The inclusion of ‘Construction site parking’ clauses have also been included which will allow temporary establishment of work zones on streets and give officers the ability to deal with any motorists that may insist on parking in these areas. There are no provisions within the current parking local law that deal with Construction sites or work zones. PART 6 – PARKING PERMITS This Part prescribes the process for issuing parking permits for residential, visitor and in commercial areas (if approved by the Council). The local law allows for Council to adopt a Policy for the specific permit requirements. This makes it easier to amend a Policy, rather than a local law- which is cumbersome and drawn out. A policy will be prepared and submitted to Council by May 2016. PART 7 – MISCELLANEOUS This part is similar to the current local law and prescribes the requirements for offences against authorised persons. PART 8 – ENFORCEMENT This part prescribes the penalties and modified penalties (infringement notices). Minimum Penalty The most significant change is increasing the minimum penalty from $250 to $500 for a presentation in a Court. This is important, as the minimum amount is used by a magistrate when determining a fine when a matter is contested in court and also allows for increased costs to be awarded to the Town. When people elect to have a matter heard in Court, a lot of preparation work is undertaken by the Town and it’s solicitors, with minimal opportunity to recover any costs. The new minimum amount will assist with some cost recovery. Number of Offences The number of offences has increased from sixty two (62) to one hundred and four (104). This makes it simpler for the Rangers to identify an offence and to be more precise when issuing an infringement notice. Modified Penalties (Infringement Notices) Research of the Council minutes has revealed that Council adopted modified penalties with the original local law on 24 April 2001 and last reviewed these at the Council meeting held on 22 March 2005 and these became effective upon gazettal on 9 January 2007 (lower end offences were increased from $30 to $40 and most were increased from $40 to $60. A number of offences were increased to $80). All modified penalties have been reviewed and increased. The minimum modified penalty has been increased from $60 to $80. Modified penalties have also been reviewed and adjusted to better reflect the severity of the offence committed, encompassing the dangers caused to other motorists and or pedestrians. As an example, parking in a clearway will be increased from $80


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 to $150 due to the danger created and the significant inconvenience caused to other motorists by vehicles that park in clearways during the specified peak times. The following is a summary of the ten (10) most common infringement notices issued by the Town’s rangers and their current and proposed amounts:- Item Offence Number of

Infringements issued per year (approx.)

Current Amount $

Proposed Amount $

1 Parking in a no parking area on a thoroughfare (Generally issued for Parking in a Permit area without a permit.)

2,600 $80 $90

2 Failure to display valid parking ticket 1,700 $60 $80 3 Failure to display unexpired parking ticket 1,200 $60 $80 4 Stopping in a no stopping area 750 $100 $150 5 Parking longer than time allowed 750 $60 $80 6 Stopping during a restricted period (Clearway) 550 $100 $150 7 Failure to pay appropriate fee for metered

space in ticket machine zone 300 $80 $80

8 Park on footpath/pedestrian crossing 200 $100 $150 9 Failure to stop or park wholly in parking stall 100 $60 $80 10 Parking by persons of a different class (Issued

for Private Parking Agreements) 100 $100 $150

TOTAL: 8,250 Comparison with adjoining Local Governments: A comparison of the modified penalties for adjoining local governments for the ten (10) most common infringement notices has been carried out and is shown in a Table at Attachment 2. Number of Infringements The Town's Rangers issue approximately 9,000-10,000 infringement notices each year. For a variety of reasons, approximately 11-12% of the infringement notices issued each are appealed by the vehicle driver. This equates to approximately 20-25 written appeals received each week, as indicated by the following statistics:-

Item 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16* Parking infringements issued 9,543 9,940 7,011 8,875 4,204 Written cautions issued 1,225 1,124 1,306 925 261 Parking infringement appeals 1,019 1,225 839 1,096 480 Parking infringements withdrawn 650 734 469 617 375

(* 1 July- 31 December 2015)

COMMENT:

To repeal the existing Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law and adopt the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016, the Town must follow the process of making a local law as prescribed in Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 are:-

Purpose: To provide for the regulation, control and management of parking within the Town. Effect: To control parking throughout the Town to ensure the safe, fair and equitable use of parking facilities under the care and control of the Town.

CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with Section 3.12(3) and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town must give State wide and local public notice of the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. After the close of the statutory consultation period, all submissions received will be presented to Council. (a summary of submissions may occur if a significant number of submissions are received). A copy of the proposed local law is also required to be sent to the Minister for Local Government. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in making a local law (Section 3.16 details the procedure for reviewing a local law). The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period, any submissions received will be presented to Council, who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's local laws forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review or making a local law.


There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. By reviewing all of the Council’s local laws as a group, the costs will be minimised. Using the Town’s historical records and based on the ten (10) most common infringement notices issued, increased parking infringement revenue will be received each year. It is anticipated that there will be an increase in the number of appeals /requests for review of an infringement notices will be received, especially during the initial period of the new local law.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 ATTACHMENTS:

1 Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016 2 Comparison of adjoining local governments Infringement (draft) Notice amounts. Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.12(3) and 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the

law-making process be commenced, for the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016, the purpose and effect of the local law being as follows:-

Purpose: The purpose of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of parking within the local government. Effect: The effect of this local law is to control parking throughout the local government to ensure the safe, fair and equitable use of parking facilities under the care and control of the local government.

(ii) the Town carry out the law-making procedure under section 3.12(3) of the Local

Government Act, by giving State-wide public notice and local public notice of the proposed local law stating:-

(a) it proposes to make the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law 2016, and a

summary of its purpose and effect; (b) it proposes to repeal the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law gazetted on

gazetted on 22 March 2002 (and amended from time to time thereafter); (c) copies of the proposed local law may be inspected at the Town's offices; (d) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local

government within a period of not less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given;

(iii) in accordance with Section 3.12 (3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, as soon

as the notice is given, a copy of the proposed local law and notice is to be given to the Minister for Local Government;

(iv) in accordance with Section 3.12(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, a copy of

the proposed local law be supplied to any person requesting it; and


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (v) after the close of the statutory public consultation period, a report be submitted to

Council on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to adopt the local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Act.

Carried 5/0



DV16.22 STATUTORY REVIEW OF TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE TRADING IN PUBLIC PLACES LOCAL LAW

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2015. The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date: Local Law Date of

Adoption by Council

Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments

Due Date of Statutory Review


March 2010


March 2010



March 2010


March 2010


March 2016




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Review Process: The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates:- Item Indicative Date (s) Report to Council seeking approval to commence statutory review

23 February 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising (6 weeks) 5 March - 18 April 2016 Consider Submissions 8 April- 29 April 2016 Council to consider submissions and resolve to amend or repeal the local law

26 April 2016

Adoption of New Local Laws Presiding Member to give notice of Council intention to adopt new local laws

26 April 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising (6 weeks) inviting submissions from public

7 May -13 June 2016

Send copies of proposed local laws to Minister 13 June 2016 Consider submissions 13 - 17 June 2016 Council to adopt new local laws 28 June 2016 Publish in Government Gazette 1 July 2016 Send copy of Gazetted law to Minister (s) 2 July 2016 Give local Public notice of adoption of new local law 2 July 2016 Send documents to Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, at Parliament House

2 July 2016

Review of Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law 2016: An extensive review of the Town’s current Local Law relating to private property has been carried out by the Town. In carrying out the review, reference was made with other local governments local laws. This review has identified that some changes are necessary. The local law has been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (eg the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘must’). A full copy of the revised draft local law (with changes marked up in RED) can be found in Attachment 1. The proposed Local Law has been structured as follows and has the following changes: PART 1 - PRELIMINARY Several new new definitions have been included, to remove any ambiguity in interpretation of the requirements. PART 2 – TRADING IN THOROUGHFARES This part is unchanged. PART 3 – PERMITS This part is unchanged. PART 4 – SECURE SUM This part is unchanged. PART 5 – NOTICES AND INSURANCE This part is unchanged. PART 6 – GENERAL This Part is unchanged.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 PART 7– ENFORCEMENT The clauses for this Part are unchanged. This part prescribes the penalties and modified penalties (infringement notices). Modified Penalties (Infringement Notices) Research of the Council minutes has revealed that Council adopted modified penalties with the original local law on 24 April 2001 and last reviewed these at the Council meeting held on 22 March 2005 and these became effective upon gazettal on 9 January 2007. The most significant change is increasing the minimum modified penalty from $100 to $250, to better reflect the severity of the offence committed. As an example, causing a nuisance now attracts a modified penalty of $500. In addition, failing to comply with a Notice or to cease causing a nuisance when requested by an Authorised Person has a modified penalty of $500. It should also be noted that apart from offences relating to dogs, infringement notices are infrequently issued and compliance is usually achieved with the co-operation of the owner, occupier or alleged offender. Nevertheless, the ability for an Authorised Person to issue an infringement notice is an integral part of the local law. COMMENT: To review the existing Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting. The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law 2016 are as follows:- (1) The objective of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and

management of outdoor eating facilities, stalls, traders and entertainers in any street or public place within the district by establishing the requirements with which persons must comply in order to undertake those activities.

(2) The effect of this local law is to establish the requirements with which persons desiring to

conduct business in the district must comply. CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with Section 3.16 and 3.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town is required to give State wide and local public notice of the proposed review of the Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. All submissions received within that time period will be presented to Council. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 period, any submissions received will be presented to Council who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. The strategic implications of any changes to the local law will be considered in detail as part of the review process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. Stage two, if the Council resolves to adopt the new local law, will be expected to cost a similar amount. By reviewing all of the Council’s the local laws as a group, the costs will be minimised. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law 2016 (draft) Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.16 and 3.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995,

the State wide and local public notice be given, stating that:-

(a) it proposes to review the Town of Cambridge Trading in Public Places Local Law, and a summary of its purpose and effect;

(b) copies of the current and proposed local laws may be inspected at the Town's offices; and

(c) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local government within a period of not less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given;

(ii) in accordance with Section 3.12(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, as soon

as the notice is given, a copy of the proposed local law a copy of the proposed local law is to be given to any person requesting it; and


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 (iii) after the close of the public consultation period, a report be submitted to Council

on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to or not it considers that the local law should be repealed or amended in accordance with Section 3.12(4) of the Act.

Carried 5/0



DV16.23 STATUTORY REVIEW OF TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE ANIMALS LOCAL LAW

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law, or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2015. All local laws have now been reviewed and reported to Council ( except Standing Orders, which will be finalised when the CEO returns from leave).

DETAILS:

The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date: Local Law Date of Adoption

by Council Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments Due Date of

Statutory Review


March 2010


March 2010



March 2010


March 2010


March 2010



Review Process: The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates:


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Item Indicative Date (s) Report to Council seeking approval to commence statutory review

23 February 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising ( 6 weeks) 5 March - 18 April 2016 Consider Submissions 8 April- 29 April 2016 Council to consider submissions and resolve to amend or repeal the local law

26 April 2016


26 April 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising (6 weeks) inviting submissions from the public

7 May -13 June 2016

Send copies of proposed local laws to Ministers 13 June 2016 Consider submissions 13 - 17 June 2016 Council to adopt new local laws 28 June 2016 Publish in Government Gazette 1 July 2016 Send copy of Gazetted law to Minister (s) 2 July 2016 Give local Public notice of adoption of new local law 2 July 2016 Send documents to Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, at Parliament House

2 July 2016

Review of Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law 2016: An extensive review of the Town’s current Local Law relating to private property has been undertaken by the Town. In carrying out the review, reference was made with other local governments. This review has identified that some significant changes are necessary. The local law has been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (eg the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘must’). A full copy of the revised draft local law (with changes marked up in RED) can be found in Attachment 1. The proposed Local Law has been structured as follows and has the following changes: PART 1 - PRELIMINARY Several new definitions have been included, to remove any ambiguity in the interpretation of the requirements. PART 2 – DOGS This part is unchanged, except to delete the Schedule relating to 'Dog exercise Areas" and 'Dogs prohibited Areas". The Council now has the legal ability to determine both 'Dog exercise Areas" and 'Dogs prohibited Areas' by an absolute majority decision of the Council. This means that it will be easier and more simplified to review and amend these in the future, and they no longer need to be a part of the local law. A report was submitted to Council in October 2014 concerning this matter. PART 3 – DOG KENNEL ESTABLISHMENT This part is unchanged, except to make a minor change by amending the word 'licence' and replacing it with the word 'permit'. This is consistent with change to the Dog Act 2008 and the new Cat Act 2011. It should be noted that any application for a kennel establishment must also comply with the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No: 1. A kennel establishment is an ‘unlisted use’.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Due to the urban nature of the Town, currently there are no kennel establishments in the Town and it is highly unlikely that an application would satisfy the rigorous requirements. (eg distances for establishing noise free zones). Nevertheless, the local law is required to include requirements for a kennel establishment in the event that an application is received. PART 4 – CATS This part has been significantly changed to reflect the new requirements of the Cat Act 2011 and Cat Regulations 2012 and to allow for the control of catteries. It should be noted that any application for a cattery must also comply with the Town of Cambridge Town Planning Scheme No: 1. A cattery is an ‘unlisted use’. As with the above, it is unlikely a cattery would satisfy the rigorous requirements. PART 5 – ANIMALS AND LIVESTOCK This part is unchanged. PART 6 – POULTRY, PIGEONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BIRDS This Part has been changed to include requirements for poultry and pigeon enclosures and reference to other ‘miscellaneous birds’ (eg parrots, galahs, budgerigars, canaries and the like). PART 7 – KEEPING OF BEES This Part is unchanged. PART 8 – MISCELLANEOUS This Part has a minor change to allow for a person to have a right of Appeal and Review. This is consistent with the Town’s other local laws. PART 9 – ENFORCEMENT The clauses for this Part have minor changes to reflect consistency of Forms with the Local Government Act. This part prescribes the penalties and modified penalties (infringement notices). Modified Penalties (Infringement Notices) Research of the Council minutes has revealed that Council adopted modified penalties with the original local law on 24 April 2001 and last reviewed these at the Council meeting held on 22 March 2005 and these became effective upon gazettal on 9 January 2007. The most significant change is increasing the minimum modified penalty from $100 to $200, to better reflect the severity of the offence committed. As an example, causing a nuisance now attracts a modified penalty of $500. In addition, failing to comply with a Notice or to cease causing a nuisance when requested by an Authorised Person has a modified penalty of $500. It should also be noted that apart from offences relating to dogs, infringement notices are rarely issued and compliance is usually achieved with the co-operation of the owner or occupier.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 COMMENT: To review the existing Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting. The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law 2016 are as follows:-

Purpose: The objective of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of the keeping of dogs, cats, large animals, miniature horses and pigs, poultry, pigeons, miscellaneous birds and bees within the District.

Effect: The effect of this local law is to establish the requirements with which owners and occupiers of land within the district must comply in order to keep domestic animals and birds, large animals, miniature horses and pigs, and bees and provides the means of enforcing the local law.

CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with Section 3.16 and 36.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town is required to give State wide and local public notice of the proposed review of the Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. All submissions received within that time period will be presented to Council. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period any submissions received will be presented to Council who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's local laws forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. Stage two, if the Council resolves to adopt the new local law, will be expected to cost a similar amount. By reviewing all of the Council’s the local laws as a group, the costs will be minimised.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 ATTACHMENTS: 1. Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law 2016 (draft). Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That: (i) in accordance with Section 3.16 and 3.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995,

State wide and local public notice be given stating that:-

(a) it proposes to review the Town of Cambridge Animals Local Law, and a summary of its purpose and effect;




as the notice is given, a copy of the proposed local law a copy of the proposed local law is to be given to any person requesting it; and

(iii) after the close of the public consultation period, a report be submitted to Council


Carried 5/0



DV16.24 STATUTORY REVIEW OF TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HEALTH LOCAL LAW

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law, or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2015.

DETAILS:

The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date: Local Law Date of

Adoption by Council

Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments Due Date of Statutory Review


March 2010


March 2010



March 2010


March 2010


March 2010



Review Process The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates:


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Item Indicative Date (s) Report to Council seeking approval to commence statutory review

23 February 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising (6 weeks) 5 March - 18 April 2016 Consider Submissions 8 April- 29 April 2016 Council to consider submissions and resolve to amend or repeal the local law

26 April 2016


26 April 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising (6 weeks) invitinbg submissions from public

7 May -13 June 2016

Send copies of proposed local laws to Minister 13 June 2016 Consider submissions 13 - 17 June 2016 Council to adopt new local laws 28 June 2016 Publish in Government Gazette 1 July 2016 Send copy of Gazetted law to Minister (s) 2 July 2016 Give local Public notice of adoption of new local law 2 July 2016 Send documents to Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, at Parliament House

2 July 2016

Review of Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2016: An extensive review of the Town’s current Local Law relating to health has been carried out by the Town. In carry out the review, reference was made with other local governments. This review has identified that some significant changes are necessary. The local law has been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (eg the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘must’). A full copy of the revised draft local law (with changes marked up in RED) can be found in Attachment 1. The proposed Local Law has been structured as follows and has the following changes: PART 1 - PRELIMINARY New definitions have been included, to remove any ambiguity in interpretation of the requirements. PART 2 – SANITATION This part has been amended by inserting new clauses for the control of:- • Control of toilets at events and festivals; • Ventilation of toilets; • Public sanitary conveniences; • Lighting of toilets; • Control of standard of installation of sanitary conveniences. PART 3 – HOUSING AND GENERAL This part is unchanged.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 PART 4 – NUISANCES AND GENERAL This part has been amended by inserting two new clauses as follows:- • Control of slaughter of animals • Disposal of dead animals PART 5 – REFUSE DISPOSAL This part has been significantly changed to repeal the clauses relating to refuse disposal- a new local law has been created to control waste disposal. The new local law is in keeping with the Resource Recovery Act and allows for modified penalties to be used to control minor matters . PART 6 – PEST CONTROL This Part is unchanged. PART 7 – INFECTIOUS DISEASES This Part is unchanged. PART 8 – LODGING HOUSES This Part is unchanged. PART 9– OFFENSIVE TRADES This Part is unchanged. PART 10– MORGUES This Part is unchanged. PART 1 – OFFENCES The penalties have been amended to show the increase, as prescribed by the Health Act 1911. The Health Local Law does not allow for the issue of modified penalties (infringement notices), as such, enforcement is often slow, cumbersome and compliance can only be achieved by a prosecution. COMMENT: To review the existing Town of Cambridge Health Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2016 are as follows:-

Purpose:

The objective of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of day to day public and environmental health matters within the district. Effect:

The effect of this local law is to establish various standards and requirements relating to sanitation, housing matters, nuisances, pest control, infectious diseases, lodging houses and offensive trades with which people living and working within the district must comply.

CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with Section 3.16 and 3.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town is required to give State wide and local public notice of the proposed review of the Town of Cambridge Health Local Law, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. All submissions received within that time period will be presented to Council. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period any submissions received will be presented to Council who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. The strategic implications of any changes to the local law will be considered in detail as part of the review process.


There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. Stage two – if the Council resolves to adopt the new local law will be expected to cost a similar amount. By reviewing all of the Council’s the local laws as a group, the costs will be minimised.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Town of Cambridge Health Local Law 2016 (draft).


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.16 and 3.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995,

State wide and local public notice, be given stating that:-

(a) it proposes to review the Town of Cambridge Health Local Law, and a summary of its purpose and effect;




as the notice is given, a copy of the proposed local law a copy of the proposed local law is to be given to any person requesting; and

(iii) after the close of the public consultation period, a report to Council be submitted

on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to or not it considers that the local law should be repealed or amended in accordance with Section 3.12 (4) of the Act.

Carried 5/0



DV16.25 REVIEW OF TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE PRIVATE PROPERTY LOCAL LAW

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2014. DETAILS: The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date: Local Law Date of

Adoption by Council

Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments Due Date of Statutory Review


March 2010


March 2010



March 2010


March 2010


March 2010




DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Review Process The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates:- Item Indicative Date (s) Report to Council seeking approval to commence statutory review

23 February 2016


26 April 2016


26 April 2016

Statutory state-wide advertising ( 6 weeks) invitinbg submissions from public

7 May -13 June 2016


2 July 2016

Review of Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016 An review of the Town’s current Local Law relating to private property has been carried out by the Town. In carrying out the review, reference was made with other local governments. This review has identified that some changes are necessary. The local law has been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (eg the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘must’). A full copy of the revised draft local law (with changes marked up in RED) can be found in Attachment 1. The proposed Local Law has been structured as follows and has the following changes: PART 1 - PRELIMINARY New definitions have been included, to remove any ambiguity in interpretation of the requirements. PART 2 – FENCES, STREET NUMBERING AND STORMWATER DISPOSAL Division 1 - Fences This division is unchanged. Division 2- General This division is unchanged. Division 3 - Fencing Materials This division is unchanged. Division 4 - Tennis Court Fencing This division is unchanged.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Division 5 - Street Numbering This division is unchanged. Division 6 - Stormwater and Wastewater disposal This division is unchanged. PART 3 – NUISANCES AND DANGEROUS MATTERS Division 1 - Lighting This division is changed by inserting three new clauses to control the use of external lights, control emission of light and reflective light and the issue of a Notice. . Division 2 - Unsightly Land and Disused Materials This division is unchanged Division 3 - Hazardous Plants and Trees This division is unchanged Division 4 - Sand Drift This division is significantly changed by inserting clauses to control sand drift. This division has been amended by inserting clauses for the control of activities and works which create sand drift. New clauses have been inserted to allow the issue of Notices and modified penalties (infringement notices) of $500 for breaches. This is recommended as action can be promptly taken by authorised persons. Division 5 - Nuisances This is a new division is significantly changed by inserting clauses to control nuisances. This division has been inserted, allowing for the control of activities which cause smoke, air borne particles, fumes, odours, dust or other emissions in such quantities so as to cause a nuisance to other persons. New clauses have been inserted to allow the issue of Notices and modified penalties (infringement notices) of $500 for breaches. This is recommended as action can be promptly taken by authorised persons. Division 6 - Dust This is a new division and has been inserted for the control of activities and works which create dust. The control of dust, particularly from demolition works has been identified as a increasing problem. New clauses have been inserted to allow the issue of Notices and modified penalties (infringement notices) of $500 for breaches. This is recommended as action can be promptly taken by authorised persons. The current clauses controlling nuisances and dust are in the Health Local Law – however, this local law does not allow the issue of modified penalties and any breaches can only be prosecuted in court. This is a cumbersome process and as a result, no prosecutions have been taken to date. Division 7 - Rubbish and Refuse on and around building sites This is a new division to control rubbish and refuse on and around building sites. PART 4 – MISCELLANEOUS Division 1 - Miscellaneous Division 2 - Notices and Division Division 3 - Objections and Review


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 This Part is relatively unchanged. The deletion of two minor clauses is recommended, as these matters are covered by the Local Government Act and are therefore superfluous in the local law. PART 5 – ENFORCEMENT The clauses for this Part are unchanged. This part prescribes the penalties and modified penalties (infringement notices). Modified Penalties (Infringement Notices) Research of the Council minutes has revealed that Council adopted modified penalties with the original local law on 24 April 2001 and last reviewed these at the Council meeting held on 22 March 2005 and these became effective upon gazettal on 9 January 2007. The most significant change is increasing the minimum modified penalty from $100 to $250, to better reflect the severity of the offence committed. As an example; casing a nuisance now attracts a modified penalty of $500. In addition, failing to comply with a Notice or to cease casing a nuisance when requested by an Authorised Person has a modified penalty of $500. It should also be noted that apart from offences relating to dogs, infringement notices are infrequently issued and compliance is usually achieved with the co-operation of the owner, occupier or alleged offender. Nevertheless, the ability for an authorised person to issue an infringement notice is an integral part of the local law.

COMMENT:

To review the existing Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting. The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016 are as follows:-

Purpose The objective of this local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of dividing fences between private properties, fencing and lighting of tennis courts, outdoor lighting, street numbering, unsightly land, hazardous plants, sand drift and stormwater, nuisances, control of dust, refuse on building sites and swimming pool wastewater containment and disposal on private land within the district. Effect The effect of this local law is to establish:-

(a) the standard of a sufficient fence according to land use, (b) requirements to reduce the intrusive effects of tennis court and outdoor

lighting, (c) requirements for the orderly assignment of street numbers to each lot,



(d) requirements for the prevention of unsightly land and the accumulation of disused materials within the district,

(e) requirements to prevent plants and trees becoming a hazard to a person or thing,

(f) requirement to control and prevent dust and sand drift, (g) requirements for the control of nuisances; (h) control of rubbish and refuse on building sites; and (i) requirements for the containment and disposal of stormwater and swimming

pool waste water.

CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with Section 3.16 and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town must give State wide and local public notice of the proposed review of the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. All submissions received at the close of that time period will be presented to Council. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period any submissions received will be presented to Council who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. The strategic implications of any changes to the local law will be considered in detail as part of the review process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. Stage two – if the Council resolves to adopt the new local law will be expected to cost a similar amount. By reviewing all of the Council’s the local laws as a group, the costs will be minimised.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.16 and 3.12 (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995,

State wide and local public notice be given, stating that:-

(a) it proposes to review the Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law, and a summary of its purpose and effect;





(iii) after the close of the public consultation period, a report be submitted to Council

on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to or not it considers that the local law should be repealed or amended in accordance with Section 3.12 (4) of the Act.

Carried 5/0



DV16.26 PARKING AGREEMENT FOR LOT 20 AND 21 (NO. 12) SALVADO ROAD, SUBIACO - ST JOHN OF GOD HOSPITAL

SUMMARY:

To approve of the Town of Cambridge entering into an Agreement with St John of God Hospital to enforce the parking requirements and restrictions in the St John of God Hospital grounds (SJOG) at Lot 20 and 21 (No: 12) Salvado Road, Subiaco (PO Box 14 Subiaco).

BACKGROUND:

SJOG has recently requested the Town of Cambridge to enter into an agreement with the hospital to manage their parking restrictions within the hospital grounds. SJOG is one of the largest private hospitals in WA and one of the busiest precincts in the Town (in terms of parking). SJOG is one of the largest facilities in the Town of Cambridge and provides the following facilities: 634 licensed beds, 17 operating theatres, 20 bed combined Intensive Care and Coronary Care Unit, 10 delivery suites, Obstetric operating theatre, 46 bed Day Surgery Unit, Endoscopy Unit with 4 procedure rooms, Minor Procedure Unit with 2 theatres, Neonatal Unit, Short Stay Unit with 3 theatres, Day of Surgery Admission Unit, Bendat Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre, 2 Cardiac and Vascular Intervention Laboratories, Library, Conference Centre, Multi storey car park, Chapel, Sleep Centre, Caregiver Café, Medical Clinic and Parent Education service. It employs 2,200 staff at this hospital, working over a 24 hour period, every day for the year. SJOG has advised that they do not possess the personnel with sufficient expertise to enforce parking at the hospital and that this is not their core business. A similar arrangement has been agreed with the City of Swan to enforce the new Swan Districts hospital grounds. The arrangement is operating satisfactorily. SJOG has advised the main problems being experienced are:- 1. visitors overstaying their time allocation; 2. non hospital persons illegally parking in the hospital grounds; 3. hospital employees and medical staff ignoring parking times and restrictions- for specific

allocated bays (eg Doctors on call). The proposed arrangement relates to the six (6) small ground level parking areas (Refer Attachment 1) and does not include the multi-level, covered or underground car parking stations. The Town and SJOG did have an arrangement which was approved by Council on 23 April 2003, whereby the hospital grounds were designated an official cark park for the purposes of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local law. Under this arrangement, SJOG staff were appointed as Parking Officers to enforce the local law. However, this arrangement was terminated by the Town in December 2010. It was reported that reasons for the termination included the following:- • SJOG personnel not enforcing the parking restrictions in an acceptable manner; • Parking signage not being to the satisfaction of the Town; • Parking at the hospital was not solely for hospital patrons; and • The Agreement definitions not being updated by the hospital.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The Proposed Agreement The proposed agreement is different to the previous arrangement whereby it is proposed the Town's Parking Officers/Rangers will be totally responsible for the enforcement of parking on-site. The processing of the infringement notices will be carried out by the Town's Ranger Services Administration Officers. It is proposed that a documented Procedure and Guidelines will be put in place (in the agreement) as to how the parking requirements will be enforced and administered. It is proposed that any correspondence regarding an appeal against a Parking infringement will be dealt with in accordance with the recently adopted Council Policy No: 4.4.8 "Parking Enforcement and Review/Appeal of Infringement Notices". The Town already has Parking Officers patrolling the streets surrounding the hospital and it is considered that this additional enforcement arrangement will improve the on-street parking availability and turn - over of car parking bays within the hospital grounds. SJOG has agreed to: 1 be responsible for all signage to be upgraded and maintained to comply with the Town's

requirements. 2. continue to be responsible for the ticket machine maintenance and servicing. 3. pay for any costs associated with the drafting of the Legal Agreement.

DETAILS:

SJOG has the following parking areas within the hospital grounds. No: Area Number

of Car Bays

No: of Ticket Machines

Enforcement required

1. McCourt Street - Public area

6 1 Ensure valid ticket is purchased, ensure time restriction is complied with

2. McCourts St - Service entrance (non-public area)

27 0 Ensure no unauthorised vehicles are parked in this area

3. Cambridge Street- After Hours Clinic

16 2 Ensure valid ticket is purchased, ensure time restriction is complied with

4. Cambridge St - Main entrance Road

12, incl 3 ACROD bays

0 Ensure time restriction is complied with, ensure no unauthorised vehicles are parked in this area, ensure marked bays are only used by designated persons

5. Salvado Rd Main Entrance and Concierge area

26, incl 5 ACROD bays

0 Ensure time restriction is complied with, ensure no unauthorised vehicles are parked in this area, ensure marked bays are only used by designated persons (eg doctors)

6. Salvado Rd- 35 4 Ensure valid ticket is purchased, ensure time restriction is complied with

Total: 122 7 The Town will not be responsible for enforcement of the following, as these are controlled by ticket machines and boom gates:- • The multi- storey car park (containing over 600 car bays) accessed off Salvado Road; • The basement carpark (containing 117 car bays) accessed off Mc Court Street; • The covered carpark (containing 291 car bays) accessed off Cambridge Street.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The term of the Agreement will be for an initial period of five (5) years with an option for a further five (5) years. The Agreement will include a clause such that if the cost of providing the service exceeds the revenue generated rom infringements, then the Town may terminate the agreement. Either Party may terminate the Agreement for any reason by giving sixty (60) days notice.


The Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law states the following:- 1.6 Application and pre-existing signs

(1) Subject to sub clause (2), this Local Law applies to all parking stations, metered zones, ticket machine zones and parking facilities in the parking region.

(2) This Local Law does not apply to a parking facility or a parking station that is not

occupied by the local government , unless the local government and the Owner or occupier of that facility or station have agreed in writing that this local law will apply to that facility or station in writing.

(3) The agreement referred to in sub-clause (2) may be made on such terms and

conditions as the parties may agree."


The Town's Ranger Services Parking Officers and Rangers will be required to allocate time to monitor and enforce the parking restrictions at the hospital. This will be carried out by the Town's existing permanent and casual Parking Officers and/or Rangers. Any costs will be off-set with the revenue gained from payment of infringements and also any prosecutions which may occur. The hospital has advised that it has over 400,000 visitors each year. A vast majority travel by private car. Based on a conservative estimate of 6 tickets per week day (Monday to Friday), at $60 each, the Town will receive approximately $1,800 per week. This will generate an annual income of approximately $93,600. This is an estimate only and a more accurate amount will be available after operations commence. Item Income Annual Income 1 Ticket revenue $93,600 Expenditure Annual Expenditure 1. Casual Parking Officer ( 3 hours per day at $30/hour) $23,400 Total: $70,200

The Town currently employees two Parking Officers, however, one Officer only works three days per week. It should be noted that a Parking Officer employed on a casual basis, will be also available to enforce parking in other parts of the Town, when not enforcing the hospital restrictions. This will significantly improve the enforcement in the eastern part of the Town. All costs associated with establishing the proposed arrangement, including legal fees, signage, advertising will be the responsibility of SJOG.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 STRATEGIC DIRECTION:

This proposal is in keeping with the Council's Strategic Community Plan: Strategy 11.5 " Maintain a high level of customer service". The proposal will also be a unique opportunity for the creation of potential sources of revenue.


Not applicable. However, information will be provided in the Local community newspaper, advising of the Town's Local Laws applying to the hospital grounds and that the Town 's ranger Services will be responsible for enforcement of the local law.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Plan of hospital grounds showing parking areas.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) pursuant to Clause 1.6 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law, an Agreement

be approved between the Town of Cambridge and the St John of God Hospital to allow the provisions of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law to be applicable in hospital car parking areas at Lot 20 and 21 (No:12) Salvado Road, Subiaco;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise the terms and conditions of the

Agreement; and (iii) all costs associated with establishing the proposed agreement to be the

responsibility of St John of God Hospital. Carried 5/0



.DV16.27 BUSHFIRE PRONE AREAS REFORM PACKAGE - REPORT

SUMMARY:

On 7 December 2015, the State Government launched the Bushfire Reform Package in response to recommendations from the Keelty Report into the Perth Hills bushfire of 2011, which destroyed 71 homes. Key measures of the Bushfire Reforms are intended to apply consistent and holistic bushfire development requirements throughout Western Australia, and achieve an appropriate balance between bushfire risk management measures and environmental conservation values. The Bushfire Reforms focus on the Map of Bushfire Prone Areas, which identifies parts of the State that are bushfire prone (i.e. areas at threat of bushfire because of the proximity to bushfire prone vegetation). The identification of a ‘bushfire prone area’ triggers the need for proposed development to undergo a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) assessment prior to commencement. The outcome of the BAL assessment will determine if planning approval is required and the bushfire protection criteria to be considered in the planning assessment process. The BAL rating will also dictate the applicable bushfire construction standards required under the building permit process. The Bushfire Reforms are subject to a four month transitional period, and a number of residential properties in the City Beach and Floreat Precincts that are located within bushfire prone areas will be required to comply with these planning and building bushfire requirements from 8 April 2016. The identification of bushfire prone areas and the implementation of risk-based planning and building controls are fundamental tools to manage and reduce the impact of bushfire on people, property and infrastructure and the environment. To ensure local circumstances are accurately and consistently reflected, the Office of Bushfire Risk Management is coordinating a review of the Map and has invited the Town to submit any amendment requests by 18 March 2016. The updated Map is scheduled to be published in May 2016 and will be reviewed on an annual basis thereafter. This report provides an overview of the Bushfire Reforms, details the planning and building implications for development in bushfire prone areas within the Town and outlines the Town's position on the Map of Bushfire Prone Areas review with comment to be provided to the Office of Bushfire Risk Management.

BACKGROUND:

In December 2015, the State Government launched a coordinated bushfire reform package to address and manage the risk of bushfire across Western Australia in response to planning and building recommendations from the Keelty Report ‘A Shared Responsibility – the report of the Perth Hills Bushfire February 2011 Review’. The Bushfire Reforms consist of the following:- • Fire and Emergency Services (Bushfire Prone Areas) Order 2015 - requires areas of

the State designated as bushfire prone to be shown on the Map of Bushfire Prone Areas; • Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Amendment Regulations

2015 - the deemed provisions require a Bushfire Attack Level assessment to be undertaken for development in designated bushfire prone areas. Development in an area of extreme bushfire risk will need to obtain development approval when it usually may not;



• State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas - ensures higher order strategic planning documents, strategic planning proposals, subdivision and development applications take into account bushfire protection requirements and include specified bushfire protection measures; and

• Building Amendment Regulations (No.3) 2015 - prescribes the application of appropriate bushfire construction requirements based on the determined bushfire attack level rating, in accordance with the Building Code of Australia and the Australian Standard AS3959 - Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas.

• The Bushfire Reform Package came into operation on 8 December 2015, however, all newly designated bushfire prone areas are be subject to a four month transition period to provide landowners and industry time to adjust to the new bushfire requirements. Therefore certain bushfire planning and building requirements do not become operational until 8 April 2016. Once these instruments become fully operational, they will have important regulatory implications in planning and building approval process for sites designated as bushfire prone. By way of example of application of the new requirements, a Bushfire Management Plan was required to be prepared as part of approval conditions for the Area G/St Johns Wood subdivision in Mount Claremont. A condition of subdivision requires that a notification be placed on the certificates of title for lots affected by a Bush Fire Attack Level. Local Planning Policy 3.13 - St John's Wood, Mount Claremont was adopted for advertising in December 2015 (Council Item DV15.177) and includes a requirement that all development and land use on these lots shall be compliant with the applicable Bushfire Management Plan.

DETAILS:

The Bushfire Reform Package The Bushfire Reforms have been implemented by the Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Building Commission, Western Australian Planning Commission and Department of Planning via separate, complementary legislation as detailed below:- Fire and Emergency Services (Bushfire Prone Areas) Order 2015 and Map of Bushfire Prone Areas The Map of Bushfire Prone Areas, which is given legislative power by the Fire and Emergency Services (Bushfire Prone Areas) Order 2015, is a critical component of the new Bushfire Reform Framework. The Map identifies all areas of Western Australia that are bushfire prone. A bushfire prone area is defined as an area that is subject to, or likely to be subject to, bushfire attack over which planning and building bushfire provisions apply. A bushfire prone area is identified by the presence of and proximity to bushfire prone vegetation, and includes both the area containing the bushfire prone vegetation and a 100 metre buffer zone immediately surrounding it. Where a bushfire prone areas cuts across a portion of a lot of land, the entire lot is treated as a Bushfire Prone Area. The Map identifies designated bushfire prone areas as highlighted pink and displays the designation status, designation date along with links for additional information of individual properties. The Map on the Department of Fire and Emergency Services website is available at http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/regulationandcompliance/bushfireproneareas/Pages/default.aspx.


http://www.dfes.wa.gov.au/regulationandcompliance/bushfireproneareas/Pages/default.aspx


Map of Bushfire Prone Areas

Town Context The Town is one of the more significantly affected inner Local Government Areas, with Bushfire Prone Areas covering coastline and major reserves throughout City Beach, Mt Claremont and Floreat. There are approximately 941 residential properties in City Beach and Floreat Precincts abutting these major reserves that are identified as bushfire prone areas and will be required to comply with additional bushfire planning and building provisions from 8 April 2016. Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Amendment Regulations 2015 The Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Amendment Regulations 2015 introduce Part 10A - Bushfire Risk Management deemed provisions which apply automatically to all local planning schemes in Western Australia. The Planning Amendment Regulations deemed provisions only apply to the following types of development in a bushfire prone area:- • single house or ancillary dwelling on a site that is 1,100² or greater; • habitable building (other than a single house or ancillary dwelling); or • specified building (‘Specified building’ is defined as a structure that is identified in a local

planning scheme as a building to which the deemed provisions apply).

Development subject to the Planning Amendment Regulations will need to undergo a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) assessment and will require planning approval where the BAL rating is in the highest two categories, BAL-40 or BAL-FZ (the BAL rating system is explained later in the Report), regardless of any exemption otherwise provided in the Scheme. The requirement to submit a planning application ensures appropriate bushfire protection measures are implemented and provides a mechanism to require the decision maker to have regard for the bushfire resistant construction requirements of the Building Code of Australia.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Additionally, the planning bushfire requirements are only applicable to areas which are covered by a local planning scheme. The Perry Lakes Redevelopment Areas is currently outside the Town's Local Planning Scheme area. Scheme Amendment No.32 adopted by Council in November 2015 (Council Item DV15.149) proposes to incorporate the Perry Lakes development area into the Town's Scheme boundary. As such, development applications received from the Perry Lakes Redevelopment Area will have no additional regulatory bushfire planning requirements until the scheme amendment is formally endorsed. State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas and Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas (SPP3.7) directs how bushfire risk management should be addressed in all higher order strategic planning documents, strategic planning proposals, subdivision and development applications located in designated bushfire prone areas. The accompanying Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas assist in the interpretation of the Policy. The Policy measures apply to all strategic planning proposals, subdivision and development applications in a bushfire prone area that has or will have a BAL rating above BAL-LOW. These proposals and applications are to be accompanied by:- • a bushfire management plan which contains a BAL assessment or BAL Contour Map; • identification of any bushfire hazard issues arising from the BAL assessment; and • demonstrated compliance with the bushfire protection criteria requirements in Guidelines. The bushfire protection criteria consist of four elements: location, siting and design of development, vehicular access and water, each of which outline acceptable solutions and performance principles. Each element must be satisfied for a proposal to be considered compliant with SPP3.7. The Guidelines also recommend that a copy of development applications located within 100 metres of Bold Park should be sent to the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority for comment and advice. The Policy includes requirement that a 'notice on title' advising the site is located within a bushfire prone area and may be subject to a Bushfire Management Plan. When assessing strategic proposals, subdivisions and development applications in bushfire prone areas the Town is to consider:- • The objectives and policy measures contained in SPP3.7 and the Guidelines; • Any BAL Contour Map or BAL assessment in relation to the subject site; • The vulnerability or high risk nature of the land use; • Capacity of existing fire-fighting infrastructure; and • Any existing local biodiversity strategy or conservation plan. • SPP3.7 also applies where an area is not yet designated as bushfire prone but the proposed development is planned in a way that introduces a bushfire hazard (e.g. revegetation). Any such planning approval should identify proposed new bushfire prone areas and address the hazard as if it currently existed. It should be noted that any future building permit applications in these areas will potentially have a higher BAL than when the planning approval was granted. Building Amendment Regulations (No.3) 2015 Building Amendment Regulations (No.3) 2015 provides assessment requirements in the building permit process to determine the appropriate level of bushfire construction standards to be applied, as identified in the Building Code of Australia and the Australian Standards. Similar to the Planning Amendment Regulations, the Building Amendment Regulations require a BAL assessment to be prepared for building works in bushfire prone areas. The Building Code of


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 Australia require buildings in bushfire prone areas to be compliant with the construction standards applicable to the Bushfire Attack Level category stipulated in the Australian Standards. Australian Standard AS3959 - Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas

The Bushfire Reforms rely heavily on the use of Australian Standard AS3959 - Construction of Buildings in Bushfire Prone Areas which sets out the process for determining the level of potential bushfire attack that a building may be exposed to, known as the Bushfire Attack Level (BAL). AS3959 provides the BAL assessment methodology based on a presence of or proximity to bushfire prone vegetation, topography of the land and land size, to divide areas prone to bushfire into six bushfire attack levels from lowest to highest risk.

Australian Standards AS3959, Bushfire Attack Levels and corresponding descriptions

BAL ratings can be presented in a number of formats. A BAL assessment is a site specific assessment which outlines the BAL rating for building and development purposes. A BAL Contour Map is a scale map that illustrates the indicative BAL ratings across the subject site. It is typically used at the subdivision stage, but is also appropriate for strategic planning proposals, such as activity centre plans and scheme amendments, where the lot layout of a proposal is already determined. The Standard also sets out different design and construction requirements for buildings depending on the applicable BAL rating; the closer the building is to the hazard the more protection measures are required. This may include the placement of ember screens over evaporative air-conditioner units, window screens, the use of non-combustible or reduced risk building materials, and sealing off walls, eaves and roofs. Application of the Bushfire Reforms These documents create a holistic approach to reduce vulnerability to bushfire through the identification and consideration of bushfire risks in decision-making at all stages of the planning and development process. The Town plays an important role in monitoring bushfire prone areas within its administrative boundaries and managing the additional bushfire risk


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 assessment tasks in the Town's planning and building processes. The major implications of the Bushfire Reforms are detailed below:- Planning and Building Amendment Regulations Four Month Transition Period SPP3.7 policy measures became effective upon gazettal which occurred on 7 December 2015. Many of the Planning and Building Amendment Regulations requirements, however, are subject to a four month transitional period from the date an area is designated as a bushfire prone area and do not become operational until 8 April 2016. This four month transitional period will occur from the date a new bushfire prone area is designated following the update of the Map of Bushfire Prone Areas to allow landowners time to prepare and adjust to the new requirements. Planning applications received and/or approved during this transitional period may not proceed with a building permit until well after the four month transition period. As such, the Town will be incorporating an advice note on planning approvals indicating the development may be subject to bushfire requirements and standards in subsequent building permit applications. The Bushfire Reforms are not retrospective so will not affect existing buildings or approved development. Where planning approval or a building permit already exists or is granted during the four month transition period, no further bushfire risk assessment or development approval requirements apply. This does not preclude landowners of existing or exempt buildings within a bushfire prone area from voluntarily improving their building’s resistance to bushfires. In these instances, the applicant has the discretion to utilise any or all of the elements of AS3959 in the construction of the building that they deem appropriate. Development Exemptions The Planning Amendment Regulations and SPP3.7 specifically exclude single houses and ancillary dwellings on a lot or lots less than 1,100m2 and renovations, alternations, extensions improvements or repairs of a building (on any lot size) in bushfire prone areas from requiring further planning assessment. In these situations, planning can only play a limited role in reducing the bushfire risk to development in established residential areas. Instead this type of residential development will be subject to the application of the appropriate bushfire construction standards at the building permit stage. Contrary to this, the Planning Amendment Regulations 'Habitable Building' definition may have implications for other seemingly minor buildings or structures on residential lots. A Habitable Building is defined as 'a permanent or temporary structure on land that is fully or partially enclosed, has at least one wall of solid material and a roof of solid material and is used for the purpose that involves the use of the interior of the structure by people for living, working, studying or being entertained.' The Town requested advice from the Department of Planning to clarify if structures such as patios, gazebos, studios and sheds are included in this definition despite a whole new house and substantial renovations being exempt. In a practical sense, this has greater impact on the Town's planning assessment processes because seemingly minor development such as a patio that may otherwise be exempt from requiring planning approval will now require a BAL assessment to determine if further bushfire risk management provisions apply. A response from the Department of Planning had not been received at the time of writing this Report. It is presumed the 'Habitable Buildings' definition is intended to correlate with the Building Codes of Australia non-residential buildings classes 4- 9 for which the bushfire construction provisions of the BCA do not apply. These include schools, workplaces, hospitals, restaurants and entertainment venues, etc. The new planning requirements ensure development applications for these types of buildings are supported by a bushfire protection criteria technical


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 assessment and the BCA bushfire constructions standards are given due regard in the planning approval process. A more suitable approach would be to only enforce the requirements for these structures on lots 1,100m2 or more. If a single house or ancillary dwelling is exempt and that the house is the predominant use of the site, a patio or similar structure associated with a house should also be exempt. Particularly considering cases where a patio or shed is associated with a dwelling it may be classed as a Class 10A structure under the BCA and will be subject to the bushfire construction standards requirements through the building permit process. The Building bushfire construction requirements apply to all residential classes of development (Class 1, 2, 3 buildings), and non-habitable structures such as private garages, carports, sheds and decks associated with the main residential building (associated Class 10A buildings). The Building Act provides that a building includes part of a building, therefore these building requirements also apply to extension or renovation works. BAL Assessments The Planning and Building Amendment Regulations require a Bushfire Attack Level (BAL) assessment to be carried out before commencing development in a bushfire prone area. The BAL assessment outcome will determine if additional planning and building bushfire risk management provisions apply as shown in the table below. The same BAL assessment lodged at the planning application stage can be used for the purposes of the building permit stage.

BAL Rating Bushfire Reform Requirements BAL-LOW very low risk

There are no further bushfire planning or building requirements.

BAL-12.5 to BAL-29 low risk to high risk

SPP3.7 - Strategic planning proposals, subdivision applications and development applications will need to address the bushfire protection criteria of the Guidelines. Subdivision and Development Applications for vulnerable or high risk land uses will not be supported unless an accompanying Bushfire Management Plan is supported by both the Town and Department of Fire and Emergency Services. Building Amendment Regulations - Development to be built to the corresponding standards (Sections 3, 5, 6, or 7) set out in the AS3959.

BAL-40 and BAL-FZ very high risk to extreme risk

Planning Amendment Regulations - Development approval required for applicable development. SPP3.7 - Strategic planning proposals, subdivision applications and development applications will need to address the bushfire protection criteria in the Guidelines with the aim of achieving BAL-29 or less for the site. Building Amendment Regulations - Development to be built to the corresponding standards (sections 3, 8 or 9) set out in the AS3959.

It is difficult to determine the impact of the Bushfire Reforms without knowing the BAL rating of all the bushfire prone areas within the Town. For example, all strategic planning proposals, subdivisions and development and building applications within a designated bushfire prone area will need to be accompanied by a BAL Contour Map and/or a BAL assessment in order to prove the site has a BAL-LOW rating and will not require additional bushfire measures to be achieved. In effect, the BAL rating for every lot within a bushfire prone area will need to be confirmed. Although the Planning Amendment Regulations and SPP3.7 exclude single houses and ancillary dwellings on lots less than 1,100m2 and extensions and alterations to buildings on any lot size, a BAL rating will still be required for these buildings to know whether the BCA bushfire construction requirements will apply in the building permit process. In light of the established nature of the Town's residential areas, the BAL rating requirements are apt to most greatly impact the applicant/owner at the building permit stage.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 The Planning and Building Amendment Regulations make allowance for a BAL Contour Map that clearly displays the BAL rating for the subject lot to be used to accompany a planning or building application in lieu of a site specific BAL assessment. If a BAL Contour Map is to be used to support planning and/or building applications, it must certified by an accredited bushfire planning practitioner. As an example, the BAL Contour Map prepared for the St John's Wood subdivision (Attachment 3) shows BAL ratings ranging from BAL12.5 to BAL19 across the site. This demonstrates the BAL rating variations that can occur over a 3.5 hectare area and the need for bushfire hazard assessments to be undertaken in a formal and thorough manner. In accordance with SPP3.7, the Town will be required to undertake a BAL Contour Map during the preparation of the Local Planning Strategy, the Floreat Activity Centre Plan and is also likely to be required for the proposed City Beach High School. Therefore, it may be beneficial for the Town to undertake a BAL Contour Map with the intent for it to also be used for identifying the BAL rating for future development and building applications within the Town. This will reduce the onus on applicants/owners to individually prepare these and reduce the duplication of assessment. However, the Town has the discretion to require a BAL assessment if the existing BAL Contour Map is consider unsuitable for the purposes of assessing the application. SPP 3.7, the Guidelines and the Building Commission strongly recommend accredited Bushfire Planning Practitioners undertake and prepare various bushfire risk management documents; however, it is not a mandatory requirement. The State Government has developed a framework for the accreditation of practitioners who provide bushfire risk assessment services. Courses have also been developed to support the stakeholders involved in building and planning in bushfire prone areas. It is recommended the Town only accept Bushfire Attack Level assessments from a suitably qualified Bushfire Planning Practitioner until Town officers undertake an accreditation training course. Planning Application Assessment Implications Subdivision and development applications should be accompanied by a Bushfire Management Plan which contains a BAL assessment and compliance with the bushfire protection criteria requirements from the Guidelines for Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas with the aim of achieving BAL–29 or less for the site. This will enable a determination to be made that either refuses the proposed development or alternatively reduces the level of risk to it by the imposition of planning conditions. Bushfire Management Plans should be prepared by an accredited Bushfire Planning Practitioner capable of identifying the extent of the bushfire hazard to the development and setting appropriate short, medium and long term bushfire risk management responsibilities for landowners, the local government, and relevant authorities. Under the new Bushfire Reforms, the St John's Wood Bushfire Management Plan will remain relevant for up to five years from when it was created and may require updating from that point onwards. Development applications in a BAL-40 or BAL-FZ for high risk and vulnerable land uses where persons may be less able to respond in a bushfire emergency (such as the new City Beach High School and Ocean Gardens Retirement Village), have additional requirements that the accompanying Bushfire Management Plan must be jointly endorsed by the Town and the Department of Fire and Emergency Services. If a development application does not meet all the acceptable solutions of the bushfire protection criteria, then advice from the Department of Fire and Emergency Services in required. In circumstances where a development introduces a bushfire risk or where a BAL assessment for a site in bushfire prone area results in a BAL-LOW, the Town will need to request the Office


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 of Bushfire Risk Management (OBRM) update the Map accordingly in the next revised version of the Map, in accordance with the Mapping Standard for Bush Fire Prone Areas. Map of Bushfire Prone Areas Review Bushfire risk can change over time and is influenced by the changing intensification of development. To ensure local circumstances are accurately and consistently reflected, the OBRM coordinate a review of the Map within six months of its initial release and on an annual basis thereafter. The OBRM has provided 60 days for local governments to review the bushfire prone area dataset to check if sites could be removed or need to be added to the Map. Amendment requests are to be submitted to the OBRM by Friday, 18 March 2016 and the Map is scheduled to be updated in May 2016. The Town undertook a desktop review of the bushfire prone area vegetation dataset within the Town's boundaries. There is potential to request certain areas be removed from the Map as detailed in Attachment 1, however, it is unlikely the existence of bushfire prone vegetation has changed because the designated bushfire prone areas have not been cleared or revegetated since the data was collected in early 2015, nor is there anticipated development proposed in these areas. Further to this, the OBRM recommend adopting a precautionary approach where it is uncertain whether an area of vegetation meets the criteria to be bushfire prone. On this basis, it is considered inappropriate to request areas to be removed without a formal assessment undertaken by an accredited practitioner. It is noted that bushfire prone areas in neighbouring jurisdictions such as the Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority, City of Stirling and the City of Nedlands may cross into the Town's boundary once the 100 metre buffer is applied to the bushfire prone vegetation. Notification to Landowners in Bushfire Prone Areas The majority of the bushfire reform requirements are largely dependent on outcomes of bushfire risk assessments prior to the submission of a formal planning or building application. This adds an additional layer of responsibility onto landowners, particularly if only a minor portion of a lot falls within a bushfire prone area. For example, landowners must be aware if their property is designated within a bushfire prone area; prepare a Bushfire Attack Level assessment to determine whether additional planning and building assessment is required; and support their application with bushfire risk management measures where required. The Department of Planning, Department of Fire and Emergency Services, Office of Bushfire Risk Management and the Building Commission have prepared a suite of technical notes, fact sheets and industry bulletins to provide supplementary information and to assist the public and decision-makers identify measures required to comply with the bushfire reform requirements. However, there is no 'one stop shop' for information for landowners within bushfire prone areas. As such, the Town will create a webpage with a summary on the bushfire reform package, links to the relevant Building Commission, Department of Planning and DFES webpages and a dedicated link to the OBRM Map of Bushfire Prone Areas. At this stage, the bushfire prone areas layer is not available on the public Intramaps but will be when the Town's bushfire reform package webpage is created. In addition, it is recommended a letter be sent to notify all landowners within bushfire prone areas of the new Bushfire Reform implications and where they can seek further information and details. The OBRM require that any Map amendment requests made by members of the public must be directed to the Town to be considered in the forthcoming annual review. As such, any comments or requests received from landowners regarding bushfire prone area designations will be recorded for the next annual review of the Map of Bushfire Prone Areas.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS:

The gazettal and commencement of the Bushfire Reform Package has implications on the statutory processes of the planning and building approval processes.


There are no direct financial implications related to this report.


Consideration and Implementation of the Bushfire Reform Package is consistent with all areas of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023.


The Bushfire Reform Package was released and came into operation in December 2015. A letter will be sent informing affected property owners of the newly designated bushfire prone areas and bushfire reform implications and further notice may be included in an edition of the Cambridge News and Town website.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Map of Bushfire Prone Areas Review: site reviews. 2. Special Gazette No.183 (Fire and Emergency Services (Bushfire Prone Areas) Order

2015; Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Amendment Regulations 2015; State Planning Policy 3.7: Planning in Bushfire Prone Areas; and Building Amendment Regulations (No.3) 2015).

3. St John's Wood Fire Management Plan BAL Contour Map.


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) the Report informing Council on the Government Gazette (No. 183) containing

Bushfire Reform Package be noted; (ii) the Office of Bushfire Risk Management be advised the bushfire prone vegetation

dataset for the Town of Cambridge has been reviewed and that no amendments are required at present;

(iii) affected landowners and occupiers located in bushfire prone areas be notified of

the new bushfire reform requirements; (iv) any comments received from landowners will be recorded for the next annual

review of the Map of Bushfire Prone Areas. Carried 5/0



DV16.28 DRAFT POLICY 5.2 - REVISED ADVERTISING SIGNS POLICY - ADOPTION BY COUNCIL FOR ADVERTISING

SUMMARY:

Advertisements are classed as development under the Town Planning Scheme and therefore require the Council's planning approval unless specifically exempted by planning policy. The Town's Advertising Signs Policy 5.2 addresses the types of signs exempt from planning approval and provides standards for signs requiring planning approval. The Town's Advertising Signs Policy 5.2 was last reviewed as part of a broad review of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual adopted by Council on 13 October 2009 (Item DV 09.105). There is a need for further review of the policy to consider issues highlighted with recent development applications and address general revisions. The key revisions proposed to Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy are as follows. The review of the policy considers issues highlighted with recent development applications and addresses general revisions:- • Revisions to Definitions for 'Advertisement' and inclusion of definitions for 'Third Party

Advertising' and the various sign types addressed by the policy in this section. • Strengthen the policy Aims to include references to streetscape and amenity, should only

form an incidental component of a development and emphasise that signs only relate to the goods and services offered on the site; that no third party advertising is permitted whatsoever.

• Revised and additional signage types and specifications are included in both sections 1 (excluded from planning approval requirement) and 2 (planning approval required) of the policy.

A full copy of the proposed policy is included in Attachment 1.

BACKGROUND:

Advertisements are classed as development under the Town Planning Scheme and therefore require the Council's planning approval unless specifically exempted by planning policy. The Town's Advertising Signs Policy 5.2 addresses the types of signs exempt from planning approval and provides standards for signs requiring planning approval. The Town's Advertising Signs Policy 5.2 was last reviewed as part of a broad review of the Town Planning Scheme Policy Manual adopted by Council on 13 October 2009 (Item DV 09.105). There is a need for further review of the policy to consider issues highlighted with recent development applications and address general revisions.

In 2014 and 2015, the Metro West JDAP has considered several applications for the property at Lot 1 (No. 3) Oxford Close, corner Railway Parade West Leederville. The developments involved an office development with ground floor café and a LED billboard advertising sign. The applications were refused for reasons of inconsistency with the Town's West Leederville Precinct Policy and the Advertising Signs Policy. More specifically regarding the sign proposal, it did not accord with the Policy in not advertising information relating to the use of the site and due to the adverse amenity impacts of the illumination of the sign. The policy, however, did not specifically address requirements for billboard and electronic billboard signs. The latest


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 application refused by the JDAP on 8 June 2015 was subsequently approved on 13 November 2015 following a SAT review process. The Town has just recently received an application for a very large electronic billboard sign for third party advertising at No. 1 Cambridge Street, West Leederville. The site is in a prominent location. The Town's Advertising Signs Policy 5.2 currently specifies that advertising signs shall display information relating to the site of the advertising and illuminated signage shall only be permitted where Council (or DAP as responsible authority) is satisfied it will not have a detrimental effect on the amenity of the area. Signs shall not pulsate or have light or intensity of colours so as to cause nuisance to the public and adjoining sites or interfere with traffic signals. The Town Planning Scheme Review Steering Committee subsequently agreed that the Advertising Signs Policy should be reviewed to strengthen the existing policy requirement that signs only advertise the goods and services on the subject site, that is that no third party advertising be permitted to prohibit billboard and electronic billboard signs. There is also a need to review the standards for real estate signs and provide for other sign types with appropriate standards.

DETAILS:

The key revisions proposed to Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy are outlined below. The review of the policy considers issues highlighted with recent development applications and address general revisions. Definitions The current policy only contains a definition of 'Advertisement' in this section. The revised policy provides an updated and expanded definition of 'Advertisement' reflecting the definition included in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Further, a definition is added for Third Party Advertising as follows:-

Third Party Advertising means advertising not relating to the goods or services offered on the site on which the advertising is located.

The revised policy provisions subsequently prohibit third party advertising and this position is also reiniterated under the aims of the policy. In addition, definitions are provided in this section for all types of signs addressed in the policy. In the case of sign types addressed in section 2 of the current policy, namely flag, fence, projecting wall, pylon, roof, under awning and wall signs, their definitions are revised and relocated into the Definitions section. The following definitions for different types of signs have been added as follows:-

Hoarding Sign means an advertising sign fixed to a freestanding structure that is not a building and that has one or more supports and where the overall height (including supports) is less than the width of the sign.

Awning Sign means a sign which is painted onto or attached to an awning and faces onto the street but does not include an under awning sign.



Monolith sign means a singular freestanding structure featuring signage where the largest dimension of the structure is vertical. Promotional Display means a balloon, blimp or similar device or display used to provide information about the business or site or promote the business and usually on the roof of the building.

Definitions have also been included for the following types of signs which are proposed as exempt from planning approval:-

Community Information Sign means a temporary sign relating to or giving directions to a charitable, cultural, educational, recreational or other public or community function, exhibition, meeting, display event or activity conducted by a community association other than for commercial gain. Election Sign means a temporary sign which encourages persons to vote for a candidate, political party or matter, relating to any Federal, State or local government election, referendum or poll. Ground-based Sign means a sign not attached to a building and includes A-frame signs (sandwich boards), spinners and the like, and are generally portable.

Definitions have also been added for the following types of advertising and signs which are not permitted under the policy:

Billboard means a third party advertising sign attached to or painted onto the outside wall of a building or freestanding or attached to a vehicle. Electronic Billboard Sign means any sign which contains third party advertising with content that moves and/or is electronic and may include flashing or chasing lights, incorporate variable messages, fibre optic or LED technology, which may be attached to a building, free-standing or attached to a vehicle. Third Party Advertising - as defined above.

Aims It is considered important that relevant decision-makers, including the Administration, Council and JDAP, have regard to the aims and objectives of policies in their decisions. Accordingly, the Policy Aims are revised and strengthened to include references to streetscape and amenity and emphasise that signs only relate to the goods and services offered on the site; that no third party advertising is permitted whatsoever and that signage should only form an incidential component of a development. Additional Signage Types and Requirements As noted in the Definitions section above, a number of additional signage types are included in the revised Policy. Community Information Signs, Election Signs, Ground-based signs and Portable flag (or self-standing banner style) signs have been added to the sign types addressed in section 1, being signs excluded from planning approval requirements. As minor signs and those generally temporary in nature (in the case of community information and election signs) it is appropriate these sign types are exempt from approval requirements in most cases. Election signs are specifically exempted in the Local Planning Schemes Regulations 2015, while community information signs display information about community events and the like on a temporary basis. The specifications proposed for ground-based signs are consistent with the specifications included in the Council Policy 4.4.7 Signs on Public Property adopted by Council in November 2015.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 In section 2 - signs requiring planning approval, several modifications have been made as follows:- • Specifications have been included for Hoardings Signs, including a maximum sign area of

20m2 and a maximum of one sign per street frontage of a lot (section 2.11 refers). • Specifications have been added for Monolith Signs which are becoming more popular to

restrict height to 4.0m and width of 1.5m (refer to section 2.8). • Confirmation that no third party advertising is permitted has been added to the policy. • The addition of section 2.12 to confirm that 'Billboard and Electronic Billboard Signs are

not permitted. Of note, no requirements for signage for windows have been included as it is considered that conditions of approval can be sufficient in precluding this type of signage such that windows should remain clear glazed and not obscured.


The changes proposed will amend the Policy Manual adopted under Town Planning Scheme by revising Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs. Policy 5.2 Advertising Signs will be advertised in accordance with the procedures for amending Local Planning Policies under Schedule 2, Part 2, Cl.5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations.


The cost of advertising Council's decision on the draft Policy in the local paper is covered in the Town's budget.


The proposed draft Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs Policy would contribute towards achieving the goal of 'Successful commercial, retail and social hubs' and in particular to facilitate commercial development within the Town.


Draft Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy will be advertised in accordance with pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2, Part 2 Cl. 5. Advertising will consist of the following:-

• Advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard;

• A notice be included on the Town's website; • A letter to be sent to all commercial landowners in the Town; and • A notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 In advertising the revised draft Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs, the following advertising method is proposed:- • Advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; • A notice and copy of the draft Policy be placed on the Town's website; • A letter sent to ratepayer groups; • Letters to be sent to all commercial property owners in the Town; • A letter sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Draft Policy 5.2: Advertising Signs Policy


Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That:- (i) pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015

Schedule 2, Part 2 Cl. 5, draft Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy, as attached, be adopted for the purpose of advertising;

(ii) draft Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy be advertised as follows:-

• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard; • a notice be included on the Town's website; • a letter to be sent to all commercial landowners in the Town; and • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups. Committee Meeting 16 February 2016 During discussion, Members noted that the precinct policies are to be updated in line with the Advertising Signs Policy upon final adoption. Members also considered the need for appropriate standards to be included for election signage. Amendment Moved by Cr MacRae, seconded by Cr O'Connor That clause (i) of the motion be amended to read as follows:- (i) pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015

Schedule 2, Part 2 Cl. 5, draft Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy, as attached, be adopted for the purpose of advertising, subject to the modification of Election signage standards as follows:-

• one sign per street frontage, and a maximum of two signs per page; • maximum size of 1 sq metres per sign.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 That a further clause be added to the motion as follows:-

(iii) the Town's Planning Precinct Policies to include reference to advertising signage requirements once the draft Advertising Signs Policy is adopted.

Amendment carried COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) pursuant to the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations

2015 Schedule 2, Part 2 Cl. 5, draft Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy, as attached, be adopted for the purpose of advertising, subject to the modification of Election signage standards as follows:-

• one sign per street frontage, and a maximum of two signs per page; • maximum size of 1 sq metres per sign;

(ii) draft Policy 5.2 - Advertising Signs Policy be advertised as follows:-

• advertisements be placed in the local newspaper under the Cambridge noticeboard;

• a notice be included on the Town's website; • a letter to be sent to all commercial landowners in the Town; and • a notice be sent to the Western Australian Planning Commission and local

ratepayer groups. (iii) the Town's Planning Precinct Policies to include reference to advertising signage

requirements once the draft Advertising Signs Policy is adopted. Carried 5/0



DV16.29 DELEGATED DECISIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR DECEMBER 2015 AND JANUARY 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

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

DETAILS:

The following items (for the months of December 2015 and January 2016) 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:- December 2015 • 16 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Retaining wall and front fence • 8 Bent Street, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 18 Catesby Street, City Beach - Shade sail • 12 Boscombe Avenue, City Beach - Children's cubby house • 28 Maloney Way, City Beach - Ancillary dwelling • 50 Pandroa Drive, City Beach - Front fence • 5 Boscastle Avenue, City Beach - Swimming pool and decking • 13 Frinton Avenue, City Beach - Shade sails • 13 Barnsely Road, Mount Claremont - Carport • 29 Hornsey Road, Floreat - Signs for display home • 6 Hornsey Road, Floreat - Shed • 34 Oceanic Drive, Floreat - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - new ensuite,

timber wall and front retaining wall • 3 Athlone Road, Floreat - Garden shed • 1 Dunkeld Street, Floreat - Boundary wall and pool fence • 26 Linden Gardens, Floreat - Two storey dwelling • 31 Evandale Street, Floreat - Retrospective approval - change of use from garden shed

to ancillary dwelling • 99 Evandale Street, Floreat - Limestone garden terraced retaining walls • 126 Holland Street, Wembley - Pergola, deck and feature wall • 169 Harborne Street, Wembley - Carport • 167 Jersey Street, Wembley - Carport and front fence • 32 Essex Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 130 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - garage,

alfresco, pergola, study, living/dining room and kitchen • 53 Lake Monger Drive, Wembley - Alfresco • 248-250 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of use from office to educational facility • 65 Reserve Street, Wembley - Front fence and retaining walls • 341 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Change of use from office to shop (beauty salon) • 116 Harborne Street, Wembley - Retrospective approval - alfresco enclosure to create

store • 31 Holyrood Street, West Leederville - Patio


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 January 2016 • 14 Yalgun Road, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - new living,

dining room, bedroom with walk in robe and ensuite • 9 Gali Lane, City Beach - Vergola • 14 Marimba Crescent, City Beach - Deck • 24 Omaroo Terrace, City Beach - Two storey dwelling • 30 Catesby Street, City Beach - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling • 5 Wollaston Road, Mount Claremont - Carport to Conference Centre (John Wollaston

College) • 45 Donegal Road, Floreat - Single storey dwelling • 42 Alderbury Street, Floreat - Pool shed • 16 Collier Street, Wembley - Second storey addition and alterations to existing dwelling • 33b Barrett Street, Wembley - Two storey dwelling • 120 Harborne Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - games

room and master bedroom • 87 Daglish Street, Wembley - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling - new living

room, alfresco, study, laundry and first floor additions • 65 Reserve Street, Wembley - Deck, pool and boundary fencing • 1B/228 Cambridge Street, Wembley - Commercial sign • 3 Blencowe Street, West Leederville - Additions and alterations to existing dwelling -

dining, bathroom and alfresco to the rear. The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for approval:- • Lot 216 and 215 (No. 85 and 87) Cambridge Street, West Leederville - Two lot

amalgamation • Lot 117 (No. 62) Meagher Drive, Floreat - Two lot subdivision The following items were referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission with a recommendation for refusal:- • Lot 387 (No. 56) Challenger Parade, City Beach - Two lot subdivision • Lot 2 (No. 91) Kimberley Street, West Leederville - Two lot survey strata subdivision The following items are notifications of applications for review and decisions for Council’s information:- Applications for Review (Appeals) - received The following applications for review were lodged with the State Administrative Tribunal against decisions of the Council during December/January 2016: • 128 St Leonards Avenue, West Leederville - Single storey dwelling (retention of existing

crossover). An onsite mediation is scheduled for 4 March 2015. Applications for Review (Appeals) - determined No applications for review were determined by the State Administrative Tribunal during December 2015/January 2016.



Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That the report on Delegated Decisions and Notifications dealt with under delegated authority for the period commencing 1 December 2014 and ending 31 January 2016 be received. Carried 5/0



DV16.30 BUILDING PERMITS APPROVED UNDER DELEGATED AUTHORITY FOR DECEMBER 2015 AND JANUARY 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To provide monthly statistics and comparative data of building permits approved under delegated authority in December 2015 and January 2016.

BACKGROUND:

Listed below are the total numbers of permits issued in the month of December 2015 and January 2016. Also shown are the comparative figures of the number of permits issued on the same month of the previous year and year to date totals. December

2015 December

2014 Financial Year

to Date 2015/2016

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2014/2015

Building Permits (Certified) 34 37 184 223 Building Permits (Uncertified)

19 8 139 111

Demolition Permits 4 4 35 52 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 1 6 9

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

0 0 1 0

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

5 3 13 12

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

1 0 2 1

Total

64

53

380

408

Value of Construction $12,143,250 $33,980,114 $112,471,104 $179,264,940 Note: The total value of construction for December 2014 period was influenced by the approval for the Mixed Use Development (Sixty Nine Residential Apartments and Seven Retail/Commercial Shops) situated at 334 Cambridge Street, Wembley.


DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016 January

2016 January

2015 Financial Year

to Date 2015/2016

Corresponding Financial Year to Date 2014/2015

Building Permits (Certified) 19 17 203 240 Building Permits (Uncertified)

8 26 147 137

Demolition Permits 6 7 41 59 Building Approval Certificate (unauthorised work)

1 0 7 9

Building Approval Certificate (Strata Development)

1 0 2 0

Occupancy Permits (Classes 2-9 only)

0 0 13 12

Occupancy Permits (Strata Development)

0 0 2 1

Total

35

50

415

458

Value of Construction $6,772,480 $10,973,946 $119,141,243 $190,238,886 Note: The total value of construction for January 2015 period was influenced by the approval for the Construction of 16 Two Storey Grouped Dwellings with Undercroft Garages situated at 51 Flynn Street, Wembley. COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Bradley, seconded by Cr MacRae That the Schedule of Building and Demolition Permits approved under delegated authority for the months of December 2015 and January 2016 as attached to and forming part of the notice paper, be received. Carried 5/0


COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE

15 FEBRUARY 2016

ORDER OF BUSINESS







7. REPORTS

CR16.1 Road Improvement - Capital Works Five Year Program from 201617 4 CR16.2 Road Asset Management and Five Year Program for Road Resurfacing 9 CR16.3 Infrastructure Parks 201617 Proposed Budget Works 16 CR16.4 Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines for New Residential

Estates 23 CR16.5 Adoption of Policy 5.1.5 Street Tree Protection During Property

Development 31 CR16.6 Bath Street Minor Parking Amendment 36 CR16.7 Northwood Street Minor Parking Amendment 39 CR16.8 Pether Lane and Northwood Street Transport Advice Stage 2 42 CR16.9 Review of Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 52 CR16.10 Proposed New Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 58 CR16.11 Jubilee Reserve, City Beach - Approval of Temporary Parking

Arrangements 64 CR16.12 Proposed Local Cambridge Walking Strategy 67 CR16.13 Proposed 'Truck Stop' Community Event 71 CR16.14 Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach Parking

Proposal: Proposed Car Parking Expansion 75 CR16.15 Documents Sealed - February 2016 81 CR16.16 Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 - Minor Breaches

Review 83 CR16.17 West Coast Sporting Association Status Update 90 CR16.18 Payment of Accounts - December 2015 and January 2016 96 CR16.19 Investment Schedule - January 2016 98 CR16.20 Monthly Financial Statements, Review and Variances - January 2016 104 CR16.21 Mid Year Budget Review 2015/2016 110 CR16.22 Desktop Review of the Strategic Community Plan 118 CR16.23 Community Consultation and Engagement Review 122

8. CLOSURE

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 15 FEBRUARY 2016 I

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE HELD AT THE ADMINISTRATION/CIVIC CENTRE, 1 BOLD PARK DRIVE, FLOREAT ON MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2016.


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


Present : Time of Time of Entering Leaving Members: Cr Louis Carr (Presiding Member) 6.00 pm 9.15 pm Mayor Keri Shannon 6.00 pm 9.15 pm Cr Sonia Grinceri 6.00 pm 9.15 pm Cr Jane Powell 6.00 pm 9.15 pm Cr Andres Timmermanis 6.00 pm 9.15 pm Observers: Cr Rod Bradley Officers: Jason Lyon, Acting Chief Executive Officer Chris Colyer, Director Infrastructure Cam Robbins, Director Community Development Brett Jackson, Director Projects Jon Bell, Manager Infrastructure Works Ross Farlekas, Manager Infrastructure Parks Frank Strever, Coordinator Assets and Design Roy Ruitenga, Manager Finance Carole Lambert, Manager Community Development John Giorgi, Manager Compliance Stuart Hobley, Manager Governance & Contracts Paul O'Keefe, Coordinator Property & Governance Denise Ribbands, Executive Assistant (Corporate Support) Adjournments: Nil Time meeting closed: 9.15 pm APOLOGIES/LEAVE OF ABSENCE Nil

MINUTES - COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE - 15 FEBRUARY 2016 1

COMMUNITY AND RESOURCES COMMITTEE MONDAY 15 FEBRUARY 2016


Written Questions Chris Dobel, Leederville Sporting Club Question 1 If the Leederville Sporting Club was able to prevent all parking the Town of Cambridge is opposed to would the Town seek punitive measures? Response This issue will be discussed by the Committee tonight. Question 2 Why does the Town not object to members of The Community Gardens using our land to park on? Response The Club is responsible for the management of the grassed car park. The lease specifically prohibits the area being used for parking by business employees/customers and persons attending events at Subiaco Football Ground. Question 3 Are any other community groups within the Town in breach of their lease including behind in any of their payments, unlike The Leederville Sporting Club? Response Yes, and we are working with these Clubs. Verbal Question Martin Fowles, West Coast Sporting Association Can Item CR16.17 be brought forward to the start of the meeting? Response This will be considered by the Committee


Item CR16.13 Kelly Price, Coveted Events Item CR16.14 Sam Birmingham, President WCSA




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That the Minutes of the Ordinary meeting of the Community and Resources Committee held on 7 December 2015 as contained in the December 2015 Council Notice Paper be confirmed. Carried 5/0


Nil

7. REPORTS



CR16.1 ROAD IMPROVEMENT - CAPITAL WORKS FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FROM 201617

SUMMARY:

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

BACKGROUND:

In December 2014 (Item CR14.185), Council considered a Road Improvement Capital Works Program for 2015/16 to 2019/20. It is now proposed that Council reviews and upgrades the program for the next five year period recognising the works that have been budgeted to be carried out in the 2015/16 financial year. The draft program was developed from Council's previously approved works and community requests with an objective to:- • reduce traffic accidents; • manage traffic speeds; • reinforce the road hierarchy; • provide cyclists and pedestrian facilities; • upgrade the streetscape; • recognise adjacent land developments. The criteria for prioritising work to be considered with this program includes:- • roadway capacity and efficiency; • traffic accident statistics and road safety audits; • traffic speed and volume statistics; • community and Councillor requests; • public transport requirements; • pedestrian, cyclists and adjacent property requirements; • traffic study reports. Adoption of a program of project proposals is desirable due to the complexity of preparing designs in conjunction with existing public utilities, the time to obtain the necessary statutory approvals and to carry out community consultation. Further, the program allows for grant submissions to be prepared in line with Council approved direction and additional funding may be obtained if successful.



DETAILS:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Recognising the varying demands on the various road classifications, the Council is challenged to develop different levels of serviceability for each criteria. Issues for Consideration for 2016/17 - Year 1 1. Continuous improvement in streetscape amenity and the quality of infrastructure can be

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

2. Safe pedestrian crossings for district distributor streets is an important issue if Council is

to encourage increased pedestrian activity. It is evident several crossing locations on Grantham Street should be provided. Holland Street is listed for consideration for construction in Year 1 (2016/17). The two previous budgets have funded pedestrian crossings over Grantham Street at McKenzie and Essex Streets.



3. A list of seven projects which have been assessed for State and Federal Blackspot grant

funding were considered by Council in July 2015 (CR15.88). Five of the seven projects are currently under evaluation by Main Roads WA for funding. All seven sites are listed in the Draft Year 1 program of works for consideration.

4. The Underwood/Brookdale/Brockway Road Improvement Project. This is being managed

by the City of Nedlands and is a boundary project requiring both Local Governments to contribute financially. This intersection of Underwood/Brookdale Avenue and Brockway Road requires review to facilitate right turn movements from Underwood Avenue and decrease congestion on all four legs. The current Main Roads program has this project staged for construction by City of Nedlands over two budget periods - 2016/17 and 2017/18.

5. A new project is listed for the section of Northwood Street between Cambridge Street and

Woolwich Street. This section of road pavement has excessive crossfall and consequently the adjacent verge areas are very steep. It is proposed the kerb gutter level be raised by around 200mm, the existing road profiled and consequently the verge areas will not be as steep. This project is bought forward for Year 1 consideration as asphalt overlay works are scheduled in 2016/17 for Northwood Street between Railway Parade and Lake Monger Drive.

6. The report Attachment provides additional information on proposed projects for 2016/17

Draft Budget, together with details on other projects for future years. It is expected during committee discussion, direction can be given in relation to the Council's priorities and the Attachment revised accordingly. This will then allow the administration to prepare estimates for inclusion in the Draft Budget for 2016/17

Other Projects Pedestrian safety improvements over Cambridge Street to access St John of God Hospital somewhere between Connolly Street and McCourt Street has been on the program for several years. Preliminary assessment of locations and pedestrian movements has been completed and a submission to Main Roads WA has been completed. All infrastructure associated with the "Pelican Crossing" require prior approval from Main Roads WA and are to be fully funded by the Town. Main Roads WA required further justification on the need for this crossing and on that basis it is listed in Year 2 - 2017/18. Each year, a review of the traffic accident statistics is compiled and forwarded to Council by Main Roads WA. From the review of this data, new projects are highlighted. State and Federal Black Spot Grant applications are assessed annually for Council consideration. When these projects are successful, a Council contribution of approximately one third of the project cost is required for State grants. Federal Blackspot projects are fully funded and do not require a contribution from the Town. A list of Council's Blackspot sites was last reviewed by Council in July 2015 (CR15.88). The State Government provides grants for Local Government Road Improvement and Rehabilitation funding based on a cost benefit ratio assessment. These projects may be chosen from those incorporated in the five year works program, however, they must meet a specific criteria for improvement of the street environment as well as show that they have a priority greater than those submitted by other Councils throughout the State. The road rehabilitation grants are specifically for road asphalt resurfacing and may be supported by Council funds for upgrading of kerbing and/or drainage. A report was considered by Council in March 2015 (CR15.18) for projects in 2015/16. A further review for 2016/17 is proposed for Council consideration in February 2016.



Road Improvement Grants were not considered in 2015 as no projects were assessed as meeting the grant criteria. This is the same scenario for 2016/17, however, details have been provided in relation to a City of Nedlands boundary road project. Other Capital Works Programs This program of projects is supplemented by other programs presented to Council:- • Five Year Program for Footpaths; • Program for Road Resurfacing; • Laneway Upgrading Program; • Bicycle Path Plan Program; and • Development of a drainage program resultant from CCTV assessment of infrastructure. Comment: It is acknowledged this draft program is based on previous Council programs, issues raised by the public, and from investigations by Infrastructure staff. Extra projects can be listed for consideration when raised by elected members.


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


The estimated cost of the proposed budgeted works in the past budget has been around $700,000 per year. The level of funding is variable as it depends on Council priorities in the areas of Infrastructure like footpaths, road resurfacing, laneways and over the last two budgets an increased requirement for drainage improvements has been made.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Facilitate commercial development within the Town. Strategy: Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Work towards improving public transport. Strategy: Reduce car dependency.



Our Council Goal: A strong performing local government Strategy: Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard. Strategy: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


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

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Capital Works Roadworks Priorities Program 2016/17 to 2020/21 - Draft 5 Year Program


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the proposed five year capital road works program for 2016/17 to 2020/21, as

attached, be endorsed for future planning and budget preparation; (ii) the projects as listed on the 5 Year Program for Year 1, 2016/17 be costed and

included in the 2016/17 draft budget submission for consideration by Council; and (iii) investigation, design and grant funding application be prepared in line with the

accepted five year program. Carried 5/0



CR16.2 ROAD ASSET MANAGEMENT AND FIVE YEAR PROGRAM FOR ROAD RESURFACING

SUMMARY:

A Five Year Program (2016-2021) for road resurfacing is required for reviewing expenditure levels and preparing a road resurfacing program for the Draft 2016/17 Budget. The recommended funding level and extent of road resurfacing will ensure that the overall condition of the Town's road network will not slowly degrade over the term of the program. The asphalt road surfaces within the Town continue to perform as predicted by road deterioration modelling because of good pavement construction, a stable sand sub-grade and low volumes of heavy traffic. In this year's review, the length of resurfacing required has not increased from the 2004 and 2009 predictions. The only adjustment required is a 2.5% price increase based on anticipated price increases for bitumen, materials, labour and plant.

BACKGROUND:

Council last reviewed the program for road resurfacing in March 2015 (Item CR15.18) 'Road Asset Management and Five Year Program for Road Resurfacing' and decided that:- (i) the updated Five Year Program (2015-2020) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as an

asset management program; (ii) the projects listed in year 2015 of the program be considered for funding in the

2015/16 Draft Budget.

An independent inspection and review of the entire Town's road assets has been carried out at five year intervals in 1999, 2004, 2009 and 2014. The condition data from the 2014 review was included into the roads section of Town's Asset Management System (Asset Finda) and the previous road resurfacing program was updated to reflect this condition data. The new program indicates:- • Roads that should be considered for resurfacing as a priority in the Draft 2016/17 Budget; • Roads that should be considered for resurfacing during the remainder of the 5 Year

Program. • Distributor Roads that have grant funding approved by the Metropolitan Regional Road

Grants in the 2016/17 Budget; and • Roads that should be considered for applying for Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in

2017/18. Applications will close in late April 2016.

DETAILS:

1. General and Background Information The Town manages a total of 189 kilometres of sealed roads and lanes (ROW's). Another 5 kilometres of unsealed lanes are programmed to be upgraded to a seal standard over the next 10 years.



The current strategy for maintaining these roads and lanes was originally derived from the ARRB study carried out in 2004 and reported to Council on 24 November 2004. The condition and resurfacing program of all roads was reviewed again in 2009 by Pavement Analysis Pty Ltd, and again in 2014 by Asset Infrastructure Management (AIM). Condition Assessment Criteria All pavements are assessed on a combination of age information and condition data to determine when it is most appropriate to resurface specific road pavements. When conducting an assessment, each road was driven slowly from its starting point so that the assessor could observe and record relevant condition defects and inventory characteristics. The inspection followed the standard ROMAN II data collection methodology at all times. Broadly speaking, this involved assessing each road and laneway for: • Local cracking defects • Cracking • Asphalt/binder/stone/brick paving condition • Patches • Rutting • Shoving • Stripping • Table drains • Shoulders • Edges • Kerbs • Unsealed shape and dust The inspection team also validated road surface materials. Inspection results were transferred into a database. The database structure was provided by the Town and featured road sections broken into treatment lengths. Condition data was summarised up to each treatment length from the hard copy results. The final data included the following condition rating fields: • Asphalt condition • Crack extent • Rutting • Shoving • Flushing • Holes • Patches • Left kerb condition • Left kerb height • Right kerb condition • Right kerb height • Unsealed shape The resurfacing program is initially based on the surface age of each section of pavement. In general, the resurfacing is first scheduled at the following base intervals: • Lanes every 35 years • Residential Access Roads every 30 years, • Local Distributor Roads every 25 years • District Distributor B Roads every 20 years



• District Distributor A Roads every 15 years • Primary Distributors (Loftus Street) 15 years. This scheduling is then adjusted for each section of road depending on its visually inspected condition that includes rutting, cracking and surface repairs. Assessment Summary Overall, the latest visual inspection and review by Asset Infrastructure Management in 2014 noted that: • Measured on a 1 to 5 scale:-

- 1 (Excellent - recently resurfaced) 5% - 2 (Good - no cracking or signs of distress) 15% - 3 (Average - showing signs of age and cracking) 55% - 4 (Poor - schedule resurfacing over next 5 years) 24% - 5 (Very Poor - schedule resurfacing next year) 1%

• 14% of the kerb has insufficient height. • 2% of the roads had some level of rutting. • 5% of the roads had some level of patching. • 18% of the roads had some level of cracking. • To maintain current condition, total funding of road surfacing should be approximately

$2,000,000, based on the standard unit resurfacing rates adopted by AIM. The overall values for the condition assessment should be considered as normal variation. The roads rated "Poor" and "Very Poor" are the roads that are included in the 5 Year Program. If all roads were rating "Average" and above, then no roads would be listed for resurfacing for the next five years. The inspection was carried out in September 2014 before the 2014/15 resurfacing program commenced. Therefore the results include approximately 7 kilometres of road that were rated "Poor" or "Very Poor" and have since been resurfaced. The percentage of roads rated "Poor" and "Very Poor" has been reduced by 4% and the number of roads rated as "Excellent" has increased by 4%. 2. Distributor Roads The total length of distributor roads is 45 kilometres (including 7.6 kilometres of dual carriageway). Traffic volumes are greater than 2,000 vehicles per day. In practice, distributor roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 15 and 25 years depending on traffic loading and thickness of the underlying pavement. This means that approximately 2.25 kilometres per year should be resurfaced. Most of these will qualify for MRRG Road Rehabilitation grants depending on condition. The Town sought funding for ten projects under the Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in the 2016/17 Budget. This was reported in May 2015 - CR15.50 Road Rehabilitation and Road Improvement Grants 2016/2017. All ten projects were approved for funding by MRWA in November 2015:-



Road Name Section Length (metre)

Total Score

Project Cost ($)

Approved Grant ($)

Drabble Road 70m north of Minbah to Peasholm 300 1,560 $85,008 $56,672

Grantham Street

Kirkdale to The Boulevard 270 2,118 $113,264 $75,510

Jersey Street Cambridge to Grantham 700 2,369 $287,351 $191,567 Lake Monger Drive

Westbound Lanes. Kimberley to 120m east 120 2,025 $70,332 $46,888

Lake Monger Drive

Eastbound Lanes. Kimberley to Freeway 260 2,646 $133,733 $89,155

Oceanic Drive Howtree / Brookdale intersection 50 1,992 $45,869 $30,579

Road Name Section Length (metre)

Total Score

Project Cost ($)

Approved Grant ($)

Rochdale Road

230m east of West Coast Highway to Wollaston Road 360 1,975 $106,320 $70,880

Selby Street

Southbound Lanes. Cambridge to The Boulevard 120 2,917 $53,819 $35,879

Selby Street

Northbound Lanes. Cambridge to The Boulevard 120 2,278 $53,819 $35,879

Selby Street The Boulevard to Ruislip 260 2,409 $135,160 $90,107

Totals 860 $349,118.00 $232,745.00 The grants cover 2/3 of the total required for asphalt works. Council is required to match this grant up to $361,500. Distributor Roads that should be considered for Metropolitan Regional Road Grants in 2016/17 are highlighted in yellow on the attached program. Applications for these will be due in late April 2016. 3. Local Access Roads

The total length of local access roads is 128 kilometres. Traffic volumes are less than 2,000 vehicles per day. Resurfacing is generally required every 30 years depending on condition. This means that an average of 4.35 kilometres per year will require resurfacing. In practice, local access roads have required resurfacing at a seal age between 25 and 35 years. The prioritisation process schedules sections of road that are near to each other into the same year so that they may be resurfaced as one project and take advantage of a lower price associated with the larger asphalt tonnage. Water Corporation has advised that it will be installing underground sewers in Project Area 2A in central City Beach during 2016. Therefore, all roads affected by these works that were scheduled for resurfacing in 2016 have been deferred to 2017.



4. Condition of Pre-cast Kerb Replacing the old pre-cast kerb improves the cosmetic appearance of streets and controls the overflow of stormwater over kerbs into low lying properties. Most pre-cast kerb was laid between 1950 and 1970 until extruded kerb became available. If short sections of pre-cast kerb are misaligned, then these are corrected prior to resurfacing. If long sections of kerb are deteriorated or are too low, then they are replaced with extruded kerb. This has been done on a large scale, for example on Alexander Street, Elphin Street, Jukes Way, Oceanic Drive, Challenger Parade, The Boulevard and The Boulevard Service Road. The need for kerb replacement will increase over the next 20 years as the precast-kerbs on local access roads reach the end of their useful lives. The replacement of kerb is usually scheduled prior to road resurfacing if there is a serious lack of kerb height or a significant number of kerb sections are broken or misaligned. If the kerb is not replaced at this opportunity, then it should be in a good enough condition to last until the road is resurfaced in 20-30 years' time The cost of kerb replacement varies with each road. Some roads have a fully mountable kerb profile that was cast in-situ on top of the road seal. This can be easily removed and replaced with new kerbing for approximately $40 per metre or $80,000 per kilometre of road. However, most roads in the Town have sections of precast kerbs that are 200mm deep in the ground and weigh 100kg. To replace these kerbs requires the removal of the kerb, box-out of the verge, construction of a replacement pavement and re-laying a kerb at a cost of approximately $80 - $100 per metre or $180,000 per kilometre of road. If all 7.3 kilometre of roads listed in the resurfacing program were re-kerbed, the cost would be approximately $1,314,000 each year. In the Draft 2016/17 Capital Road Works Program, a nominal $150,000 is included for replacement of kerb on 0.8 kilometres of road. 5. Laneways Traffic volumes on laneways are less than 200 vehicles per day. The total length of sealed laneways is 16 kilometres. Resurfacing is scheduled every 35 years depending on condition. On average, a funding of $60,000 per year is required for resurfacing 16 kilometres of lanes at a rate of 500m per year. Since most lanes were constructed relatively recently, few lanes have become old enough to warrant resurfacing. Cale Lane, located between Cambridge Street and Newry Street, and Houlahan Lane, located between Cambridge Street and Salvado Road, are included in the draft 2016/17 road resurfacing program for a total of $65,100. The total length is 0.40 kilometres. 6. Maintain a Uniform Expenditure Level A uniform funding level in each budget is preferred over a funding level that varies greatly each year. The "what-if modelling" with the pavement deterioration algorithm that was carried out on the data collected in 2009 indicated that a uniform funding is adequate to maintain the current condition of roads for the next 20 years. There are no “crisis years” where an abnormal length of road requires resurfacing in one year. 7. Roads to Recovery Grant The Federal Roads to Recovery Grant program has been renewed for a further five years from 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2019 with a total funding of $1,073,878. This funding was to be allocated to the Town at a rate of $178,980 each year. However, the grant by the 2015/16 Roads to Recovery Program was increased to $511,470.



In 2016/17, the grant available will be $590,900 and will fund the resurfacing of approximately 2.0 km of road. This grant is required to fund an additional length of road each year on top of its normal program that are not funded by MRRG Grants, and, be roads that are significant. For the 2016/17 Draft Budget the following roads are nominated as additional projects above the normal 6.6 km of road resurfacing that the Town is required to carry out to maintain road condition: • Gregory Street (Dodd Street - Lake Monger Drive) 1.09 km $253,425 • Jersey Street (Grantham Street - Herdsman Parade) 0.4 km $124,000 • Northwood Street (Cambridge Street to Lake Monger Drive) 0.62 km $196,000

The total estimated cost is $573,425 and the surplus $17,475 will be allocated to another project when works are completed. 8. Summary The revised 5 Year Program for Road Resurfacing is included in the report Attachment. In summary the draft 2016/17 Budget (Year 2016) includes: • 2.7 km of Distributor Roads that will be funded with MRRG funding. • 3.9 km of Access Roads to make up the full commitment of 6.6km of resurfacing. • 2.1 km of roads allocated as Roads to Recovery projects. • 0.40 km of laneways. • Total 9.1 km


The recommendations of this report comply with Policy 5.4.9 Asset Management. A Strategic Asset Management Plan has been developed by the Town and considers the material and programs in this report.


There are no financial implications related to this report other than Council budget approvals. The review of the 5 Year 2016/21 Road Resurfacing Program proposes a funding level of $2,400,000 to resurface approximately 6.6 kilometres of road each year. These resurfacing works will be subsidised by the following grants:- • Direct Grant of approximately $75,800 each year; • Metropolitan Regional Road Grants (MRRG): $723,116 in 2016/17; and The Roads to Recovery Program (2014-2019) can accommodate the resurfacing of an additional 2.1 km of road with a funding of $590,900 in 2016/17. In the next two years, the funding reduces to $178,980.




This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Goal Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy Ensure a high standard of public infrastructure in our main precincts across the

Town. Goal The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects. Goal A strong performing local government Strategy Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit. Strategy Build capacity to maintain assets to an acceptable standard.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. The “Not Required” consultation assessment is recommended because this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged until development of the Draft Budget for 2015/16.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. 5 Year Program (2016-2021) for Road Resurfacing.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the updated Five Year Program (2016-2021) for Road Resurfacing be endorsed as

an asset management program; (ii) the projects listed in year 2016 of the program be considered for funding in the

2016/17 Draft Budget. Carried 5/0



CR16.3 INFRASTRUCTURE PARKS 201617 PROPOSED BUDGET WORKS

SUMMARY:

Various asset management and works programs/plans are managed within the Infrastructure Parks service area. These programmes list every existing asset and proposed new assets within this service area which are prioritised and costed for budgeting purposes when they require upgrading or replacement. The proper management and funding of the above programs ensure that Council’s major assets are maintained and upgraded on an ongoing basis with the aim of maintaining and/or raising the quality standard of assets throughout the Town's parks, comply to appropriate safety and health standards, as well as meeting community expectations. Details of individual projects, as categorised into four budget programmes of the current budget format, are listed in this report and are recommended for inclusion in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget for Council consideration. Preparation of this report has been based on current Town of Cambridge programs and community requests.

BACKGROUND:

The Town currently manages 476 hectares of Public Open Space including Parks, Sportsgrounds, Landscaped Road Reserves, Remnant Bushland Areas and Coastal Dunes (excluding the Wembley Golf Course). To manage the various assets, facilities and landscaping components within these areas to appropriate safety and quality standards, individual asset management programmes/plans have been developed. These programmes list every asset within the service area which are prioritised (according to their condition) and are allocated a cost estimate for budgeting purposes when they need to be upgraded or replaced. In addition, there is the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan 2008-2018, the Perry Lakes Reserve Environmental Management Plan 2001, the Coastal Natural Areas Management Plan 2006-2010, the Treescape Plan 2010-2020, the Water Conservation Plan 2007, and associated implementation programmes which guide the management and improvement of these parks and road reserves. Council has previously endorsed all of these management and implementation programmes in previous Council reports. The Administration updates the programs annually to identify completed projects and proposed projects to be funded. The annual review of the programmes has been completed and a summarised version of these programmes is included in the report Attachment.

DETAILS:

Capital projects are listed in the Capital section of the budget within the “Infrastructure - Parks and Reserves” category. Non-Capital projects are listed in the Operating section of the budget within their designated “Grounds Maintenance” categories.



Items including Capital and Non-Capital, proposed to be included in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget, have been individually identified and listed below under the various four categories in accordance with the current budget format:- 1. Parks Construction (Capital) and Non-Capital Works (Operating)

Project Budget

Schedule Budget

$ Lake Monger Reserve • Follow Up Planting Rehabilitation Stages 1, 2, 3. Capital 30,000 • Produce Rehabilitation Plan for South West Island (stage 4 of 6).

To include nature trail access from the reserve. Capital 20,000

• South West Island Weed Control (stage 4 of 6) Capital 30,000 • Upgrade Path Southport St Link to Lake Perimeter path

(stage 9 of 9 of Path Upgrade Program) 460m @ 3.0m Capital 140,000

• Replace Damaged path north of Dodd St next to public toilets Capital 15,000 • Management of Rehabilitated Zones (Includes $26,600 Combined

Annual Contribution, City of Vincent & MRWA) (on-going) Operating

40,000

• Decorate Christmas Tree (on-going) Operating 16,000 • Arboriculture Works (on-going) Operating 15,000 Sub Total 306,000 Perry Lakes Reserve • Produce four Car Park Construction Designs (In accordance with

concept designs in the Management Plan) Capital 40,000

• Undertake Arboricultural/Tree Planting Works (on-going) Operating 25,000 • Remove Lake Tree Weeds (On-going) Operating 10,000 Sub Total 75,000 Playgrounds • Floreat Beach Park Replace Playground Capital 80,000 • Jubilee Park Replace Playground Capital 80,000 • Winmarley Park Replace Playground Capital 60,000 • Kilkenny Park Install Shade To Playground Capital 11,000 • Ocean Mia Park Install Shade To Playground Capital 17,000 • Ocean Village Park Install Shade To Playground North Capital 9,000 • Replace Playground Sand/Minor Play Items (on-going) Operating 15,000 • Repair Damaged Playground Shade Sails (on-going) Operating 20,000 • Shade sail structure risk management - test 33% of all poles per

year Operating 5,000

• Playground soft fall risk management - assess 33% of playgrounds each year

Operating 5,000

Sub Total 302,000 Parks • City Beach Civic Centre - Repair Wall/Upgrade Garden Capital 40,000 • City Beach Oval Install Bollard Fence Capital 72,000 • Jubilee Park BioLINC Project (Stage 1 of 3) $152,000 grant Capital 304,000 • Helston Park Install Cricket Practice Wicket Capital 25,000 • Helston Park Install AFL/Hockey/Soccer/Rugby Goals Capital 16,000 • Jubilee Park Improvement Concept Plan (BioLINC) Capital 13,000 • Park Bollards Replacement Program (new program to replace 40

year old park bollards with black composite type) Capital 50,000

• Winmarley Park Improvement Concept Plan Capital 11,000 • Arboriculture Risk Management Tree Works (on-going) Operating 30,000 • Feral Animal Control (on-going) Operating 5,000 • Replace Park Use/Name Signs (New Style) Capital 30,000 • Upgrade Garden Beds (on-going) Operating 8,000 • Various Parks - Install Seats & Drink Fountains (on-going) Operating 15,000



• Various Parks - Remark Car Park Bays & Minor Repairs (on-

going) Operating 10,000

Sub Total 629,000 Irrigation • Fred Burton Park West Coast Highway Median- Replace

Irrigation System - MRWA contribution $104,000 Capital 227,000

• Bent Park - Replace Irrigation System (high priority) Capital 292,000 • Contingency Emergency Irrigation Repairs (on-going) Capital 10,000 • Dumfries Park Replace Irrigation Cubicle Capital 5,000 • Floreat Oval Replace Bore and Pump Capital 80,000 • Fortview Park Replace Irrigation Cubicle Capital 5,000 • Harborne Playground Replace Irrigation Cubicle Capital 5,000 • Irrigation Central Control Replace 2G Modems with 3G (high

priority) Capital 53,000

• Jubilee/Challenger Park Install Bore (too many stations, inefficient. Will enable to irrigate three times a week instead of daily)

Capital 80,000

• Maloney Park West - Replace Bore/Service Pump 27 Capital 80,000 • Ocean Mia Service Pump Capital 9,000 • Oceanic Dr Median Replace Irrigation System (Alderbury St. to

Bold Park Dve.) Capital 60,000

• Ground Water Monitoring (All Irrigation Bores) (on-going) Operating 16,000 • Calibrate/Repair Water Meters of Irrigation Bores (on-going) Operating 25,000 • Treat Bores for Iron Bacteria (on-going) Operating 16,000 Sub Total 963,000 Total All 2,275,000

1. The Bent Park Irrigation System ($292,000 budget) above is for replacement of a 36 year

old system which requires constant repairs (to piping and wiring) to keep it operational. 2. Lake Monger Reserve Upgrade Path Southport Street Link $140,000 is the last stage of

path replacement works. This path is bitumen 2.5 metres wide and it is proposed to replace it with a 3 metre wide coloured concrete. Although the path is old it is still functional however is of poor quality and reflects a poor image for the Town. It is 460 metres long x 3 metres wide.

3. Lake Monger Reserve Rehabilitate South/West island (stage 4 of 6). This is stage 4 of a

6 stage lake edge rehabilitation program. This stage is split into two: (i) Produce a rehabilitation plan (ii) Implement the plan. It is proposed to include a nature trail through the island with access from the reserve

including a seating area. This trail will also assist in maintaining the island.

Of the proposed projects listed above, the Bent Park and Fred Burton Park/West Coast Highway replacement of irrigation systems are considered a higher priority due to the high maintenance costs incurred in keeping the systems operational. Main Roads WA has agreed to contribute $104,000 to replace the irrigation system in West Coast Highway medians between The Boulevard and Oceanic Drive.

4. Jubilee and Winmarley Parks Concept Plans - the cost to implement each park concept plan is estimated at $300,000 per park. There are a total of 23 parks identified by Council for improvement. The grand total construction cost for all 23 parks is estimated at $6,900,000.



The 2015/2016 adopted Budget included a total of $1,162,000 associated with works relating to the Parks Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $1,111,000 • ELA $25,000 • Grants/Contributions $26,000 (City of Vincent, MRWA) for Lake

Monger Total $1,162,000

2. Sportsgrounds Construction

Project Budget Schedule

Budget $

• City Beach Oval South Replace Match Wicket Surface Capital 5,000 • Henderson Park Replace Boundary Fence (old section along

Salvado Rd) Capital 20,000

• McLean Park Replace Match Wicket Surface Capital 5,000 • Various Sportsgrounds - Renovate Active Turf Areas Operating 35,000 • Pat Goodridge Oval - Install Shade Structure behind baseball

fence Capital 10,000

• Alderbury Sportsground - Install a double cricket practice wicket. Two possible locations - north of the skate park or east of the basketball court.

Capital 35,000

Total 110,000 The 2015/2016 adopted Budget included a total of $666,000 associated with works

relating to the Sportsgrounds Construction and Non-Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $254,000 • Reserve $412,500 Total $666,000

Note: This budget included works for Wembley Sports Park Improvements of $412,500 in 2015/16 and for other works $239,500.

3. Ocean Beaches Construction


Budget $

• City Beach Groyne Upgrade Path Capital 50,000 • Beaches & Dunes - Upgrade Beach Access Paths Capital 20,000 • Floreat Beach Groyne Upgrade Path Capital 30,000 • Install Shower Facility Path No12 (north of Floreat Surf Club) Capital 44,000 • Beaches & Dunes - Dune Rehabilitation Operating 10,000 • Floreat Beach Park - Upgrade Landscaping Operating 10,000 Total 164,000

The 2015/2016 adopted Budget included a total of $513,000 associated with works

relating to the Ocean Beaches Construction and Capital Works Programs. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $178,000 • ELA $167,500 Groyne works matching grant • Grants $167,500 DoT for Groyne maintenance 50% Total $513,000



4. Road Reserves Construction:


Budget $

• Holyrood Street - Ficus Trees Risk Management Operating 30,000 • Kirkdale St Median Tree Planting (Rannoch-Lothian) Operating 10,000 • Lake Monger Dr Median (Southport-Northwood) St Establish

Ecozone (replace turf with native vegetation), stage 1 of 3. Capital 122,000

• The Boulevard (Alkoomie Tce-Empire Ave) Install Ecozone. Plant

native vegetation on golf course verge and Bold Park verge, commencing at Alkoomie Tce, stage 1 of 7.

Operating 30,000

• Treescape Plan Priority/Precinct Streets Planting Program Operating 60,000 • Treescape Plan - Pine/Ficus/Palm Trees Management Operating 70,000 • Upgrade Garden Beds Operating 8,000 Total 330,000

The 2015/2016 adopted Budget included a total of $183,000 associated with works

relating to the Road Reserves Construction Program. The funding source for this program was from the following accounts:-

• Municipal $183,000 Total $183,000

2016/2017 Total Parks Draft Budget Summary

Program Proposed Budget 1. Parks $2,275,000 2. Sportsgrounds $ 110,000 3. Ocean Beaches $ 164,000 4. Road Reserves $ 330,000 Total $2,879,000

Comment: The projects listed within each program are proposed to be included in the Draft 2016/2017 Budget for Council consideration. This list is not a final Draft Budget list as other projects may be identified for inclusion when preparing the Draft Budget documentation. It will be recommended that Council considers funding the various projects which have been listed in the above programs and that all programs be prioritised to a level of expenditure set at around previous Municipal allocations and potential grants.


There are no Policy or Statutory Implications related to this report.


Past funding of the programs listed in this report has been supplemented from Council’s Reserve Accounts, in particular, the Area Improvement Reserve and Endowment Lands Reserve Account. The continued use of funds from these accounts will be subject to the



availability of funds from within those reserves and the level of development works being carried out by the Town in other areas of operations. Council has previously been successful in securing grant funding for eligible projects. Grant applications will again be submitted as they become available for those projects considered eligible.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our Community Life Goal: Quality local parks and open spaces for community to enjoy Strategy: Focus on activating our major public open spaces. Strategy: Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds. Strategy: Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves. Our Natural Environment Goal: Council is environmentally responsible and leads by example Strategy: Optimise our use of ground water and improve the efficiency of our clean water consumption. Strategy: Care for and conserve our flora and fauna. Our Council Goal: The Town is a proactive local government that gets things done Strategy: Ensure appropriate resources are allocated to our strategies and projects.


The implementation of individual projects within the programs listed in this report are undertaken so as to minimise any problems with the various stakeholders of the parks and sportsgrounds where works will be undertaken. Depending on the program, sporting clubs, user groups, community groups and individual residents are included in discussions when developing works programs and construction schedules. In addition, each project is assessed using the Town’s Community Consultation Policy No. 1.2.11. This report is for information purposes and therefore an assessment in relation to this policy was not undertaken. It is Council policy to publicly advertise the content of the Draft Budget prior to adopting the annual Budget.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Infrastructure Parks Asset Management Programs Summary (Reviewed Nov. 2015) 2. Asset Management Programs Description (Reviewed Dec 2015).




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the report on Infrastructure Parks 2016/2017 proposed Budget works programmes

be received; (ii) projects identified for implementation in (i) above be prioritised and listed for

inclusion in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget with an estimated total cost of each program as follows:-

Program Proposed Budget 1. Parks $2,275,000 2. Sportsgrounds $ 110,000 3. Ocean Beaches $ 164,000 4. Road Reserves $ 330,000 Total $2,879,000

(iii) grant applications be submitted as they become available for those projects

considered eligible. Carried 5/0



CR16.4 STREET VERGE LANDSCAPE AND MAINTENANCE GUIDELINES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL ESTATES

SUMMARY:

Public Open Space (POS), road verges and medians at the Perry Lakes Residential Estate were landscaped prior to the sale of land by Landcorp. When housing construction commenced, builders used the verge to park trucks for dropping off building material, temporarily store material for use during the construction process and installation of scaffolding to assist in undertaking works. This has also previously occurred at the Ocean Mia Residential Estate. As a result, the landscaping, irrigation systems, footpaths, kerbing and road in these verges were repeatedly damaged at considerable cost. Undertaking repairs to these assets whilst construction is on-going is not cost effective or economically viable because this damage does not stop until the builder has finished and moved off site. To address the above issues, it is recommended that "The Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines For New Residential Estates", as detailed in the report attachments, be endorsed. The Guidelines will be used to guide the management of verge landscaping at Perry Lakes, Ocean Mia, St Johns Wood and Jolimont Nursery Residential Estates during building construction, verge reinstatement following building works and verge maintenance following occupation of completed buildings.

BACKGROUND:

Residential estates have recently been developed in the Town including Ocean Mia (Floreat) in 2007 undertaken by the Town, Perry Lakes (Floreat) between 2010 and 2013 undertaken by Landcorp, St Johns Wood (Mount Claremont) currently under construction undertaken by Landcorp and Jolimont Nursery (Jolimont) currently under construction undertaken by Landcorp. The Perry Lakes Residential Estate was a major undertaking with preliminary designs developed in 2007 by Landcorp with earthworks for Stage 1 commencing in early 2010. The estate was completed in 3 stages, with each stage having a two year Public Open Space/ground maintenance period managed and funded by Landcorp prior to handing over the maintenance to the Town of Cambridge. The staged handover to the Town, (see map below), included: • Stage 1 - November 2012 • Stage 2A - April 2014 • Stage 2B - November 2014 • Stage 3 - September 2015





DETAILS:

Public Open Space (POS), road verges and medians at the Perry Lakes Residential Estate were developed and landscaped prior to the sale of land by Landcorp. The landscaping included irrigation, plants and trees. When housing construction commenced, builders used the verge to park trucks for dropping off building material, temporarily store material for use during the construction phase and the installation of scaffolding to assist in undertaking works. The photo below demonstrates this practice. This also occurred at the Ocean Mia Residential Estate.

As a result, the landscaping, irrigation system, footpaths, kerbing and roads in these verges were repeatedly damaged at considerable cost. As soon as repairs were made, these assets were continually damaged due to the on-going construction process. Due to the narrow winding roads, semitrailers have damaged kerbing and roads attempting to get access to the building site, see photo below. In some cases this damage cannot be attributed to anyone in particular as the offender is not easy to identify. In some cases, Landcorp had to repair this damage, however, in most cases the Town has to repair this damage. Landcorp is no longer associated with the on-going maintenance of the Perry Lakes Residential Estate so if this damage continues it will be up to the Town to fund the repairs if individuals who caused the damage are not identified.



Replacing the vegetation and irrigation system whilst construction is on-going is not cost effective or economically viable because as soon as repairs are made these assets are damaged again. This damage does not stop until the builder has finished and moved off site. It is recognised that building material needs to be dropped off at the building site and in many cases damage is unavoidable. However, it can be minimised if builders took the verge and surrounding vegetation into consideration when planning their building works. To address the above issues, the following proposed Guidelines have been prepared for consideration for new Residential Estates including Perry Lakes, Ocean Mia, St Johns Wood and Jolimont Nursery. PROPOSED GUIDELINES 1. VERGES ADJACENT TO VACANT BLOCKS (building works not started) Verges adjacent to a vacant block, where building works have not commenced, are fully maintained by the Town until the owner is ready to take over maintenance when the new building has been occupied. These verges are barricaded off with signs, see photo below, to minimise damage by trucks and workers.

2. VERGES ADJACENT TO ON-GOING BUILDING WORKS As soon as building works commence on a site, the Town will disconnect the irrigation system to the adjacent verge. This action is necessary because sprinklers will be damaged during the year long construction phase and it is not economically viable to repair sprinklers during this time. Plant loss will be noticed due to a combination of damage by vehicles, trucks, tradesmen and reduced irrigation to plants; The Town will continue maintaining the verge to remove damaged vegetation, weeds and rubbish (not builders' material) as required, to keep the area clean and tidy. Refer photo below where a verge needs weed control and rubbish removal.



3. VERGES ADJACENT TO COMPLETED BUILDING WORKS When building works are complete at a site, refer photo below, property owners are requested to reinstate their verge including the irrigation, mulch and undertake planting using similar species to what previously existed. The Town can advise on plant species to be used. Property owners are requested to commence maintaining the verge excluding the irrigation system. The Town will maintain the irrigation system for a period of three years, after which it will be disconnected after advising the owners. Property owners, if they so choose, may install their own irrigation system at any time and commence maintaining it in accordance with the Town's Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance Policy No 5.2.19 and associated guidelines, included in the report attachments.

4. VERGES ADJACENT TO OCCUPIED BUILDINGS Owners are advised that it is their responsibility to maintain the verge in front of their property. The Town will only maintain street trees and footpaths in these verges. This is consistent with the Street Verges - Landscaping and Maintenance Policy No 5.2.19 which is applicable across the Town. The photos below show suitably reinstated and maintained verges undertaken by adjacent property owners at Perry Lakes Residential Estate.



5. PUBLIC ACCESSWAYS/VERGES TO THE SIDE OF BUILDINGS/BLOCKS The Town will maintain these areas as part of the Public Open Space maintenance program. If builders use these areas to undertake works the Town, when works are complete and builders have vacated the area, will request adjacent owners to reinstate the area including the irrigation, mulch and undertake planting using similar species to what previously existed. The Town will then fully maintain these areas. Adjacent property owners to these areas are only required to maintain the verge in front of their house.

Comment: The 2015/2016 operating budget for ground maintenance at Perry Lake Estate lists $210,500. This budget has been established to maintain the Public Open Space in the estate including maintaining verges in front of private property prior to and during the building construction phase of the Perry Lakes residential estate development. It also includes maintaining the irrigation system for three years following occupation of new buildings. These funds together with the establishment of building bonds are adequate to fund the maintenance and repairs required during the building construction phase of the new residential estate. This will be required until the estate has been fully built and the majority of buildings are occupied.



It is recommended that the proposed "Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines for New Residential Estates" including Perry Lakes, Ocean Mia, St Johns Wood and Jolimont Nursery be adopted to guide the management of verge landscaping during building construction, verge reinstatement following building works and verge maintenance following occupation of completed buildings.


The Town's Street Verges - Landscaping And Maintenance Policy No 5.2.19 relates to this report recommendation. The strategy and recommendation in this report are consistent with this policy.


The 2015/2016 Budget includes $210,500 to maintain the Public Open Space at Perry Lakes Estate including road verges that are considered common public areas. The above funding is also adequate to maintain the verges adjacent private property prior to and during building construction phase and also maintain the irrigation system for three years following occupation of new buildings.


This report recommendation embraces the following strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:- Our community Life Goal Quality local parks and open spaces for community to enjoy Strategy Improve the amenities of our local parks and sports grounds. Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and responsive to future needs Strategy Guide new development which is in harmony with the surrounding area and retains a sense of place. Strategy Make our neighbourhoods green and pleasant.


This matter has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy No1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation as it's purely administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Proposed Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines For New Residential Estates.

2. Street Verges - Landscaping And Maintenance Policy No 5.2.19.




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the Street Verge Landscape and Maintenance Guidelines for new residential

estates, as attached, be endorsed; (ii) the Guidelines in (i) above be used to guide the management of verge landscaping

at new residential estates including Perry Lakes, Ocean Mia, St Johns Wood and Jolimont Nursery during building construction, verge reinstatement following building works and verge maintenance following occupation of completed buildings.

Carried 5/0



CR16.5 ADOPTION OF POLICY 5.1.5 STREET TREE PROTECTION DURING PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT

SUMMARY:

To obtain Council approval for a new policy relating to the protection of street trees during development of private property.

BACKGROUND:

At its meeting held on 23 June 2015, Council amended its policy relating to imposing a bond and various conditions to be carried out to protect street trees during development of private properties. Council adopted the following fees for 2015-16: Commercial Developments: Height of Street Tree Administration Fee Secure Sums Per Tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,500 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $2,500 More than 5 metres in height $25 $5,000

Residential Developments: Height of Street Tree Administration Fee Secure Sums Per Tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,000 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $1,000 More than 5 metres in height $25 $1,000

Administration procedures and Guidelines have been introduced to implement the bond and requirements for the protection of street trees, however, a formal Policy was not adopted by the Council at the time.

DETAILS:

The Town has been strictly enforcing Construction Management Plans for major developments in the Town and very few problems have since been experienced. However, a number of complaints have been received from residents concerning the damage to street trees resulting from residential developments (which are not the subject of Construction Management Plans). Accordingly, a new Council Policy and an amendment to the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law is recommended. Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law: As part of the Town's review of its local laws, the following new clause has been included in the Draft Local Laws: 9.1 STREET TREE PROTECTION

(1) The owner, occupier, licensee or contractor who undertakes works on a private

property adjacent to a street tree, shall –

(a) take all necessary precautions to ensure that the street tree is p ro tec ted and not damaged during the course of the works; ($500 infringement notice )



(b) provide a tree protection zone around the trunk of the tree comprising of

temporary fixed barricade/fencing of at least 2 metre by 2 metre (preferably with appropriate signage), erected around the tree to protect the root zone and tree during the construction works. ($250 infringement notice )

(c) not place or store any building materials, building rubble and/or debris against the tree protection barricade or within the tree protection zone; ($250 infringement notice ) and

(d) notify the local government of any existing damage to the street tree prior to the commencement of the works. ($250 infringement notice )

(2) Any person who causes damage to a street tree shall pay the costs of the local

government to repair or replace the street tree. (3) A person who causes significant damage to a street tree or its' destruction, commits an

offence.' ($500 infringement notice) Policy No: 5.1.5 - 'Street tree Protection During Property Development' Objectives: The objectives of the Street Tree Protection Policy are to: (a) Ensure that street trees are suitably protected during the development process of an

adjacent land property/lot; (b) Ensure the long-term health of trees in streetscapes; and (c) Raise community awareness that it is an offence in terms of the Town of Cambridge

Local Government and Public Utilities Local Law to destroy any tree on any Local Government property.

Strategy: The Town of Cambridge will achieve these objectives through: a) All applications for planning approval or a building permit must be accompanied with a

detailed plan which includes the following information: • Location and species of all existing trees on the verge adjacent to the proposed

development site; • Approximate Height and width of tree canopy; • Girth (circumference) of tree trunk at a height 1.0 metres above the natural ground

surface; and • Condition of all existing trees on the road reserve adjacent to the proposed development • Confirm if the street tree is currently being irrigated by the adjacent property

owner/resident b) Non-compliance with the provision of the above assessment and drawings shall result the

application being held in abeyance until such time as the information has been provided. c) Ensuring that development activity on the verge area is minimized in order that the street

trees are protected.



Application of the policy: 1. The Council retains the right to implement the Council’s Policy No: 5.1.3 "Management of

Street Trees" and this Policy as it deems necessary to protect street tree assets. 2. Any costs associated with the implementation of the protection measures shall remain the

responsibility of the Applicant/builder/landowner/developer. 3. Non-compliance with the implementation of the appropriate preservation/protection

strategy as per Council's requirements shall incur penalties; which will be determined by the Manager Compliance, dependant on the extent of damage to the tree.

4. The Town may also decline to refund the Secured Sum (bond). COMMENT: It is essential that the new policy, together with the recommended changes to the Town's Local Law will provide a strong message to the Community that the Council values its street trees and will take strong action to protect them. The new local law will also significantly strengthen the Town's Officers legislative powers to take action and issue an infringement notice where appropriate.


This report recommends adoption of a new policy. There are no statutory implications related to this report.


There are no Financial Implications related to this report.


Consideration of this policy is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 and responds to:- Strategy 3.4 - 'Create and maintain safe environments'.


This matter has been assessed in line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11 as not requiring community consultation. Information will be provided in the local newspaper and on the Town's website.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Draft Policy No: 5.1.5 - 'Street Tree Protection During Property Development'.




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That Policy 5.1.5 - 'Street Tree Protection During Property Development', as attached, be adopted. Committee Meeting 15 February 2016 Amendment Moved by Cr Powell, seconded by Mayor Shannon That clause 3.2 of the Policy be amended to read as follows:- 3.2 A tree protection zone is to be established around the trunk of the tree. The tree

protection zone shall include temporary fixed barricade/fencing of at least 2 metres by 2 metres, where practicable, (preferably with appropriate signage), erected around the tree to protect the root zone and tree during the construction works. These are available from private hire companies. (Refer Appendix 1)

Amendment carried 5/0 Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That the secure sums per tree for residential developments be amended as follows:- Residential Developments: Height of Street Tree Administration Fee Secure Sums Per Tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,000 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $2,000 More than 5 metres in height $25 $4,000

Amendment carried 5/0 COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: That:- (i) Policy 5.1.5 - 'Street Tree Protection During Property Development', as attached, be

adopted, subject to clause 3.2 being amended to read as follows:-

"3.2 A tree protection zone is to be established around the trunk of the tree. The tree protection zone shall include temporary fixed barricade/fencing of at least 2 metres by 2 metres where practicable (preferably with appropriate signage), erected around the tree to protect the root zone and tree during the construction works. These are available from private hire companies. (Refer Appendix 1)";



(ii) the secure sums per tree for residential developments be increased as follows:-

Residential Developments: Height of Street Tree Administration Fee Secure Sums Per Tree Less than 3 metres in height $25 $1,000 3 to 5 metres in height $25 $2,000 More than 5 metres in height $25 $4,000

Carried 5/0



CR16.6 BATH STREET MINOR PARKING AMENDMENT

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To obtain Council approval to make minor amendments to parking restrictions in Bath Street, Wembley.

BACKGROUND:

Bath Street is a residential street between Herdsman Parade and Daglish Street, Wembley. In response to complaints from residents in Bath Street, at the Council meeting held on 15 March 2015 parking restrictions were introduced. These restrictions followed community consultation and the following was approved: Parking on the north side of Bath Street was amended as follows: (i) from the new "No Stopping" position, two bays were provided on the north side up to

Ewins Lane with 1 hour parking duration at all times, and with Residential Permit Parking Excepted;

(ii) parking restrictions was implemented on the north side east of Ewins Lane, a 1 hour

parking restriction up to house number 14 (approximately half way). The restriction is at all times, with Residential Permit Parking Excepted;

The amended parking restrictions have been successful in curbing the parking problems along Bath Street, which were primarily caused by the popularity of a small café business in Herdsman Parade. Under the current restrictions, Residential Permit Parking applies to residents and Visitor Permits are also required. Approximately 35 residents have applied and been issued with permits. Shortly after being introduced, a resident at the eastern end of Bath Street requested that the restrictions be modified to only apply from 8am to 6pm during week days and Saturday from 8am to 12noon, as the parking outside these hours is too restrictive on the local residents and are not necessary. The Town’s Rangers have been monitoring the parking in Bath Street and report that very few cars are observed in Bath Street, east of Ewins Lane. In addition, very few cars have been observed in Bath Street after 6pm. Accordingly, the resident’s request to modify the current restrictions is supported.


There are Statutory Implications related to this report as the decision now complies with the adopted Parking Local Law. This report is guided by Council Parking Restrictions Policy 5.2.22 and the following clauses:- • Parking Restrictions shall be reviewed when -

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



(c) requested by other persons in writing.

• A community survey maybe carried out when a recommended parking restriction will be

adjacent the property owned or occupied by persons not making the request for reasons other than safety.

• In Residential Precincts, kerbside parking may be imposed to - (a) protect the residential precincts from an intrusion of business/commercial/ medical/

recreational/commuter parking on local roads. The recommended changes are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with the Town's Parking Local Law.


The estimated cost for the erection of signage would be $300. This amount can be accommodated under Budget Item - Road Name Signs and Parking Signs.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Successful commercial, retail and social hubs Strategy: Develop a public parking strategy. Goal: Efficient transport networks Strategy: Implement initiatives for people to use public transport.


This matter has not be the subject of consultation.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Plan E 237 14 01




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the parking restrictions on both sides of Bath Street, Wembley east of Ewins Lane,

be amended to have 1P parking restriction from 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12noon on Saturday, as per Plan E 237 14 01; and

(ii) the residents of Bath Street be advised of the Council decision. Carried 5/0



CR16.7 NORTHWOOD STREET MINOR PARKING AMENDMENT

SUMMARY:

To obtain the Council's approval to amend the parking restrictions in Northwood Street in order to ensure fair and equitable parking provisions for community members. The amendment will change the parking restriction from "1P At All Times", retaining the "No Parking on Verge" restriction, to "1P from 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 1P from 8am to 12noon on Saturday".

BACKGROUND:

Northwood Street, between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade, is a street with various small businesses and commercial properties. Currently, there are no residential properties in this street, however, several major developments for mixed used buildings have been approved by the Metro West Development Assessment Panel (DAP). Construction has already commenced to develop a multi storey residential property at 21-23 Northwood Street. Access to the proposed residential developments will be from Pether Lane, at the rear of the properties.

DETAILS:

The parking on the west side was amended as follows: (i) outside 9 Northwood Street, three bays be provided on the west side up to adjacent to

the 17 Northwood Street crossover, with 1 hour parking duration at all times (as per Plan 1);

(ii) outside 29 Northwood Street, three bays be provided on the west side up to adjacent to the 29 Northwood Street crossover, with 1 hour parking duration at all times (as per Plan 1).

The current two, ¼ hour bays outside No's: 3-7 remained unchanged. This amendment aimed to preserve the on-street amenity while still providing one hour parking for visitors to the street at all times. However, the Town's rangers have reported that after 5.30pm on week days and after midday on Saturdays, there is ample parking available and the restriction at all times is considered unnecessary. The amendment will assist in facilitating better parking in the area outside the proposed restricted times.


There are no Statutory Implications related to this report. This report is guided by Council Parking Restrictions Policy 5.2.22 and the following clauses:- • Parking Restrictions shall be reviewed when -

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



• A community survey may be carried out when a recommended parking restriction will be

adjacent the property owned or occupied by persons not making the request for reasons other than safety. However, in this case it is not recommended, as the restrictions are straight forward.

The recommended changes are in accordance with the Road Traffic Code 2000 and Policy No. 5.2.22 "Parking Restrictions". Any proposal to change or establish parking restrictions or time limits requires a formal decision by the Council in accordance with Clause 2.1 of the Town of Cambridge Parking Local Law.


The estimated cost for the erection of signage would be approximately $800.00. This amount can be accommodated under Budget Item - Road Name Signs and Parking Signs.




This matter has been assessed under the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11 as "inform" with the objective "to provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions".

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Plan E 262 15 01


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the car bays on Northwood Street as highlighted on Plan E 262 15 01 be designated

1 Hour Parking and ¼ Hour Parking duration, 8am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday and 8am to 12 noon on Saturday; and



(ii) the property and business owners of Northwood Street be advised of the Council

decision, prior to installation. Carried 4/1 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri, Powell and Timmermanis Against: Mayor Shannon



CR16.8 PETHER LANE AND NORTHWOOD STREET TRANSPORT ADVICE STAGE 2

SUMMARY:

In the last 12 months, three significant developments have been approved on Northwood Street, all with access off Pether Lane. The Fiore development (21-23 Northwood Street) was approved 12 November 2014 and is underway, the Vita development (29-33 Northwood Street) was approved on 12 February 2015 and the units are currently being pre-sold and 141-143 Cambridge Street, which is on the north-west corner of Northwood Street, was approved on 26 May 2015. As part of the Vita development, the Town engaged Cardno to provide a preliminary study of Pether Lane, in light of current and future development applications that will take access from this laneway, and in response to concerns that were raised in submissions during the consultation process. Also in February 2015, Council considered the outcomes of a community advertising process associated with the Revised West Leederville Precinct Policy 6.5. The main concern raised by residents during the advertising period was the policy requirement for all vehicular access being restricted to rights-of-ways. Specifically, land owners along Blencowe Street are concerned with access for all development along Northwood Street being provided from Pether Lane. A Notice of Motion was supported by Council in December 2015 for a report to be presented in February 2016 which would allow Council to consider the appointment of a traffic engineering consultant to progress a study of the future function of Pether Lane in light of current and future developments along the laneway. It is recommended that Council engage a traffic engineering consultant to conduct a study (stage 2) review of traffic issues in Pether Lane and Northwood Street.

BACKGROUND:

A notice of motion (Item 12.7) was considered and carried at the 15 December 2015 Council meeting as follows. That a report be prepared for consideration at the February 2016 Council meeting:- (i) identifying traffic and access issues in Pether Lane associated with any future

developments on the west side of Northwood Street abutting Pether Lane;

(ii) outlining the scope of a traffic, access and design study with a view to preparing a plan for developing Pether Lane into a safe environment for cars and pedestrians;

(iii) detailing the consultation process with relevant stakeholders as well as any statutory requirements.

Report Background: Pether Lane in West Leederville is a north-south Right-of-Way (ROW) that connects Cambridge Street with Railway Parade and lies between Blencowe and Northwood Streets. Currently, the ROW is not exceptionally busy, however, there are a number of mixed use developments that have been approved on Northwood Street, with one currently under construction, that will substantially increase the number of vehicles using Pether Lane.



The properties along Northwood Street between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade are zoned Commercial and are subject to the Residential Interface Node provisions of the West Leederville Precinct Policy. The properties along Blencowe Street in this locality are zoned R30. Under the West Leederville Policy, access for developments should be taken from Rights-of-Way where available for use. Over the last 12 months, three significant developments have been approved on Northwood Street, all with access off Pether Lane. The total number of car-bays approved for these 3 developments is 182 with the Fiore development having 43 bays, Vita 102 bays and 37 bays for 141-143 Cambridge Street. As part of the report to the 12 February 2015 Development Assessment Panel (DAP) meeting on the Vita application, engineering consultants Cardno prepared a report for the Town which highlighted the need to give further consideration as to how Pether Lane could function efficiently and safely in the future once Vita and Fiore were completed. The residents of Blencowe Street, between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade, whose properties abut Pether Lane have expressed concern about the future volume of traffic in Pether Lane, as well as the safety of access and egress given that Cambridge Street and Railway Parade are both District Distributor Roads that carry large volumes of traffic. It is timely that Council give consideration to preparing a report as outlined in the Notice of Motion. In February 2015, a report (DV15.16) considered the outcomes of advertising and final adoption of Draft Policy 6.5 - Precinct 5 - Revised West Leederville Precinct Policy - Introduction of Residential Interface Node .The following excerpt was included within this report in the Comments section. "The main concern raised by residents during the advertising period is the policy requirement for all vehicular access being restricted to rights-of-ways. Specifically, land owners along Blencowe Street are concerned with access for all development along Northwood Street being provided from Pether Lane. The land owners consider that all access being provided from the laneway will cause future pedestrian and vehicle safety issues if the management of traffic is not reviewed and revised appropriately. Council's intent in enforcing laneway access is to minimise the impact of vehicular access points on main streets and to ensure a more active and pedestrian compatible streetscape environment is achieved. Therefore, the provision for amending all laneway access arrangements is not a policy modification recommended to be considered as part of this report. Notwithstanding this, the Town's officers are currently investigating the capacity of the right of way located at Pether Lane, as it presently stands, to cater for the increase in vehicle traffic if further development at a similar scale was to occur along the remainder of Northwood Street and the resultant impact on the surrounding road network. In doing so, the Town has considered it necessary to seek strategic advice on potential traffic management options to cope with current and future conditions. Currently, the Town is still investigating the matter of vehicle access and preliminary strategic has been is provided. Two (2) traffic management options were presented by the expert consultant, which would address the key issues that have arisen in respect to traffic movements, safety, capacity and waste collection from development along Northwood Street. It is considered that, should the Town wish to pursue these options for Pether Lane in the future, they would most likely be considered in conjunction with improvements to Northwood Street, Cambridge Street and Railway Parade to ensure continuity within the local road network. It should also be noted that any proposed change to Pether Lane would be subject to the provisions of the Local



Government Act (Section 3.50), in that affected property owners must be consulted if access to properties is proposed to be changed. In summary, the consultant's recommendations are preliminary only and are currently being assessed to assist the Town with long term strategic planning. The concerns of residents are considered valid and the management of Pether Lane will continue to be monitored and appropriate redevelopment undertaken when it is considered suitable. Consequently, it is not currently considered necessary to include further revisions to the policy regarding vehicle access until more detailed research is undertaken, the affected community is consulted in accordance with all statutory requirements and future development intentions are confirmed for properties along Northwood Street."

DETAILS:

Traffic engineering consultants Cardno prepared the initial report - 'Laneway Accessibility and Functional Review' (Dec 2014) as part of the Responsible Authority Report (RAR) for the DAP meeting in February 2015 for the Vita development application in Northwood Street. Cardno has since been contacted to assist in development of a brief to conduct a second stage review. This review is to assess how Pether Lane could function efficiently and safely in the future. Discussions were held in November 2015 regarding Stage 2 of the Pether Lane Project. Following this meeting, a proposal has been prepared for Council consideration. This proposal considers the requirements for further potential design solutions for the form and function of Pether Lane and its surrounds, as well as for Northwood Street. The proposal provides a brief project appreciation and methodology to undertake this project, based upon the understanding of the requirements. This is followed by an indication of timeframe required for the study and the proposed budget requirement. Project Appreciation Pether Lane is a laneway that runs between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade and is intended to provide rear-access to developments located along Northwood Street and residential properties in Blencowe Street. Development Applications for properties along Northwood Street prompted an initial review by the Town of Cambridge, which was completed by Cardno in December 2014, to identify the potential issues and mitigation measures required to support densification of the local area development via rear-lane access along Pether Lane. This process resulted in a preferred option consisting of a one-way southbound restriction and provision for a bin area along the eastern side of the laneway. Further investigation and advice has been requested which considers the following points:-

• Potential for two-way movements from Cambridge Street and Railway Parade, transitioning to one-way for an identified central portion.

• Impact of modifications on bin location. • Interactions with Railway Parade and Cambridge Street, including the potential to

modify the terminals to restrict movements. • Potential conflicts with pedestrian/cycling movements at the terminals, as well as the

link through to the West Leederville Station. Mitigation measures to improve safety for vulnerable road users.



• Requirements for and position of lighting and vertical/horizontal traffic calming devices

within Pether Lane • Potential for widening of Pether Lane including resumption of private land – net benefit

analysis.

Methodology The proposed study can be undertaken in three parts:- Part A: Transport Advice including A2 Plans. Part B: Northwood Street Technical Review Part C: Ad-hoc design advice and meetings to finalise the desired plans. Part A: Pether Lane Precinct Transport Advice Task 1: Project Inception Meeting A project inception meeting will be conducted to discuss the overall project approach with emphasis on the key issues and deliverables associated with the project. Further guidance will be sought to ensure that the timeframes and outputs will assist in decision-making. Task 2: Options Analysis The consultant will investigate options and impacts of retaining some portion of Pether Lane as two-way (proximal to the intersection with Railway Parade, and to the intersection with Cambridge Street, or both). Analysis will include:- • Impacts on flow direction. • Safety and sightlines. • Pedestrian/cycling conflicts. • Turning restrictions. • Projected traffic flows and turning movements. • Waste collection. • Lighting. • Connectivity to the West Leederville Train Station. • Road pavement narrowing. • Landscaping. • Access to Blencowe Street garages. The outcomes of this analysis will be compiled into a short Technical Memorandum. Task 3: Options Plans Two alternative Options will be developed in representative detail under the above conditions. These options would consist of a 6.00 metre form consistent with the width of the existing laneway, and a wider form requiring some component of land resumption. Plans will be provided in PDF and electronic form to A2 size.



Task 4: Meetings The consultant has budgeted a single additional meeting to discuss the outputs of options analysis with the Town of Cambridge. This will be supplemented with telephone communication as required to refine the option development. Any additional meetings with the Town representatives will be undertaken only at the request of the Town of Cambridge, at consultant standard hourly rates. Task 5: Reporting The consultant will submit a Draft and 2 x A2 plans to the Town of Cambridge for a single iteration of review. Any changes requested at this time will be incorporated into the outputs and submitted as a Final Report. Reports will be sent as .pdf and AutoCAD files. Part B: Northwood Street Technical Review The Town of Cambridge has identified Northwood Street as requiring additional consideration, including concept design and technical assessment of the role and function of Northwood Street with respect to parking, street furniture, pedestrian activity, cycling connectivity and customer access. The outcomes will be presented in A2 .pdf and electronic formats along with discussion in the aforementioned Technical Memorandum. The consultant has budgeted a single additional meeting to discuss the design outputs for Northwood Street, which will take place following the delivery of the Draft plans and reporting. Part C: Ad-hoc design advice and meetings Additional ad-hoc design advice includes any requirements for review or assessment that are required in addition to the above scope of works. This includes:- • Any meetings not included in the above methodology; • Site visits or surveys; • Additional iterations of technical work; and • Any other additional work not outlined in Part A or B.

It should be noted that the consultant will only undertake works as required and only at the express request of the Town. Project Personnel For this project the consultant will require to select a study team that is comprised of a group of skilled specialist professionals, able to provide the range of experience and expertise required to successfully complete a study such as this. The professional team will have a mixture of strategic, policy, consultative and analytical experience and will be selected due to previous experience in the recent Pether Lane study in the Town of Cambridge and other similar design projects.



Timeframe The Draft report can be programmed for delivery within six working weeks of appointment, with Final outputs following formal comments from the Town. Budget Fee Proposal Requirements To undertake the above work a fixed sum fee will be required, consisting of the following budget schedule: Part A: Pether Lane Precinct Transport Advice $7,000 + GST Part B: Northwood Street Technical Review $5,000 + GST Part C: Ad-hoc design advice at hourly rates. $3,000 + GST TOTAL $15,000+GST Comment The notice of motion indicated a requirement to detail the consultation process with relevant stakeholders. It is noted this proposed second traffic study is partly resultant from a previous public comment process conducted in 2014, that formed part of the RAR report to the DAP in February 2015 for the Vita development on Northwood Street. It is envisaged the requirements to consult with stakeholders and the public in general would be most productive after a draft report is received and approved by Council for a community consultation. At this stage it is also evident only one of the three approved developments is under construction, that being the Fiore development. It is not known when the other two developers intend to commence construction. Within the proposed Infrastructure capital works programs, which form the subject of separate reports to the Community Resources committee in February 2016, Pether Lane and Northwood Street are listed for improvements and asphalt resurfacing in Year 3 - 2018/19. This is in recognition of the current condition of the infrastructure and pavement condition, adjacent developments approved and expected time of completion of the approved development projects. On this basis this proposed study would assist with early planning for the works required and for designs to be prepared for the construction phase.



Cambridge Street intersection with Pether Lane and Northwood Street.

Railway Parade intersection with Pether Lane and Northwood Street.



Approved development approvals for Northwood Street between Cambridge Street and Railway Parade. At the moment only the Fiore development is under construction.

VITA

66Units 102 Car Bays

FIORE 34 Units

43 Car Bays

141-143 Cambridge 22 Units 3 Comm

37 Car Bays




There are no Policy implications. Statutory implications may result from any amended traffic flow proposals in Northwood Street and/or Pether Lane as Main Roads WA approvals will be required for all signs and lines proposals. Any amended traffic flow options will require public comment as required under the Local Government Act 1995 Section 3.50.


In order to progress the further traffic study a budget allocation of $ 15,000 will be required. No allowance is currently included within the adopted 2015/2016 budget.


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013/2023:- Our Planned Neighbourhoods Goal: Neighbourhoods that are well planned, attractive, respectful of the character and

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

retains a sense of space.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the “Not Required” Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not recommended as consultation will be completed following receipt of the final study report. It is noted this study is partly resultant from a previous public comment process conducted in 2014 and reported to council in February 2015.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the engagement of traffic engineering consultants to conduct a Stage 2 review of

traffic issues in Pether Lane and Northwood Street, as detailed in the report, be approved;



(ii) an amount of $15,000 for the conduct of the study be authorised by an ABSOLUTE

MAJORITY as unbudgeted expenditure in accordance with section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Carried 3/2 For: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis



CR16.9 REVIEW OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PROPERTY LOCAL LAW 2016

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2015.

DETAILS:

The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date:- Local Law Date of

Adoption by Council

Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments Date of Review


March 2010


March 2010



March 2010


March 2010


March 2010





Review Process: The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates: Item Indicative Date (s) Report to Council seeking approval to commence statutory review

23 February 2016


26 April 2016


26 April 2016


7 May -13 June 2016


2 July 2016

Review of Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016: An extensive review of the Town’s current Local Law relating to private property has been undertaken by the Town. In carrying out the review, reference was made with other local governments. This review has identified that some significant changes are necessary. The local law has been drafted in accordance with the requirements of the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (eg the word ‘shall’ has been replaced with ‘must’). A full copy of the revised draft local law (with changes marked up in RED) can be found in Attachment 1. The proposed Local Law has been structured as follows and has the following changes: PART 1 - PRELIMINARY New definitions have been included, to remove any ambiguity in interpretation of the requirements. PART 2 – DETERMINATIONS IN RESPECT OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND BUILDINGS This part is unchanged. PART 3 – PERMITS This part is unchanged. PART 4 – BEHAVIOUR ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY This part is unchanged.



PART 5 – MATTERS RELATING TO PARTICULAR LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY This part is unchanged. PART 6 – FEES FOR ENTRY ON TO LOCAL GOVERNMENT PROPERTY AND BUILDINGS This Part is unchanged. PART 7 – OBSTRUCTING VEHICLES AND SHOPPING TROLLEYS This Part is unchanged. PART 8 – SECURE SUM This Part is unchanged. PART 9 – WORKS IN THOROUGHFARES This part has been inserted, trees PART 10 – ADVERTISING SIGNS IN A PUBLIC PLACE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY This part has been inserted to control signs in a public place or on public property. At the Council meeting held on 24 November 2015, Council adopted an amended Policy relating to temporary advertising signs. These details are reflected in the local law. PART 11 – ACTIVITIES IN LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND PUBLIC PLACES This Part contains a new clause to control “unmanned aerial vehicles”(UAV’s). UAV’s are defined as; “unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV)” commonly known as a drone, means a powered, aerial vehicle that does not carry any human operator, uses aerodynamic forces to provide vehicle lift, can fly autonomously or be piloted remotely and includes those used for recreational purposes (known as model aircraft) and those used for commercial purposes (known as remotely piloted aircraft). The following controls have been included:- A person must not allow an unmanned aerial vehicle to – (i) operate or fly over a beach, park reserve or specified local government or public property

without a permit or approval of the local government; (ii) operate or fly closer than 30 metres to any person or another person’s vehicle; (iii) operate or fly over any private property without the prior consent of the land owner; (iv) operate or fly between the hours of 7 pm until 7am Western Australian standard time; (v) operate or fly in a manner which allows the UAV to be outside their visual line of sight at

any time; or (vi) be used in a manner to be a nuisance or cause a nuisance to any person. The Town regularly receives complaints about UAV’s, which are commonly called “drones”.



The Civil Aviation Safety Authority is responsible for legislation to control the safety of UAV’s, however they advise that any other complaints are not their responsibility. They also advise that they mainly control UAV’s being used for commercial purposes which are commonly known as remotely controlled aircraft (RAP’s). One of the major complaints relate to the invasion of privacy when a UAV flies over a persons property. PART 12 – MISCELLANEOUS NOTICES This Part is unchanged. PART 13 – OBJECTION AND APPEALS This Part is unchanged. PART 14 – MISCELLANEOUS The clauses for this Part are unchanged. PART 15 – ENFORCEMENT This part prescribes the penalties and modified penalties (infringement notices). Modified Penalties (Infringement Notices) Research of the Council minutes has revealed that Council adopted modified penalties with the original local law on 24 April 2001 and last reviewed these at the Council meeting held on 22 March 2005 and these became effective upon gazettal on 9 January 2007. The most significant change is increasing the minimum modified penalty from $100 to $250, to better reflect the severity of the offence committed. As an example, casing a nuisance now attracts a modified penalty of $500. It should also be noted that apart from offences relating to dogs, infringement notices are infrequently issued and compliance is usually achieved with the co-operation of the owner, occupier or alleged offender. Nevertheless, the ability for an authorised person to issue an infringement notice is an integral part of the local law. COMMENT: To review the existing Town of Cambridge Private Property Local Law, the Town must follow the process as prescribed in Section 3.10 of the Local Government Act 1995. Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 requires that for the purposes of Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the purpose and effect of any proposed local law must be included in the agenda and minutes of a meeting.



The purpose and effect of the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 are:

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

CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS: In accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town must give State wide and local public notice of the proposed review of the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. All submissions received within that time period will be presented to Council. POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS: Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in reviewing a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period, any submissions received will be presented to Council who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be repealed or amended. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. The strategic implications of any changes to the local law will be considered in detail as part of the review process. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are minimal financial implications for this report. In the first stage, the cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. Stage two, if the Council resolves to adopt the new local law, will be expected to cost a similar amount. By reviewing all of the Council’s the local laws as a group, the costs will be minimised. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law 2016 (draft)



Committee Meeting 15 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly. Cr Timmermanis questioned whether the words "in a public place" were necessary, wherever they appear in the policy, as it involves private property. The Administration was requested to check prior to the next meeting of Council.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, Council give

Statewide and local public notice stating that:-

(a) it proposes to review the Town of Cambridge Local Government and Public Property Local Law, and a summary of its purpose and effect;





(iii) after the close of the public consultation period a report be submitted to Council


Carried 5/0



CR16.10 PROPOSED NEW TOWN OF CAMBRIDGE WASTE LOCAL LAW

SUMMARY:

To inform the Council of the statutory eight year (8) yearly review of the Council’s local laws, as required by section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and to seek Council approval to advertise the proposed Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016 for public comment.

BACKGROUND:

Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to carry out a statutory review of its local laws. A review must be undertaken within eight (8) years of the commencement date of the local law, or from the date of the last review. The purpose of the review is to determine the relevance of each local law and for the Council to consider whether or not the local law should remain unchanged, be repealed or be amended. The Town’s Administration commenced a review of all of the Council’s local laws as part of the ‘due diligence‘ process for the local government reform and amalgamation process, however, this work ceased when the reform/amalgamation process was abandoned in February 2015. All local laws have now been reviewed and are presented to Council for consideration (except the Standing Orders). This will be considered when the CEO returns from leave in early 2016. As part of the Town’s ongoing review of its local laws, the need for an updated local law dealing specifically with waste has been identified. It is recommended that Council repeal clauses of the Town’s current Health Local Law and adopt the new Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016 (proposed local law). The proposed local law has been prepared for consideration by the Council to initiate the law-making process under the Act.

DETAILS:

Model Local Law The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) provides assistance to local governments in the implementation of local laws by creating “model” local laws. These model local laws provide a starting point in which to develop local laws suitable to the locality of the local government whilst ensuring that local laws across the State are generally similar when dealing with a particular subject matter. Since the introduction of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act), the subject matter of waste in local laws is now more appropriately dealt with using the WARR Act as the head of power. WALGA received funding from the Waste Authority (created under the WARR Act) to develop a template Waste Local Law (model), following the disallowance by the Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation (JSC) of a number of waste local laws prepared by local governments based on the previous WALGA template. The creation of a new model was done to address the concerns of the JSC and involved collaboration between the Waste Authority, the Department of Local Government and Communities (Department), the JSC, and lawyers experienced in drafting local laws. Certain sections of the model are intended to replace parts of the current Health Local Law (Health Local Law) as they relate to waste. The Town’s Health Local Law is outdated and derives its authority from the also outdated Health Act 1911 (Health Act). Many local governments have been waiting on the Health Act to be updated prior to amending their health



local laws. The Health Act is currently under review and a new Public Health Bill is before the parliament. The following is a summary of the Town's Local Laws, their subsequent amendments dates and due review date:- Local Law Date of

Adoption by Council

Date of Gazettal Date of Amendments Date of Review


March 2010


March 2010



March 2010


March 2010


March 2010



Review Process The following is the statutory review process, as prescribed by the Local Government Act 1995, together with an indicative timeframe/dates:- Adoption of New Local Laws Dates Presiding Member to give notice of Council intention to adopt new local laws

23 February 2016


5 March - 8 April 2016

Send copies of proposed local laws to Ministers 8 April- 29 April 2016 Consider submissions 24 May 2016 Council to adopt new local laws 24 May 2016 Publish in Government Gazette 3 June 2016 Send copy of Gazetted law to Minister (s) 3 June 2016 Give local Public notice of adoption of new local law 10 June 2016 Send documents to Joint Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, at Parliament House

10 June 2016

STATUTORY ENVIRONMENT Section 3.5 of the Act and Section 64 of the WARR Act provide the heads of power for the Council to make the proposed local law. The procedure for making local laws is set out in section 3.12 of the Act and Regulation 3 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. The person presiding at a Council meeting is to give notice of the purpose and effect of a proposed local law by ensuring that:- (a) the purpose and effect of the proposed local law is included in the agenda for that

meeting; and



(b) the minutes of the meeting of the Council include the purpose and effect of the proposed

local law. The purpose and effect of the proposed local law is as follows:-

Purpose The purpose of the local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of activities and issues relating to waste collection, recycling, reuse and disposal within the district. Effect The effect of the local law is to control activities and manage influences on waste collection, recycling, reuse and disposal within the district. The following is an outline of the proposed local law and the content of each part:

PART 1 – PRELIMINARY This part provides for administrative matters concerning the local law – such as application, commencement, definitions and repeal of obsolete local laws in the Town’s Health Local Law. PART 2 – LOCAL GOVERNMENT WASTE Part two covers requirement to keep a sufficient number of receptacles, use the correct receptacle for different categories of waste, and placement of receptacles in appropriate areas. PART 3 – GENERAL DUTIES The “general duties of an occupier” covers those areas previously covered by the Town’s Health Local Law, such as cleaning of containers and prevention of noxious odours. PART 4 – ENFORCEMENT This is a standard section which deals with the imposition of modified penalties and the recovery of costs. Infringement notices for waste collection and disposal are infrequently issued and compliance is usually achieved with the co-operation of the owner, occupier or alleged offender. Nevertheless, the ability for an authorised person to issue an infringement notice is an integral part of the local law. National Competition Policy Since the early 1990s State, Territory and Commonwealth Heads of Government through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) initiated a commitment to achieving a nationally consistent approach to competition policy in Australia. This resulted in the adoption of the National Competition Policy (NCP) which requires, among other things, that local governments ensure that all new local laws which restrict competition are consistent with the following requirements:- • The benefits of the restriction to the community as a whole outweigh the costs; and • The objectives of the local laws can only be achieved by restricting competition.



In accordance with the National Competition Local Law Review Guidelines local governments are, however, not required to do an assessment against the NCP of a local law based on a WALGA model local law and adopted by Council without substantial change. As the proposed local law is based on the model, an assessment against the NCP is therefore not required. Comment The proposed local law is based on the WALGA model Waste Local Law, with minor amendments being recommended to the model local law. The model is a very recent local law developed by WALGA in conjunction with the JSC and experienced lawyers. It is recommended that the proposed local law not depart significantly from the model in order to ensure its smooth passage through the parliamentary process. The proposed local law will provide a modern approach to the treatment of waste. It will also update the penalties applicable to breaches of the local law, provide for infringement penalties, and confirm the ability to regulate fees through the fees and charges process. For these reasons, it is recommended that Council commence the law-making process. CONSULTATION/COMMUNICATION IMPLICATIONS In accordance with Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995, the Town is required to give State wide and local public notice of the proposed Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016, inviting submissions for a period of no less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given. A copy of the proposed local law is also provided to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Environment. After the close of the statutory consultation period, all submissions received will be presented to Council. (a summary of submissions may occur if a significant number of submissions are received). POLICY AND LEGISLATIVE IMPLICATIONS Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 details the procedure to be undertaken in adopting a local law. The local government is to give State wide public notice of its intention to review a local law inviting submissions from the public. At the end of the statutory advertising period any submissions received will be presented to Council who will decide by absolute majority whether the local law should be adopted. Failure to review the Town's Local Laws puts the Town at risk of failing to meet the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995.


The Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to review all their local laws at least every eight (8) years. This review of the Town's local laws forms part of a process to update and modernise the Town's existing local laws. There are no significant strategic implications of commencing a review. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS: There are minimal financial implications for this report. The cost of advertising the proposed Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016 is estimated to be approximately $1,000. Cost savings will be achieved by advertising all local laws as a group.



ATTACHMENTS: 1. Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016 Committee Meeting 15 February 2016 During discussion, Members were advised that a number of minor amendments were made to the local law and the attachment has been revised accordingly. Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That clauses 2.3(3), 2.4(a) and 2.5(a) of the Waste Local Law 2016 be deleted. Amendment lost 2/3 For: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION: Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) in accordance with Section 3.12(3)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995, Council

commences the law-making process, for the Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016, the purpose and effect of the local law being as follows: Purpose: The purpose of the local law is to provide for the regulation, control and management of activities and issues relating to waste collection, recycling, reuse and disposal within the district; Effect: The effect of the local law is to control activities and manage influences on waste collection, recycling, reuse and disposal within the district;

(ii) the Council carry out the law-making procedure under section 3.12(3) of the Local Government Act, by giving State-wide public notice and local public notice of the proposed local law stating:-

(a) it proposes to make the Town of Cambridge Waste Local Law 2016, and a

summary of its purpose and effect; (b) copies of the proposed local law may be inspected at the City's offices; and (c) submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local

government within a period of not less than six (6) weeks after the notice is given;

(iii) in accordance with Section 3.12(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, as soon

as the notice is given, a copy of the proposed local law and notice is to be given to the Minister for Local Government and the Minister for Environment;



(iv) in accordance with Section 3.12(3)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995, a copy of

the proposed local law be supplied to any person requesting it; and (v) after the close of the statutory public consultation period, a report be submitted to

Council on any submissions received on the proposed local law to enable the Council to consider the submissions made and to determine whether to adopt the local law in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Act.

Carried 5/0



CR16.11 JUBILEE RESERVE, CITY BEACH - APPROVAL OF TEMPORARY PARKING ARRANGEMENTS

SUMMARY:

To obtain Council approval to allow temporary overflow parking on Jubilee Reserve, City Beach on days of very hot weather or when parking is anticipated to exceed demand, until April 2016. BACKGROUND: On Sunday 7 February 2016, Perth experienced heatwave conditions, which resulted in an increase to the beach user population. This in itself is not unusual for City and Floreat beaches, except that the Town has now completed its City Beach development, which is attracting more beach users to this destination. As a result, parking demand on this day far exceeded the number of bays available, which resulted in an increase in illegal parking and congestion far greater than what has been evident in the past. This includes: • Parking on verges • Parking on stopping areas - along both sides of access roads- Floreat • Parking on grassed areas. • Parking on footpaths.

The Town was diplomatic in its enforcement/approach and only three (3) infringements were issued for serious parking offences, where safety was identified as a concern.

DETAILS:

Details of car parking at City and Floreat Beaches are provided in the report attachment showing the car park locations. This indicates that there are approx. 1,200 car parking bays at City Beach and approx. 285 at Floreat beach Council has previously received a report from traffic consultants on the traffic impact of the new facilities and considered providing additional parking at the Fred Burton carpark, which adds a further 83 bays. This is the subject of a separate report to Council this month to consider increasing the additional capacity by (at least) 120 bays. If the expansion of the Fred Burton carpark is ultimately approved, it will most likely not be available until next summer. It is therefore suggested that Council consider a short term solution should a demand situation arise similar to that which was experience on Sunday 7 February. Jubilee Reserve The use of temporary parking on Jubilee Reserve has been investigated and provides a short term solution. Council has previously approved this location as an overflow parking area for major events, such as SIDS for KIDS. A temporary entrance off Challenger Parade in carpark No: 303 has been identified as most suitable and this would involve the removal of three pine log bollards.



If approved, when the vehicles are parked on Jubilee Reserve, they will be parked commencing on the northern part of the reserve, along the Ocean Drive frontage (Area A). As the number of vehicles increases on the day, if required, Area B will be used (refer to report attachment). It is estimated that at least 400-650 vehicles could be accommodated, depending upon the layout used on the day. For safety reasons, any temporary parking arrangement on Jubilee Reserve will be under the control of a Town Authorised Person. It has been estimated that three persons would be required to control the temporary parking - 1 controlling the entrance and 2 controlling the parking lines. To properly enforce parking along the beach, a minimum of two (preferably three-four) Rangers/Parking Officers will be required each day, in addition to the normal on-duty Ranger. This will have a budget impact, but any additional expenditure can be off-set by increased revenue from the issue of infringements. The parking situation experienced on the weekend created potentially dangerous situations for pedestrians and people walking to the beach. The Town must either deal with illegal parking and providing temporary and alternative parking will assist the Town's Ranger Services in managing the parking. It is recommended that Jubilee Reserve be used for temporary parking on days when the temperature is forecast to be very hot and parking demand is high (typically on Sundays), until additional permanent parking is provided. The opening of the temporary car park under these circumstances will be at the discretion of the Chief Executive Officer. If approved, temporary car parking on Jubilee Reserve will be kept well away from the residents on Jubilee Crescent and no nuisance will be caused to them. Notwithstanding, the Town will be notifying local residents that it has instigated a temporary arrangement.


There are no statutory implications related to this report, however, it is in keeping with Council Policy 4.4.8 relating to parking enforcement.


An indicative costing has been estimated, as follows: Costing: Item Indicative Cost Income: Cost per vehicle ($2 X 500) $1,000 Expenditure: Staffing ($35 X 8 hours X 3 persons = $840 per day. $840 Removal and replacement of bollards $100 Temporary signage $100 Letterbox drop $100 Total $1,040






It is proposed that a letterbox drop be carried out to advise local residents of the temporary arrangement.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Jubilee Reserve Indicative Temporary Plan 2. City Beach Precinct Plan


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That: (i) Jubilee Reserve (northern Areas A and B) City Beach, as shown on the attached

plan be approved for use as a temporary overflow car park, until the end of April 2016; where:

(a) the temperature is forecast to be very hot; and (b) in the opinion of the Chief Executive Officer, parking demand will exceed

parking supply; (ii) the temporary overflow parking area will be managed by Town Rangers or persons

authorised by the Town; and (iii) a $2 per vehicle fee be charged to cover parking management/operational costs. Carried 5/0



CR16.12 PROPOSED LOCAL CAMBRIDGE WALKING STRATEGY

SUMMARY: The Town for a number of years has received requests during public question time at various Council meetings and Annual General Meeting of Electors for the introduction of local walking trails. It is suggested that an overall holistic local Walking Strategy be developed that incorporates walking routes in various suburbs within the Town of Cambridge.

BACKGROUND:

The benefits of walking have been well researched over recent years with the introduction of walking trails throughout various Western Australian Local Governments (metropolitan and country) been driven by the previous State Governments' Physical Activity Taskforce (PATF). The PATF (with support from Heathway and the National Heart Foundation) developed a series of walking guides to promote the benefits of walking. Grants were provided to Local Governments to assist in the development and implementation of walking trails/maps, guides, promotion and the establishment of local walking groups. In 2005, the Town was successful in obtaining funding through the PATF Local Activities Grants Program for a walking program called "Fit for Feet". The Town received $8,000 and matched this funding. Support was also provided by the North Metropolitan Health Service, Lotterywest, Floreat Forum Shopping Centre, Edith Cowan University and the Western Australian Local Government Association. The program entailed the training of walk volunteers, use of free pedometers, marketing/promotion, and engagement with local schools, community groups and local businesses. Four walking trails were identified, specifically: 1. Perry Lakes and Bold Park loop 2. Floreat Forum loop 3. City Beach to Floreat Beach return; and 4. Lake Monger loop. With the help of trained volunteers and Town staff, various walks on the identified trails were offered and promoted to the public at various days and times. Unfortunately only five (5) members from the public participated and the program subsequently ceased in mid-December 2005. Although the "Fit for Feet" program was not a success from a participation perspective, since that time a number of walking trails have evolved in the Town with the focus on individual participation rather than organised local walking groups, specifically: 1. Heritage Trail 2. Bush to Beach; and 3. Yange Kep Bidi



1. Heritage Trail The Heritage Trail was opened in January 2001 to celebrate the Federation of Australia and further extended in 2015; the trail identifies key locations of historical significance in West Leederville, Wembley, Floreat and City Beach. The Town, in conjunction with the Lions Club of Floreat, has erected a total of 23 interpretive signs and produced a brochure highlighting the trail route. 2. Bush to Beach The Bush to Beach Trail is a 16.3km walking trail from Perth city and finishing at Grant Marine Park (near Cottesloe Beach). The Trail, which lies on Whadjuk Noongar land, has a defined route starting at Rosalie Park (across from Perth's famous King Park), then veers toward Perry Lakes and Bold Park before linking down to the Cottesloe coastline. The Trail is marked with triangular directional signage inserted into paths and bollards. 3. Yange Kep Bidi The Yange Kep Bidi is made up of 22km of trails linking the wetland and bushland areas of Lake Claremont, Perry Lakes, Bold Park, Herdsman Lake and Lake Monger. In relation to the Bush to Beach and the Yange Kep Bidi trails these are part of the Whadjuk Regional Network and were developed by the Western Suburbs Councils. Other Trails In addition to these trails, a number of walking trails are scattered through the adjacent Bold Park bushland area with a focus on the areas interesting biodiversity, geology, turbulent history and current conservation projects. All these can found on the Town's web site and also highlighted on the Town of Cambridge Local Travel Smart guide. In 2009, the Town joined the Department of Transport Travel Smart program and the Local Travel Smart Guide provides information about transport routes and stops, on and off-road bicycle routes, water fountains, bike parking and local facilities such as supermarkets, playgrounds and walking trails. Although the Town has established walking trails and various associated publications, there are no local walking guides/maps specifically highlighting suburban walking routes. DETAILS: Walking is recognised world-wide as one of the most popular, simple, low-cost recreational pursuit with many social and physical health benefits. It is suggested that an overall Walking Strategy be developed that promotes a number of local walking routes in each suburb of the Town, with the aim of increasing the level of physical activity amongst residents. Various literature contained in other brochures/documents specific to walking could also be incorporated. The walking routes can be used for recreational purposes and also link up key places of interest in each suburb such as community and recreation facilities, shops, schools and parks. Unlike the previous 2005 "Fit for Feet program", there will be no structured walking program per se, with the emphasis being on individual participation.



Cities of Wanneroo, Joondalup and Stirling have these types of documents. In addition to the production of the booklet, directional signage, stencils and various promotional tools would be incorporated into an overall Local Walking Strategy. It is suggested that an amount of $20,000 is included in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget to develop a Local Walking Strategy. The $20,000 includes an overall map, design, printing and distribution of brochures plus the manufacture and installation of markers for approximately two (2) local suburban trails. Additional costs for possible water fountains and park benches (approximately $10,000) which could also be placed along various walking trails routes have not been included.


Nil


An amount of $20,000 is included in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget to undertake and implement a Local Walking Strategy.


A local Walking Strategy supports a number of goals within the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities.

Goal 8 A community that embraces environmentally responsible practices Strategy 8.1: Encourage the community to self-manage minimising energy consumption,

water use and waste. Goal 11 A Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


Consultation be undertaken during the development of the Strategic Walking Trail program

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That an amount of $20,000 be included in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget to develop and implement a Local Walking Strategy. Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR16.13 PROPOSED 'TRUCK STOP' COMMUNITY EVENT

SUMMARY:

To seek Council's support for unbudgeted expenditure of $20,000 to facilitate a one-month trial of a weekly "Truck Stop" event at Perry Lakes ( Garden Week site) during the month of April 2016 and, if successful, it would be the intention that it is included as part of the Town's 2016/2017 Event program.

BACKGROUND:

'Truck Stop' is a roving weekly event managed by a third party with the focus on premier food, drink and live family entertainment that can be transported to multiple venues. 'Truck Stop', launched in October 2015, has been held at the Perth Cultural Centre (Friday and Saturdays), Whitford Nodes (City of Joondalup) on Sunday afternoon/evenings, and a proposal for Midland in March 2016 is currently being considered by the City of Swan. The Town has received a written proposal from the event organisers of 'Truck Stop', Sunset Events and Coveted Events to provide this weekly event on Sunday afternoon/evenings at Perry Lakes during the month of April 2016. A copy of the proposal is provided as an Attachment. Furthermore, the Town has met representatives from Sunset Events and Coveted Events to discuss the event proposal.

DETAILS:

The Town provides an annual events program, collectively branded as the 'Summer of Fun', between October and April. The 2015/2016 Summer of Fun includes the following events: Event Date/Day/Time 1. Lake Monger Garage Sale Markets Saturday, 24 October 2015, 8am- 1pm 2. Sunset Music in the Park, Rutter Park Sunday, 29 November 2015, 5pm- 7pm 3. Christmas at Lake Monger Thursday, 17 December 2015, 4pm-8pm 4. Australia Day Festival and Citizenship Ceremony,

Perry Lakes Tuesday, 26 January 2016, 8am- 12 noon

5. Extreme Water Sports Fun Day, Bold Park Aquatic Saturday, 30 January 2016, 12noon-4pm 6. Celebrate City Beach Sunday, 14 February 2016, 3pm-7pm 7. Exposure Youth Festival, Perry Lakes Sunday, 28 February 2016, 2pm-6pm 8. Cambridge Street Festival, Wembley Saturday, 12 March 2016, 3pm-7pm 9. Anzac Day Parade and Remembrance Ceremony,

West Leederville Cenotaph Monday, 25 April 2016, 8am-11am

These events have proven popular with the "Cambridge Street Festival" being a new edition to the Summer of Fun program in March 2015, and "Celebrate City Beach" combining Sunset Music in the Park and the Sand Sculpture Competition. The Town has received a written request from event organisers - Sunset Events and Coveted Events - seeking support for a 'Truck Stop' event on the four Sundays in April 2016. 'Truck Stop" events were introduced in October 2015 and have proven popular community events in Perth City and Whitfords with a focus on food/drink and entertainment. Further, events are being planned in Midland for the City of Swan during the month of March 2016.



It is proposed for 'Truck Stop' to be set up each Sunday afternoon in April 2016 at Perry Lakes, (previous Garden Week site) and in close proximity to the adjacent playground and toilet facilities. From the Town's point of view, the proposal has merit, will complePoment the Town's Event program and provide residents with more local events where they can come together and interact as a community. However, there are no funds in this year's budget and the cost of four (4) 'Truck Stop' events is $20,000 ($5,000 per event). An indicative weekly income and expenditure budget has been provided as part of the Truck Stop proposal and a summary is outlined below: Income Amount 1. Town of Cambridge $5,000 2. *Sunset Events- in kind contribution for infrastructure $6,000 3. Food Vendor $1,000 4. Bar Sales $3,800 5. Sponsorship - CUB $ 500 Total $16,300 Expenditure Amount 1. Venue Hire $ 500 2. Staff $6,200 3. Operations $1,500 4.* Infrastructure $6,000 5. Programming $1,000 6.Marketing $ 400 7. Approvals $ 600 Total $16,200 Total weekly net cost is close to break even, note that this includes the financial contribution of $5,000 by the Town and Sunset Events providing the necessary infrastructure cost of approximately $6,000.


Policy No. 2.1.19 - Conduct of Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Public Events A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be implemented between Sunset Events and the Town outlining various responsibilities of parties including but not limited to financial contributions, insurance requirements, risk management, traffic management, cleaning, health requirements, liquor licencing, security and waste disposal.


There are no funds in the 2015/2016 Budget to support the introduction of "Truck Stop" events at Perry Lakes during the month of April 2016. If supported by Council, it would require unbudgeted expenditure of $20,000. If successful and well received by the community, an amount of $20,000 would also be included in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget to facilitate Truck Stop as part of the Town's Event Program. An evaluation of the Truck Stop event will be undertaken and circulated to Elected Members.




The introduction of the "Truck Stop" event at Perry Lakes supports a number of goals in a number of Priority Areas within the Town’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 specifically; Priority Area: Our Community Life Goal 1 A sense of community, pride and belonging Strategy 1.1 Encourage and support a range of activities and events at which communities

can gather and interact Goal 2 Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy Strategy 2.1 Focus on activating our major public open spaces

Goal 3 An active, safe and inclusive community Strategy 3.1: Create and improve the places where community groups can interact. Strategy 3.3: Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and

abilities.

Priority Area: Our Council Goal 11 A Strong performing local government Strategy 11.5: Continuously strive to improve services delivered to the community.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. It will be the intention to inform the residents and major adjacent users of AK Sporting Facilities - Rugby WA, Athletica and Basketball WA of the April 2016 Truck Stop Events. It is noted that the Truck Stop event will not clash with events at Rugby WA, Athletica and Basketball WA. Specific consultation will be undertaken during the Truck Stop event to gauge the level of support for future such events.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Written project proposal from Sunset Events and Covered Events


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) an amount of $20,000 be approved as unbudgeted expenditure by an ABSOLUTE

MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 to support the Truck Stop Event being held at Perry Lakes during four (4) Sunday afternoon/Evenings during the month of April 2016;

(ii) the Town enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Sunset Events

outlining various responsibilities of both parties and the Town's Chief Executive Officer be authorised to finalise; and



(iii) an evaluation be undertaken and if results indicate that the Truck Stop Event is

well patronised and supported by the community, an amount of $20,000 be listed in the 2016/2017 Draft Budget and be incorporated as part of the Town's 2016/2017 Event program.

Carried 4/1 For: Mayor Shannon, Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell Against: Cr Timmermanis



CR16.14 SURF CLUB BUILDING AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT CITY BEACH PARKING PROPOSAL: PROPOSED CAR PARKING EXPANSION

SUMMARY:

Council had previously endorsed seeking community consultation on a modest expansion of Fred Burton Carpark for the City Beach area to cater for short term increase in demand. It is considered that a more medium term solution of a larger expansion of Fred Burton Carpark is better suited to the prevailing circumstances and that the community's views be sought on this proposal for construction.

BACKGROUND:

At the Council meeting of 24 February 2015, Council considered a report regarding the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach parking consultation (CR15.7 refers) in which a modest 83 car bay expansion was endorsed for community consultation. This consultation was planned to be included in a larger consultation exercise including further improvements to public amenity for City Beach from north of the new Odyssea restaurant to the north groyne joining the boardwalk to Floreat beach. Circumstances predicate that it may be more appropriate that the car park works be activated sooner rather than later.

DETAILS:

Current Car parking Capacity Between the North Groyne (Carpark #308) and Challenger Parade south of the development (Carpark #302) there are ~ 1,000 sealed car bays; of which ~650 are within a 250m walking distance from the new restaurants, surf club and new public spaces. Car Parking Demand As part of the Development Application for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach submitted to the WAPC, traffic consultants were engaged to provide traffic and parking analysis. Their initial findings were that:

Existing Car Bays proximate to the project site: 705 Assumed number of bays to be removed due to works: -401 Assumed number of new bays to be built: 50 Total bays available at end of project: 715

The report indicated that a demand (after the opening of the restaurants), in all but busy periods, the modelled demand was 646 bays; however also indicated that in summer Sundays, this demand could exceed 716 bays. The consultants also recommended that 10% additional capacity be provided (to allow for bays to be found in peak periods) and provide some buffer for growth. This resulted in a revised forecast demand of 795 bays, some 84 short of what is available.

1 The actual number of car bays removed due to works is 33.



This report also limited itself to parking areas most proximate to the proposed restaurants (see figure below) which doesn’t take into account other existing car bays or the beach users of those car bays hence it needs to be understood in that context. It also didn’t identify preferred location for the supposed 50 car bay expansion

Figure 1: Carpark analysis undertaken as part of Development Application

One of the issues in this modelling report is that it could not properly account for the overall parking demand at City Beach compared to available bays. Assumptions made regarding restaurant customer demand coincidental to beach / surf club demand could not be properly validated. The Town engaged new traffic consultants who were able to undertake car parking demand. Over 4 Sundays in January - March 2014, the existing parking demand was in the order of 590 to 680 car bays before any commercial development is undertaken. This is far in excess of the demand modelling undertaken previously.



Recent Circumstances The first of the new restaurants, Odyssea has commenced trading for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It is exceeding expectations for patronage with great demand across all three periods of the day. The next restaurant to open, Rise pizzeria, will be trading for lunch and dinner and it is expected to peak during dinner. The third restaurant, Hamptons, is anticipated to open mid-year and will also be trading for breakfast, lunch and dinner. It is expected that demand across the day will be similar to Odyssea. Since the commencement of trading for Odyssea, the Town has seen a significant increase in parking demand proximate to this area which is a combination of fine weather (beach users), surf club activities (especially Sunday mornings) and restaurant demand. There is no expectation that this overall demand will taper off during corresponding periods in ensuing years. The Australia Day "long" weekend saw consistently high demand for parking and periods of congestion. The exceptionally hot weekend of 6 & 7 February 2016 resulted in more parking demand than capacity with significant number of cars parking on residential verges and illegally on other verges. Car Parking Expansion Council endorsed a modest expansion of Fred Burton Carpark of 83 bays to be issued for Community consultation. This proposed expansion is shown below:

Figure 2: 83 Car bay expansion option



Our traffic engineers also developed an option that provided 120 new car bays as shown below:

Figure 3: 120 Car bay expansion option

The anticipated cost per bay, in this area, including lighting would be in the order of $4,500 to $5,000. The Town is also preparing cost estimates to undertake lighting in the existing parts of Fred Burton carpark. Discussion It would be reasonable to develop carparking at City Beach that satisfies demand in all but extreme peak periods if the Town wished to provide good amenity for beach and restaurant users and discourage visitor verge parking in nearby residential streets. It is suggested that construction of the 120 bay option for Fred Burton is a sensible immediate step rather than the initially proposed 83 bay option as this would cater for greater number of 'peak' days. It is thus proposed that the Town seek community feedback on this proposal through a broad information channel such as advertisement in the local newspaper and Town website as this has the greatest 'reach'. It is also noted that school holidays and Easter are upcoming which is a consideration when community feedback is being sought. Further, comment will be sought from stakeholder groups such as Coastcare, City of Perth Surf Lifesaving Club and Hospitality Operators.



The 120 car bay expansion would need to be discussed with the Department of Education as part of their ongoing due diligence on a proposed new High School site. Indicative Timetable: Consultation period: Mid March to end April 2016 Council report: May 2016 Design, tender: August 2016 Construction ends: November 2016 It is thus to be noted that no increase in formed carparking areas would occur until next summer.




The anticipated cost of this 120 bay carpark (at most) is $600,000 to be funded within the budget for the Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach. This will reduce available funding for other amenity items such as BBQs and Shade Shelters.


This project supports the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 and Corporate Business Plan 2013-2018: Our Community Life Goal 2: Quality local parks and open spaces for the community to enjoy; Goal 3 : An active, safe and inclusive community; Strategy 2.1 Complete the City Beach - beach, cafes and restaurants project; Strategy 3.1 Develop a plan to renew aging club facilities. Project: Surf Club Building and Commercial Development at City Beach.


In line with the Town's Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11, this proposal has been assessed as Level 2 "Consult" to allow community consultation to be undertaken. In these circumstances, advertisement in the local press is proposed as the primary means of advertising this consultation with ancillary directed engagement with stakeholder groups.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) a 120 car bay expansion of Fred Burton Carpark, as indicated in this report, be

endorsed and

(ii) community and stakeholder feedback be sought on the proposal and Council considers this feedback prior to any decision to continue to design and construction.

Carried 5/0



CR16.15 DOCUMENTS SEALED - FEBRUARY 2016

SUMMARY:

To advise Council of documents that have been affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge.

DETAILS:

There is no statutory requirement for the Council to give prior approval for the Seal of the Municipality to be placed on documents, however, Council Policy directs the type of documentation to which the seal may be affixed, and requires a subsequent report to Council. A schedule of documents affixed with the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge appears below:

Date Sealed Document Details Purpose No. Copies

4 December 2016

Amendment No.32 to TPS No.1 Perry Lakes Development Land

Outcomes of Advertising and Final Adoption With Modifications

3

2 Feb 2016 Town of Cambridge - City of Perth Surf Life Saving Club - Lease

Community Facilities Lease - The Surf Club Building at City Beach

4

4 Feb 2016 Withdrawal of Caveat - Lot 8 (No.3) Kimberley Street, West Leederville

Withdrawal of Caveat to Permit Transfer of Land 1






Sealing of Council documents is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 priority area of Capacity to Deliver and goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil.




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That it be noted that the Common Seal of the Town of Cambridge has been affixed to the documents as listed in the schedule as it appears in this report. Carried 5/0



CR16.16 LOCAL GOVERNMENT (RULES OF CONDUCT) REGULATIONS 2007 - MINOR BREACHES REVIEW

SUMMARY:

The Department of Local Government and Communities is conducting a review of the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007 (Regulations) and minor breach disciplinary framework. Local Governments have been requested to consider the proposed changes and whether the current Regulations appropriately express contemporary official conduct standards and whether the operations of the Local Government Standards Panel can be enhanced to deliver efficient, timely and reliable outcomes, including alternative dispute resolution strategies, when minor breach complaints are made. This reports reviews the proposed changes and seeks to provide comment to the Department on each proposal.

BACKGROUND:

The Local Government Act 1995 was amended in 2007 to provide a framework to deal with minor, recurrent and serious breaches by individual council members. A minor breach is a contravention of a Rule of Conduct or a specified local law prescribed in the Local Government (Rules of Conduct) Regulations 2007. The minor breach system is governed by the regulations and administered by the Local Government Standards Panel. There are varying degrees of misconduct perpetrated with the Local Government sector and there are significant differences between the system and the management of serious and minor misconduct under the Corruption, Crime and Misconduct Act 2003 (CCM Act). “Misconduct” under the CCM Act refers to conduct that is corrupt, criminal, intentionally dishonest, lacking integrity, breaches the public trust and which indicates unfitness for office. Minor breaches, the subject of this report, are thus defined in terms of intent and consequences rather than contravention of specific legislation. The table below details the extent of the misconduct and the agency that manages the breach.



The minor breach system previously supplemented the management of minor misconduct under the CCM Act. It aimed to regulate specified types of conduct by individual council members likely to impair the integrity, efficiency and effectiveness of the local government or bring the local government into disrepute, but which were not otherwise dealt with under the Act or other legislation. Conduct classified as a minor breach is more narrowly defined and generally less serious than minor misconduct as defined by the CCM Act. However, if not checked, it may cause deterioration in the working environment and act as a catalyst for more serious local government dysfunction eventually requiring State intervention. The minor breach system was intended to provide a quick, informal and non-technical mechanism to discourage target conduct by imposing sanctions on council members found to have committed a minor breach by “breaking the rules of conduct”. The Standards Panel (set up in 2010 to determine minor breaches) may require the member to undertake mandatory training or impose the sanctions of a public censure and/or a public apology. The Panel’s decisions are reviewable by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Any further minor breach by a council member already found to have committed two minor breaches may be referred by the Panel to the Departmental CEO who may refer it to the SAT as an allegation of recurrent breach. The SAT has the power to impose more significant sanctions including suspension or disqualification. There is generally strong support for the minor breach system, but there is a persistent perception, in those parts of the local government sector that have dealings with it, that neither the process nor the outcomes are meeting the expectations that stakeholders had of the system at commencement.

DETAILS:

The scope of the current review is restricted to the part of the disciplinary framework that deals with minor breaches, defined as a contravention of a rule of conduct prescribed under section 5.104(1) of the Act or a local law specified in the regulations. A summary of the proposed amendments to each Regulation and the effect it will have on the Town is provided below. For further information on the proposed changes see Attachment 1. Regulation 3 (General principles to guide behaviour – not a Rule of Conduct)

Summary of Amendments Includes a principle concerning compliance with local government codes and policies. Links Regulation 3 to codes of conduct required under s.103(1) of the Act and the proper use of office.

Comment Agree – The proposed new definitions will provide greater clarity to the intent of regulation and the conditions of its application. The concept of linking a Council Code of Conduct to the Regulations will give it more power, however, the Town will be required to review its current Governance Policies and Code of Conduct.



Regulation 4 (Contravention of local laws relating to conduct at meetings)

Summary of Amendments Delete regulation 4 and capture seriously dysfunctional meeting conduct in a new regulation.

Comment Agree – The deletion of regulation 4 will prevent any duplication with Local Laws (Standing Orders). Regulation 6 (Use of Information)

Summary of Amendments Expanded regulation to include: • Confidential parts of otherwise non-confidential documents. • Personal information to be disclosed to the extent permitted by the informed consent of the

person to whom the information relates. • Information subject to a confidentiality or non-disclosure agreement. • Legal advice. • Commercially sensitive information within regulation. • Resolutions that are made in closed meetings are now explicitly exempt from the

regulation.

Comment Agree - Elected members, staff, community members and contractors need to ensure that they are not disclosing confidential information that should not be made public or could damage the Town or a community member.

This regulation is separate to and not to be confused with access to documents obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.

Regulation 7 (Improper use of office to secure personal advantage or disadvantage others)

Summary of Amendments Defines key terms to make intent more explicit and focus on matters of integrity, honesty and impartiality; exclude conduct that is the subject of other regulations or local laws and where it is unlikely that significant harm would be sustained as a result of the conduct.

Comment Agree - Clearly defined terms will stop Regulation 7 being used as a catch all for minor complaints and will end any duplication of breaches of Local Laws.

Regulation 8 (Misuse of local government resources)

Summary of Amendments Clarified by defining key terms including: • “resource” to cover tangible and intangible assets, services and other means of supporting

the functions of the local government, and that are owned or paid for by the local government from public money.

• “use” to include both consumption and deriving a benefit not associated with consumption. • “any other purpose” to refer to any purpose other than fulfilling the legal obligations and

duties of the council member’s office.



Comment Agree – The proposed new definitions will provide greater clarity to the intent of regulation and the conditions of its application.

Regulation 9 (Prohibits involvement in administration) Summary of Amendments Clarify by defining key terms including: • “administration” to mean the functions of the CEO as described in section 5.41 of the Act,

CEO delegations under section 5.42, the executive functions of local government as described in Part 3 Division 3 of the Act, and other functions specifically reserved to the CEO under the Act or any other written law.

• “task” to exclude the transmittal of non-confidential information provided by the CEO, and to exclude the expression of an opinion, comment, objective or intent.

Comment Agree – The proposed new definitions will provide greater clarity to the intent of regulation and the conditions of its application.

Regulation 10 (Relations with local government employees)

Summary of Amendments Define and amend key terms to clarify intent and conditions of application. Provisions have been added relating to the CEO’s employment, threatening or abusive behaviour, unreasonable demands, chastisement of employees and protection of former local government employees.

The regulation replaces “members of the public present” with a condition that specifies the regulation applies if a person other than a Council member or the CEO is present or the event is being broadcast. It extends the term “attending” to including before and after the event.

Comment Agree - The definition and amendment to include key terms removes any ambiguity in relations between Elected Members and Staff.

New Regulation (Public Statements)

Summary of Amendments Requires a council member to notify the CEO in writing of any comments or written material that the council member provides to a representative of the mass or local media concerning the performance or administration of the local government, the actions or performance of local government employees, or a council decision.

Requires the CEO to maintain a register of media contact in which details of such notices are kept, and to make this register available for public inspection.



Comment Disagree – The regulation seeks to achieve greater accountability and transparency by requiring Elected Members to advise the CEO each time they wish to make a public statement in their capacity as a Council member. Issues that are raised with this proposal include: • How to determine the Elected Members right to right to freedom of speech and a breach of

the regulation. • What is the definition of mass media (Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, blogs, emails,

Public Events, Meetings)? • How will this be implemented during election campaigns? • Does the administration become involved with altering statements?

New Regulation (Interactions with council members)

Summary of Amendments Endeavours to provide coverage and consistency for problems that may not be covered by local laws. The regulation includes the following provisions: • Prohibits a council member from behaving in an abusive or threatening manner towards

any other council member or the CEO. • Prohibits a council member from stating or implying that a council decision or decision

process was incompetent, dishonest, corrupt, negligent or unlawful. • Requires a council member, when attending a council meeting or committee meeting, to

comply with a direction given by the presiding member at that meeting and cease any conduct that has been ruled out of order by the presiding member.

Comment Agree - The amendments seek to replace Regulation 4 that was deleted. The new regulation will provide common provisions in the event Local Laws are not sufficient.

Regulation 11 (Disclosure of interest)

Summary of Amendments Defines key terms to clarify meaning – remove or clarify anomalies with Act provisions on interest disclosure; address lobbying by proponents; provide for enduring interest register.

Comment Agree - The proposed new definitions will provide greater to Elected Members and staff regarding the disclosure of impartiality interest and the need to disclose them. Regulation 12 (Gifts) Summary of Amendments Includes definition of “nominal gift” and exempts these from notifiable gifts. Prohibit acceptance of travel contributions from persons seeking or intending to undertake an activity involving a local government discretion, and provide for situations where a council member accepted a gift and was unaware that the giver was such a person. Include provisions to cover gifts to council that are made available to councillors and ceremonial gifts. Comment Agree - The proposed new definitions will provide greater to Elected Members and staff regarding the disclosure of nominal gifts.




This report recommends that the comments on the suggested amendments to the Rules of Conduct Regulations be forward to the Department of Local Government for consideration.




Our Council Goal 9 Transparent, accountable governance Strategy 9.1 Implement initiatives that strengthen governance skills and knowledge Key Actions • Provide professional development opportunities for elected members and develop a knowledge base to support their roles and responsibilities. • Implement a corporate professional development program.


This matter has been assessed under Policy No. 1.2.11 and no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summary of Proposals and Issues for Comment – Review of the Local Government Rules of Conduct Regulations 2007

Committee Meeting 15 February 2016 Amendment Moved by Cr Timmermanis, seconded by Mayor Shannon That the Town's comments to the Department of Local Government be amended to include: Regulation 10 (3)(b)- Relations with local government employees be amended by deleting the word 'incompetent'. Amendment lost 2/3 For: Mayor Shannon and Cr Timmermanis Against: Crs Carr, Grinceri and Powell




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the comments detailed in the report to the review of the Local Government Rules of Conduct Regulations 2007 be submitted to the Department of Local Government. Carried 5/0



CR16.17 WEST COAST SPORTING ASSOCIATION STATUS UPDATE

SUMMARY:

This reports provides an update Council on the status of the decisions made with respect to the West Coast Sporting Association (the Association) at the November 2014 and April 2015 Council Meetings and the financial position of the Association.

BACKGROUND:

In November 2014, a report to Council (Item CR14.175 West Coast Sporting Association - Request for Deferral of Payments Due to the Town) advised that the Association was not in a position to meet its all of its capital payments to the Town and sought a deferral for twelve months, to allow the Association to resolve current issues and agree a way forward to a sustainable operating model for the facility. The report noted that:

The Association's previous operating model centred around seasonal licences to the Clubs, with a lower cost base and lower service standards (e.g. cleaning) than present. However, the Associations current cost structure post building works has increased as a result of:

• the Town's community facilities leasing policy (including maintenance

contributions, building insurance, waste); • the Association's liability insurance (in addition to the Club's own individual

insurance). • higher levels of service and presentation (e.g. cleaning); and • Increased utility costs.

The Association did not necessarily have an operating model for the renewed building in terms of the shared use and the charges to the tenants. Subsequently, the Association has made a loss for the initial year.

Council decided at the November 2014 Council Meeting (Item CR14.175) that:

(i) the Town AGREES to the deferment of outstanding capital contributions for the West Coast Sporting Association for twelve months, concluding on 30th November 2015;

(ii) the payments for the Maintenance Contribution, Waste Fee and Insurance be

deferred on a rolling basis for a period of twelve months, such that current year payments are offset against the oldest debt first;

(iii) the Association be advised that the Town's agreement in (i) and (ii) above is subject

to the Association submitting to the Town the following:-

(a) a business plan adopted by the Association, for the ongoing operations of the Association, and incorporating a projected cashflow and the full repayment of capital contributions (to the satisfaction of the Town). The business plan is to be submitted by no later than 28 February 2015;



(b) a detailed budget for the current financial year, adopted (or revised) by the

Association; and

(c) financial statements of actual income and expenditure to budget, submitted no less than on a quarterly basis.

Subsequently at the April 2015 Council Meeting (Item CR 15.46 – West Coast Sporting Association) after further negotiations with the Association, it was decided that:

(i) the Town AGREES to the rescheduling of outstanding capital contributions for the West Coast Sporting Association over a period of five years with annual reductions of $5,400, concluding on 30 June 2020. The Association shall be required to enter into an Agreement with the Town for the repayments of capital contributions and these payments to have priority over repayment of internal loan payments;

(ii) the payments for the Maintenance Contribution, Waste Fee and Insurance continue

to be deferred on a twelve month rolling basis for a period of five years, such that current year payments are offset against the oldest debt first;

(iii) the Town supports a twelve month hire agreement between West Coast Sporting

Association and Aspire Fitness, however, requires the final terms and conditions of the hire agreement to be submitted to Council for approval;

(iv) the Town will not underwrite the financial activities of West Coast Sporting

Association; (v) the Association to provide quarterly actual to budget financial statements (ie profit

and loss, and balance sheet) during the month following each quarter; (vi) the Council acknowledges and endorses the need for separation of leadership roles

between the Association and Member User Groups to avoid conflicts of interests and align Stakeholder interests and efforts going forward.

DETAILS:

Operating Model & Business Plan The Association has not resolved its preferred operating model to date. However, the Town is aware that the Association's preferred model incorporates the employment of a part time Venue Manager. The Association has yet to provide the Town with a Business Plan that incorporates the costs associated with the employment of a venue manager. The Town is aware that the employment of a venue manager will alleviate the pressure placed on the volunteers at the Association, but there is a substantial financial risk associated with the decision. The Associations Annual General Meeting was held in October 2015, however, it was adjourned due to the financial uncertainty of the Association and another AGM has not been called. This has resulted in the requested separation of the leadership roles between the Association and the member Clubs, as requested in the Council decision from April 2015, not being considered.



Capital Repayments The Association has to date paid $73,000 of the $100,000 capital contribution. Currently, $27,000 is outstanding and $5,400 of this amount is due at the end of the current financial year as per the April 2015 Council decision. The remaining amount is to be paid off in similar instalments over a five year period concluding 30 June 2020. Maintenance Contributions The April 2015 decision allowed the Maintenance Contributions, Waste Fee and Insurance to be deferred on a twelve month rolling basis for a period of five years, such that current year's payments are offset against the oldest debt first. Applying this decision, the following amounts are currently owed to the Town. Maintenance Contribution (2013/14) $ 5,479 Maintenance Contribution (2014/15) $ 12,135 Maintenance Contribution (2015/16) $ 9,101 Building Insurance (2013/14) $ 631 Building Insurance (2014/15) $ 1,720 Building Insurance (2015/16) $ 1,544 Waste Management (2013/14) $ 0 Waste Management (2014/15) $ 1,800 Waste Management (2015/16 $ 1,960 TOTAL $ 34,370 Financial Statements An assessment of the Association’s Financial Statements indicates they will post a small operating deficit in 2015/16. This is after charging internal interest expense paid by the association to the football clubs on funds loaned to the Association. The following conclusions can be determined from the Financial Statements received to the 31 December 2015:- • The Association is heavily reliant on the lease income from Aspire Fitness. • The costs of utilities and cleaning are greater than the amount received from membership

levies. • Member Clubs pay for additional room hire / lighting over and above the annual association

fee. • The Association has not yet employed and thus commenced paying for a venue

coordinator. • The Association is making interest payments to the Member Clubs on the loans for the

upgrade of the lights. • The Association has not commenced principal repayments on the loans.

A summary of the 31 December 2015 Profit and Loss Statement of the Association is provided below.



2015 2015 Budget Actual REVENUE

Members Levies Senior Footy $6,000 $6,000 Junior Footy $6,000 $6,000 Cricket $3,750 $3,750 Teeball $2,750 $2,750

Costal Playgroup $5,000 $5,000 Room Hire (Members) $2,025 $7,120 Room Hire (Aspire) $21,490 $20,989 Sponsorship $4,000 $0 Other $1,516 $477

$52,531 $52,086 EXPENDITURE

TOC - Maintenance $11,440 $12,045 TOC - Waste Management $1,709 $1,720 TOC - Insurances $2,000 $1,880 Other Insurances $3,996 $3,839 Water Rates $2,543 $2,450 Cleaning $10,186 $10,070 Security $1,320 $364 Plant & Equipment $1,960 $2,197 Repairs & Maintenance $3,114 Electricity/Gas $9,222 $7,069 Misc $3,411 $3,605 Interest on Loans $0 $4,965

$47,787 $53,318 Net Result $4,744 -$1,232

Add: Grant Income $110,467 Less: Capital Purchases -$110,000 Final Result $4,744 -$765

Sustainability Proposal On 6 February 2016, the Association submitted a Sustainability Proposal (Attachment 1) that aims to ensure long term viability of the Association. The essence of the proposal is as follows:- • That the Town contribute up to $30,000 per annum for a period of three years towards the

employment of a Facility Manager at the City Beach Oval Pavilion.



• That the Associations debt be restructured with the Town requested to reduce the amounts owing as follows:

Debt Balance Amount

requested to be written off

New Balance

Capital $27,000 $17,000 $10,000 Maintenance Contributions & Other

$33,000 $20,000 $13,000

Total $60,000 $37,000 $23,000 • The Town support and guarantee the restructure of the Associations loans from the

Member Clubs to a third party lender. It is proposed to prepare a report to the March 2016 Council Meeting to consider the submission.


In April 2011, the Town adopted its community facilities leasing policy (the 'Policy'), which encourages multi use of community facilities and the consolidation of the Town's aging buildings (where possible). The benefits are that it promotes ownership of the community facility by the users of the facility and the Town deals with just one entity. It also enables individual Clubs and Community Groups to focus on their core activities, such as developing juniors and facilitating social and amateur competitions, leaving building management to the Association (and to the Town).


The Association currently owes the following amounts: Due Date Maintenance Status Capital Status 30June 2015 $6,110 Overdue - 30 June 2016 $15,655 Not yet due $5,400 Not yet due 30 June 2017 *$12,605 Not yet due $5,400 Not yet due 30 June 2018 Not yet due $5,400 Not yet due 30 June 2019 Not yet due $5,400 Not yet due 30 June 2020 Not yet due $5,400 Not yet due TOTAL $34,370 $27,000 * does not include 4th quarter maintenance payments.


The Community Grants Program strongly supports a number of the priority areas of the Town’s 2013-2023 Strategic Plan, namely:-



GOAL 3 An active, safe and inclusive community

Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact;

Strategy 3.2 Deliver programs supporting local clubs and community groups’

capacity to run their community activities; and Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages,

cultures and abilities.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. West Coast Sporting Association - Sustainability Proposal Committee Meeting 15 February 2016 Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Mayor Shannon That this item be considered at the start of the meeting. Carried 5/0 COMMITTEE AND ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the status update on the West Coast Sporting Association position be noted and a further report be submitted to the March 2016 Council Meeting. Carried 5/0



CR16.18 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS - DECEMBER 2015 AND JANUARY 2016

SUMMARY:

Under the Local Government Act (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, payments of accounts made by the Town are to be submitted to Council. The report contains a summary of payments made for the month with detailed payment listings attached providing more information.

DETAILS:

Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a list of accounts to be prepared and presented to Council. Below is a list of the cheques raised and Electronic Funds Transfers for the payment of accounts from the Municipal Account (and Trust Account where applicable). Included as an attachment to this report is a listing of all payments issued for the past two months.


Payments are in accordance with Policy No. 3.2.3 “Council Bank Accounts and Payments”.


Expenses incurred are charged to the appropriate items included in the annual budget.


The presentation of details of accounts is consistent with the Town’s Strategic Community Plan's goal of transparent, accountable governance.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level – Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Account Payment Listing




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That in accordance with Regulation 13 of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, the schedule of accounts, as detailed below and attached, be confirmed:

Carried 5/0

(i) CHEQUE PAYMENTS

Date From Date To Details Amount

Municipal Fund 30-November-2015 03-December-2015 052117 -052146 $47,548.83Municipal Fund 07-December-2015 31-December-2015 052147 - 052177 $97,362.42Municipal Fund 01-January-2016 08-January-2016 052178 - 052244 $137,261.98Municipal Fund 11-January-2016 15-January-2016 052245 - 052270 $843,637.25Municipal Fund 20-January-2016 22-January-2016 052271 - 052300 $78,851.07Municipal Fund 29-January-2016 29-January-2016 052301 - 052313 $19,935.27Golf Course 01-November-2015 30-November-2015 000519 - 000521 $657.14Golf Course 01-December-2015 31-December-2015 000522 - 000529 $5,075.58Golf Course 01-January-2016 31-January-2016 000530 - 000535 $2,808.28

Total Cheque Payments $1,233,137.82

(ii) ELECTRONIC FUND TRANSFERS (EFT'S)

Date From Date To Details Amount

Investments 01-December-2015 31-December-2015 INV00826 - INV00831 $5,513,375.52Investments 01-January-2016 31-January-2016 INV00832 - INV00840 $5,592,699.70Direct Bank Charges 01-December-2015 31-December-2015 Sup 267 - Sup 268 $21,216.27Direct Bank Charges 01-January-2016 31-January-2016 Sup 269 - Sup 270 $23,959.10Accounts Payable 01-December-2015 04-December-2015 E20717- E20827 $418,233.55Accounts Payable 04-December-2015 09-December-2015 E20828 - E20928 $1,411,214.30Accounts Payable 11-December-2015 30-December-2015 E20929 - E21095 $4,781,713.28Accounts Payable 01-January-2016 07-January-2016 E21096 - E21255 $961,656.75Accounts Payable 08-January-2016 14-January-2016 E21256 - E21337 $197,939.53Accounts Payable 19-January-2016 21-January-2016 E21338 - E21416 $807,668.19Accounts Payable 21-January-2016 22-January-2016 E21417 - E21507 $357,430.43Accounts Payable 27-January-2016 27-January-2016 E21508 - E21510 $326,982.39Payroll 01-December-2015 31-December-2015 Pay 793- Pay 802 $1,941,154.35Payroll 01-January-2016 31-January-2016 Pay 803- Pay 809 $1,265,091.30Golf Course 11-December-2015 11-December-2015 000110 - 000110 $49,983.61Golf Course 16-December-2015 16-December-2015 000111 - 000111 $49,988.62Golf Course 18-December-2015 18-December-2015 000112 - 000112 $49,928.31Golf Course 23-December-2015 23-December-2015 000113 - 000113 $32,099.10Golf Course 01-January-2016 15-January-2016 000114 - 000114 $49,921.90Golf Course 16-January-2016 20-January-2016 000115 - 000115 $49,992.43Golf Course 21-January-2016 22-January-2016 000116 - 000116 $49,958.62

Total EFT Payments $23,952,207.25



CR16.19 INVESTMENT SCHEDULE - JANUARY 2016

SUMMARY:

The Council invests funds that are surplus to operational requirements with various financial institutions and reports on the amounts invested, the distribution of those funds and the financial performance of each investment, being interest earned, against year to date budget.

BACKGROUND:

Council’s Investment Policy No. 3.2.5 allows for investing of funds into direct investment products and managed funds which comply with both the credit risk rating and terms to maturity guidelines as set out in the policy.

DETAILS:

Investment Portfolio Performance At its February meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia decided to leave the cash rate at 2.00% in line with market expectations. The global economy continues to grow although at a slower rate than expected. Overall results have been mixed with several advanced economies such as the United States recording improved growth over the past year as opposed to countries with emerging market economies facing more difficult conditions. China's economic growth continues to moderate which is impacting Australia's balance of trade. With respect to Australia's economy, contraction in mining investment has continued as expected although recent data indicates that non mining economic sectors experienced growth last year with the current low interest environment having the desired impact with the pace of lending to business picking up. Employment growth also picked up and unemployment has declined although overall GDP growth is below average. Inflation remains low. Given these conditions, the Reserve Bank views the current monetary policy to be appropriate and supportive of continued economic growth. Looking forward, in terms of the Town’s investment portfolio, interest rates remain much the same with rates for one to three month terms on average 2.87% with the major banks. Interest rates for investment terms of four to six months range on average around 2.89%. The UBS Bank Bill Index rate (an index measuring performance of interest rates over a 90 day period) was 2.39% for January 2016. The 90 day BBSW or Bank Bill Swap rate (a measure of future interest rates) was 2.29% at 29 January 2016. As Council’s investment portfolio is predominantly short term cash products, the cash rate of 2.00% for January 2016 is the more appropriate performance measure. Against these interest rate indicators, the Town's investment portfolio outperformed the cash rate with a weighted average interest rate of 2.93%. The weighted average investment period of 169 days (approximately five months) is consistent with term deposit rates (with the major Australian banks) which for this period was an average of 2.91%.



Investment Portfolio Performance for January 2016 The graphs below show the interest rate performance of the Town's investment portfolio for the 12 month period January 2015 to January 2016.

The graph below shows the rolling 12 month weighted average investment performance of the Town's investment portfolio, since January 2013.

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00Interest Rates

Investment Performance For January 2015 to January 2016

Weighted Avg Interest UBS Bank Bill Index Cash Rate

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

Jan-13 Apr-13 Jul-13 Oct-13 Jan-14 Apr-14 Jul-14 Oct-14 Jan-15 Apr-15 Jul-15 Oct-15 Jan-16

Interest Rates

Rolling Weighted Average Investment Performance For January 2013 to January 2016

Weighted Avg Interest 90 UBS Bank Bill Index



The total investment at the end of January 2016 is $30.6 million which consists of Municipal Funds of $16.9 million, Reserve Funds of $4.3 million, Endowment Lands Funds of $7.5 million and Trust Funds of $1.9 million. The graph below represents the total investment portfolio of the Town from January 2015 to January 2016.

02468

10121416182022242628303234363840424446485052

Jan 15 Feb 15 Mar 15 Apr 15 May 15 Jun 15 Jul 15 Aug 15 Sep 15 Oct 15 Nov 15 Dec 15 Jan 16

Millions Investment Portfolio

Reserves Endowment Trust Municipal



Term

(Days) Rating

Current Interest

Rate Jan 2016 Income

Total Amount Invested

% of Funds

Invested

Weighted Average Interest

Floating Rate Notes

. Emerald Reverse Mortgage

"AAA" 2.70% $1,607 $701,319 2.29%

0.06%

Sub-total

$1,607 $701,319 2.29% 0.06% Term Deposits and Bank Bills

CBA - Term Deposit 208 "A1+" 2.80% $1,189 $505,523 1.65%

0.05% CBA - Term Deposit 222 "A1+" 2.80% $1,189 $505,523 1.65%

0.05%

ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.70% $1,269 $557,228 1.82%

0.05% ANZ - Term Deposit 133 "A1+" 2.76% $1,370 $589,132 1.92%

0.05%

ANZ - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.85% $2,450 $1,018,734 3.32%

0.09% ANZ - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.90% $2,496 $1,018,788 3.32%

0.10%



0.15%



0.14%



0.09%


0.09% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 274 "A1+" 2.70% $218 $96,028 0.31%

0.01%

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.80% $1,274 $539,817 1.76%


0.01%

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $103 $42,785 0.14%

0.00% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.85% $2,530 $1,056,168 3.44%

0.10%



0.05%

BANKWEST - Term Deposit 154 "A1+" 2.85% $2,496 $1,040,043 3.39%


0.04%


0.03% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 177 "A1+" 3.00% $1,332 $601,332 1.96%

0.06%


0.05% BANKWEST - Term Deposit 127 "A1+" 2.85% $1,210 $503,553 1.64%

0.05%



0.05%

NAB - Term Deposit 217 "A1+" 2.86% $2,655 $1,106,853 3.61%

0.10% NAB - Term Deposit 141 "A1+" 3.00% $560 $973,471 3.17%

0.10%

NAB - Term Deposit 191 "A1+" 3.00% $1,911 $752,527 2.45%

0.07% NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 2.85% $1,239 $514,183 1.68%

0.05%

NAB - Term Deposit 182 "A1+" 2.88% $745 $308,529 1.01%


0.05%



0.00%



0.05%


0.05% NAB - Term Deposit 189 "A1+" 2.90% $2,463 $1,013,268 3.30%

0.10%

NAB - Term Deposit 197 "A1+" 2.88% $2,446 $1,011,915 3.30%

0.09% NAB - Term Deposit 119 "A1+" 3.05% $1,096 $1,009,926 3.29%

0.10%



0.05%

Term Deposit Matured in Jan

$6,003

Sub-total

$71,724 $29,977,058 97.71% 2.87%

#REF!

Total Investments

$73,330 $30,678,378 100.00% 2.93%

Weighted Average 169

2.93%



POLICY/STATUTORY IMPLICATIONS: The general, reserves and Endowment Lands funds are invested in accordance with the guidelines set down in the Town’s Policy No. 3.2.5 – Investment.


Interest from investments represents a significant revenue item in the Council’s Budget and it is therefore important that the Council’s investment performance is monitored closely. Detailed monthly reports together with detailed policy investment guidelines support this. The Investment Schedule, as circulated, provides details of the performance of each individual investment to date. A summary of the investment performance to budget is provided below:

Actual as at 30 June

2015 Budget

2015/2016

Budget as at January

2016

Actual as at January

2016 % General * $504,485 $394,500 $197,200 $279,660 70.9% Reserves $137,894 $48,000 $24,000 $86,748 180.7% Endowment Lands $899,751 $466,500 $305,400 $210,381 45.1% External Investments $1,542,130 $909,000 $526,600 $576,789 63.5% Endowment Lands (Internal Loans) $30,980 $275,500 $127,300 $65,300 23.7% Total Investments $1,573,110 $1,184,500 $653,900 $642,089 54.2%

* Includes Bank Account Interest of $27,672 Note: Reserve Interest is more than budget due to a greater amount of funds to invest to date - a function of the Major Projects cash flows. Endowment Lands Internal Loan interest is below budget due to City Beach Commercial Precinct loan interest repayments being deferred with the precinct opening later in the year than expected.


The investment of Council funds is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023, specifically: Goal: 11 A strong performing local government. Strategy: 11.1 - Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not required as this matter is administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Prudential Consolidated Investment Report - January 2016




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the Investment Schedule as at 31 January 2016, as attached, be received. Carried 5/0



CR16.20 MONTHLY FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, REVIEW AND VARIANCES - JANUARY 2016

PURPOSE OF REPORT:

To review the financial position for the period ended 31 January 2016 and to comment on both permanent and timing variances that have occurred during the period and their impact on financial results.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Charts of key financial indicators are provided below comparing year to date actual figures against the year to date budget.



The following observations are made and should be read in conjunction with the Statement of Financial Activity (Rate Setting Statement) in attachment 1: Operating Revenue

Operating revenue year to date is $35.1 million compared to budget of $35.7 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $0.6 million. Significant variances are as follow: 1. Fees and Charges Actual Fees and Charges for January YTD are $9.1 million compared to budget of $9.8 million, giving a variance of $0.7million. The following combination of favourable and unfavourable timing variations contributes towards this variance: (a) Commercial tenancies lease revenue of $295k less than budget, as proceeds were

budgeted from October now expected to commence February/March. This is offset to a large degree by a deferral of operating expenses and payment of internal financing costs

(b) Bold Park Aquatic Centre revenue of $189k less than budget with the opening of the facility later than anticipated. Higher patronage to date and reduced expenditure will address this shortfall.

(c) Planning and Building Fees $76k and $100k under YTD budget, with a down turn in applications being experienced.

(d) Parking ticket machine revenue $45k over budget. (e) Waste Fee revenue $47k over budget 2. Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions Operating grants, subsidies and contributions for January YTD are $1.5 million compared to budget of $1.67 million, giving an unfavourable variance of $179k. The main variation contributing to the shortfall is commercial tenancies reimbursement revenue of $58k less than budget, as revenue budgeted from October is now expected to commence February/March. This is offset by a reduction in expenditure. 3. Other Income Other income for January YTD is $305k compared to budget of $179k giving a favourable variance of $126k. This is due to the following permanent variances: (a) Insurance rebate of $56k received in December 2015 from the Local Government

Insurance Scheme. (b) A Carbon Tax contribution refund of $97k received from Mindarie Regional Council.in

September 2015 Operating Expenses

Operating expenses year to date is $24.7 million compared to budget of $25.7 million, giving a favourable variance of $1.0 million. Significant variances are as follows: Materials and contracts Actual expenditure for January YTD is $8.4 million against year to date budget of $8.9 million, giving a favourable variance of $0.5 million.



The following timing variances contribute towards this variance: Underground power design works $547k above budget; City Beach Commercial Precinct expenditure $172k under budget; Parks non capital works $112k under budget; Road reserves non capital works $66k under budget; Sportsground buildings non capital works $88k under budget; Sustainability programs $65k under budget; Asset Management non capital works $75k under budget; Waste management operational expenses $199k under budget; Bold Park Aquatic Centre swim shop purchases $80k under budget;

Utilities Actual expenditure for January YTD is $826k against year to date budget of $959k, giving a favourable variance of $133k. This is mainly attributable to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre actual costs of $62k less than budget as result of the delayed opening date.

Depreciation on Non-Current Assets Depreciation expenditure for January YTD is $3,849k against budget of $4,083k giving a favourable variance of $234k. This is primarily due to the Bold Park Aquatic Centre and City Beach Precinct buildings being commissioned later than expected during the year.

Net Operating Result The net operating surplus from operations is $14.2 in line with year to date budget.

Non-Operating Revenue Non-operating revenue to date is $5.2 million against budget of $2.0 million giving a favourable variance of $3.2 million. The variance is the result of land proceeds from the Dampier Avenue lot sales of $2.4 million received and a $1million non-refundable deposit received for sale of Perry Lakes Estate land lots

0

4

8

12

16

20

24

Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Net Operating Result

Budget

Actual



Capital Works Programs

The total amount of funds spent on the Town’s capital works program for the period ended 31 January 2016 is $16.3 million against year to date budget of $18.1 million, a timing variance of $1.8 million. A brief overview of the capital works programs at year end shows the following variances:

• Buildings - $13.1 million against year to date budget of $13.2 million; • Furniture and Equipment - $309k against year to date budget of $950k; • Plant and Equipment - $217k against year to date budget of $335k; • Parks and Reserves expenditure is $794k against year to date budget of $1,003k; • Roads and Lanes - $1,319k against year to date budget of $1,735k; • Drainage - $207k against year to date budget of $262k; • Footpaths - $328k against year to date budget of $532k; The following material timing variances exist as follows: • Buildings - Quarry Amphitheatre fire management assets$130k under budget which will

be a carry forward. • Furniture and Equipment - Timing difference with respect to various information

technology budget items being programmed for the latter half of the year and $132k expected to be carried forward into next financial year;

• Plant and equipment - Timing difference with respect to light fleet vehicle and heavy plant purchases.

Cash Surplus (Closing Funds) The cash surplus takes into account planned transfers to and from reserves and the Endowment Lands Account including proceeds from land sales. The cash surplus as at 31 January 2016 is $15.5 million which is above the year to date budget of $13.9 million, a $1.6 million variance. The surplus is predominantly due to the under expenditure with respect to materials and contracts and capital works.

This surplus will decline as the year progresses with day to day operational expenditure and the carrying out of budgeted capital works.


02468

1012141618202224

July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June

Cash Surplus ($ millions)

Budget

Actual


Material Variances

Permanent variances above $30k and timing variances above $100k for specific line items are normally reported upon.

Underground Power design costs $547k above budget; Carbon Tax Contribution Refund from Mindarie Regional Council $97k unbudgeted. This

has been transferred to the Waste Management Reserve; Governance income for $56k is received in December 2015 for 2015 LGIS Scheme

member dividend. Proceeds from the land sale of two Dampier Avenue lots, City beach for $2.5 million

unbudgeted. This has been transferred to the Endowment Lands Account. Non-refundable deposit of $1 million for Perry Lake Land lots unbudgeted; Capital building works - Quarry Amphitheatre fire management assets $130k under

budget will be a carry forward into next financial year; Capital road works project - Durston Road/Empire Avenue intersection $36k carry over

from last year to complete the job. Perry Lakes Reserve - Skate Park extension grant funding $132k under budget with the

amount accrued for in last financial year. An insurance rebate of $56k received from LGIS Insurance Scheme in respect of the

2014/2015 financial year not budgeted for;


The Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 34, expands on this requirement to include a monthly financial report to be prepared identifying significant variations between actual and budget. This report complies with this requirement.


The variations in expenditure and revenue line items, compared to budget, may have an impact on Council funds.


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Community Plan’s goals of transparent, accountable governance and a strong performing local government.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Matrix Consultation Level - Inform - To provide the public with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives and/or solutions.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Monthly Financial Statements - January 2016




Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That the report on the Financial Statements as at 31 January 2016 be received. Carried 5/0



CR16.21 MID YEAR BUDGET REVIEW 2015/2016

SUMMARY:

The mid-year review of the 2015/2016 financial year incorporates the significant events which have occurred to date: • The Bold Park Aquatic Centre opened later than expected. However because of higher

patronage, reduced operating expenditure, the impact on the net result forecast for year end is expected to be minimal.

• The City Beach City of Perth Surf Clubrooms and Commercial Development was also

completed later than expected which significantly reduced operating revenue, operating costs and finance costs. The net impact after taking into account these changes is ($63k).

• Sale of Perry Lakes Estate land lots were not anticipated during compilation of the

budget. The Town has received three lots from the State Government worth $27.4 million, ex GST of which two were recently sold by the Town for $19.6 million, ex GST which will be transferred to the area improvement reserve.

• The sale of land to the Boulevard Shopping Centre was not provisioned and this provides

a further $755k in sale proceeds which will be transferred to the Endowment Lands Account

• The Council has proceeded with a preliminary design of underground power in the

remaining areas within the Town at a cost of $600k, which is funded from the Area Improvement Reserve.

• Planning and building fees are down whilst parking control revenue is up with an impact

of ($90k). The year-end position is expected to fall within plus or minus $200,000 (0.5% of the overall net budget). The amended budget given known events at the date of this report reflects a small surplus of $17k.

BACKGROUND:

Under Regulation 33A of the Financial Management Regulation 1996, Council is required to conduct a budget review of its adopted annual budget after considering changes in its operating environment since the beginning of the financial year with a view to forecasting the financial impacts likely to arise for the remainder of the year. The following tasks have been undertaken: • conducting an assessment of material variances to determine whether they are

permanent or timing differences; • identify any offsetting increases in income or reductions in expenditure that will help

reduce major variances;

• establish whether the budget review process and recommendations have a material impact on the long term plans;



• establish whether at the close of the financial year there is sufficient working capital to meet current commitments before the following year’s budget is adopted;

• identify projects that may not be completed and which will need to be carried forward into

the new financial year for inclusion in the following year’s budget;

• Identify grants and contributions received that are likely to remain unspent at the close of the financial year.

DETAILS:

The following table represents a high level summary of the rate setting statement: Revised

Budget 2015/2016

$'000

YTD Budget 31-Dec-15

$'000

YTD Actual 31-Dec-15

$'000

YTD Variance

$'000

YTD Variance

%

Forecast 30-Jun-16

$'000 CASH SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM OPERATIONS 6,716 15,348 13,714 (1,633) (10.6)% 5,809

NON OPERATING ACTIVITIES SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) (30,226) (16,230) (11,958) 4,271 (26.3)% (28,119)

SURPLUS/(DEFICIT) FROM ALL ACTIVITIES (23,511) (882) 1,756 2,638 (299.1)% (22,311)

OPENING FUNDS/CASH RESERVES UTILISED (NET)

23,975 16,426 12,650 (3,776) (23%) 22,328

CLOSING FUNDS 464 15,544 14,406 (1,137) (7.3)% 17

The end of year result is expected to finish plus or minus $200k from a balanced budget position carried forward from last year. The following commentary should be read in conjunction with the revised rate setting statement contained in attachment one. Operations The surplus from operations was estimated to be $6.7 million, after adjusting for non-cash movements. The forecast surplus is $5.8M, a variance of $900k. This is a combination of the following variances: • Fees and charges revenue projected to be less for year end with planning fees ($100k or

19%), building fees ($90k or 20%) and City Beach commercial precinct revenue ($493k or 66%) unfavourable variances. These are offset to some extent by favourable variances from waste management and parking revenue and reductions in operating and financing costs associated with the City Beach Precinct. .

• Interest earnings down slightly ($80k) a combination of favourable variances for municipal

and reserve funds with timing differences for major projects allowing reserve funds to be invested for longer periods offset by less interest to be received from the City Beach commercial precinct and Endowment Lands Account .



• Interest expense forecast to be down ($108k) a favourable variance with loan interest for

the City Beach commercial precinct to be less than forecast with the delayed opening of the facilities. This will offset the decrease in revenue expected.

• Utility expenditure forecast to be down ($159k), a favourable variance with a saving in costs from the Bold Park Aquatic Centre operations which commenced later than anticipated.

• Depreciation expense forecast to be down ($200k) a favourable variance with major building projects Bold Park Aquatic Centre and City of Perth Surf Club completed later than anticipated.

Other areas of revenue and expenditure are forecast to only experience minor fluctuations from budget for year end. Non-Operating Revenue Non-operating revenue is expected to exceed budget of $11.9 million by $28.1 million with $40 million projected for year end. The increase in revenue is a mixture of the following adjustments: • Sale proceeds for Gayton Road land of $755k not budgeted for (favourable); • Capital contributions of $27.4 million ex GST, worth of land from the State Government,

being three apartment sites (lot 231,232 and 233) received this year as part of the settlement with respect to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment project, not budgeted for (favourable).

• Non-refundable deposit of $1 million received with respect to land sales within the Perry

Lakes Estate not budgeted for (favourable). • Capital contributions of $300k to be re-budgeted for in the 2016/2017 financial year with

Perry Lakes Reserve Skate Park Stage 2 expected to commence July/August (unfavourable);

• Grant funding of $675k from Main Roads for capital road works project

"Grantham/Harborne Street intersection safety" to be re budgeted for in 2016/2017. Project design is being carried out this financial year so construction works can be budgeted for in next financial year.

Non-Operating Expenditure Capital Expenditure of $42.2 million is forecast to increase by $25.9 million for year-end which includes the recognition of $27.4 million of land received with to the Perry Lakes Redevelopment project, a reduction in road works for Grantham/Harborne ($675k) and Perry Lakes Reserve Skate Park project stage 2 ($450k) expected to be carry forwards. These projects are predominantly funded from grants with only $150k impacting general purpose funding.



Reserve and Endowment Lands Account Transfers Overall, there has been a net transfer to reserves and Endowment Lands Account $3.7 million primarily due to the transfer of land proceeds received for Dampier Avenue lots to ELA and a reduced transfers from reserves and the Endowment Lands Account associated with timing difference for major projects cash outflows. Carry Forwards The amount of general purpose funds to be carried forward for 2015/2016 is estimated to be only $480k including the following: • Perry Lakes Skate Park - Stage 2 - rates funded amount $150k • Various furniture and equipment capital items $132k • Parks Non Capital Works - Public Open Space Tree Inventory $75k • Road Infrastructure - Bicycle Plan Review $80k All other projects are on target to be completed by year end. Estimated Year End Financial Position for 2015/16 An analysis of the variations to date, indicate that the year-end position will fall within plus or minus $200,000 (0.5% of the overall net budget). The amended budget will reflect a small surplus of $17k.


The Local Government Act (1995) Section 6.4 requires the preparation of financial reports. The Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, in particular Regulation 33A, which has effect as from 1 July 2005, expands on this requirement to include an annual budget review to be carried out between 1 January and 31 March for each financial year. The intention is to ensure local governments conduct at least one budget review each financial year. This report complies with this requirement. In accordance with the Regulations, the results of the budget review are to be submitted to Council within thirty days of the review being completed. Council is then required to consider the results of the review and determine whether or not to adopt the review, any part of the review or any recommendations made in the review. As per Regulation 33A, a copy of both the review and Council’s determination are then to be provided to the Department of Local Government within thirty days.

Budget Implementation and Management Policy 3.2.2 It is the function and duty of the Chief Executive Officer to cause Council decisions to be implemented and manage the day-to-day operations of the Town. To ensure the Chief Executive Officer has the capacity to undertake this role, the Chief Executive Officer may reallocate funding to accommodate over expenditure variances. The reallocation of funds shall result in a revised budget for the purpose of producing the monthly financial report and accordingly be reported as a permanent variance.



The Chief Executive Officer may authorise expenditure over a revised budget to a maximum of $50,000. In all other instances, authority from Council shall first be obtained. As some of the budget amendments are greater than $50,000, the amendments are submitted to Council for approval. Note that an Absolute Majority is not required as the budgets are not for an additional purpose.


The projected budget for year-end indicates a small surplus position of $17,000.


The management of budgeted funds is consistent with the Strategic Plan’s goal of financial sustainability, by ensuring the Town's expenditure is matched by its revenue.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy. In accordance with the assessment criteria, it was rated at Level 1, for which no community consultation is required.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Summarised Statement of Financial Activity as at 31 December 2015 and notes accompanying the statement.


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the report on the mid year review of budget for the 2015/2016 financial year be

received and the variances to the budget be noted; (ii) the following budget amendments be approved by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY as

listed below:



Budget Item Original Revised Change

Budget Budget Increase

(Decrease)

$ $ $

Bold Park Aquatic Centre

RevenueGeneral Admissions 655,000 650,000 (5,000)

Creche Fees 16,000 13,000 (3,000)

Carnivals 1,500 1,000 (500)

Lane Hire 28,500 24,000 (4,500)

Leisure Equipment Hire 5,500 5,000 (500)

Aqua Aerobics 48,000 38,000 (10,000)

In House Coaching 15,000 12,000 (3,000)

Swim School 182,500 240,000 57,500

Other Income 500 1,000 500

Other Fees and Charges 3,500 0 (3,500)

Kiosk Commission 9,000 0 (9,000)

Swim Shop Sales 223,500 198,000 (25,500)

1,188,500 1,182,000 (6,500)

ExpenditureSalaries 928,900 890,000 (38,900)

Superannuation 97,000 93,000 (4,000)

Workers Compensation 22,200 21,000 (1,200)

Minor Equipment & Tools 9,000 24,000 15,000

Software Licences 0 17,000 17,000

Other Expenses 2,000 8,000 6,000

Plant Maintenance 4,000 8,000 4,000

Bold Park Aquatic Centre - Building 205,000 170,000 (35,000)

Swim School 52,500 100,000 47,500

Kiosk Service Charges 0 12,000 12,000

Swim Shop Purchases 120,500 95,000 (25,500)

1,441,100 1,438,000 (3,100)

Net (252,600) (256,000) (3,400)





(Decrease)

$ $ $

City Beach Commercial PrecinctRevenueTenancy A Rent 300,000 75,000 (225,000)Tenancy B Rent 226,500 98,000 (128,500)Tenancy C Rent 136,500 47,500 (89,000)Tenancy A, B, C Reimbursements Outgoings 84,500 33,500 (51,000)

747,500 254,000 (493,500)

Expenditure/FinancingCity Beach Marketing 80,000 0 (80,000)City Beach Commercial Property Management 38,000 20,000 (18,000)Tenancy A Reimbursements Outgoings exp 46,500 11,500 (35,000)Tenancy B Reimbursements Outgoings exp 23,500 14,500 (9,000)Tenancy C Reimbursements Outgoings exp 14,500 7,500 (7,000)City Beach Toilets and Change Rooms 225,500 170,500 (55,000)Tenancy A, B, C Interest on Loans 165,000 57,000 (108,000)Tenancy A, B, C Principal on Loans 175,000 57,000 (118,000)

768,000 338,000 (430,000)

Net (20,500) (84,000) (63,500)

Other Adjustments - Endowment Land TransfersTransfer Principal Funds to Endowment Lands Account 175,000 57,000 118,000Transfer Interest Funds to Endowment Lands Account 165,000 57,000 108,000Net 340,000 114,000 226,000



Carried 5/0



(Decrease)

$ $ $

Underground Power ProgramUnderground Power Design Costs 0 46,000 46,000

Underground Power Design Costs 0 548,000 548,000

Transfer/funds from Area Improvement Reserve 0 (594,000) (594,000)

Gayton Road Land SaleGayton Road Sale of Land Proceeds 0 755,000 755,000

Transfer to Endowment Lands Account 0 755,000 755,000

Perry Lakes Reserve - Skate Park Perry Lakes Reserve -Skate Park Extension Grant Stage 1 230,000 98,000 (132,000)

Interest Earnings Interest Earnings ELA (Bank Interest) 742,000 672,000 (70,000)Transfer to Endowment Lands Account 742,000 672,000 (70,000)

Interest Earning - Reserve 48,000 128,000 80,000

Transfer to Reserves 48,000 128,000 80,000

Non Refundable Deposit - Perry Lakes Land SaleDeposit Received in Advance 0 1,000,000 1,000,000

Transfer to Area Improvement Reserve 0 1,000,000 1,000,000

Sale of Dampier Avenue LotsGain on Disposal of Assets 2,627,000 2,661,000 34,000

Proceeds from Sale of Assets 5,182,000 7,616,000 2,434,000

Transfer to Endowment Lands Account 0 2,434,000 2,434,000

Perry Lakes Redevelopment Capital Contributions 1,867,000 27,400,000 25,533,000

Land 0 27,400,000 27,400,000



CR16.22 DESKTOP REVIEW OF THE STRATEGIC COMMUNITY PLAN

SUMMARY:

The Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 was adopted in May 2013 and is required to be reviewed every two years. As a result of the Local Government Reform process, the review planned for Mid-2015 was rescheduled and commenced in December 2015 following the October 2015 Council Elections. This review, under the Department of Local Government and Communities Guidelines, is deemed a minor or "Desktop" review and the revised plan requires Council endorsement. It is a Department of Local Government and Communities requirement for a major review every 4 years including wide ranging community engagement. It is planned to budget and undertake a major review in the 2016/17 FY. Details of completed, amended and new Key Actions associated with documented Strategies in the Strategic Community Plan are provided in the attached report. Status updates showing key achievements within the plan are also included. A Desktop reviewed version of the full Strategic Community Plan will be produced based on the Council endorsed changes documented in this report.

BACKGROUND:

In May 2013, the Council adopted the Cambridge Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023, following a nine-month period of community engagement. The Strategic Community Plan (SCP) is centred on four priority areas with eleven goals.



An interim or minor review of the Strategic Community Plan is required by the Local Government Act two years after adoption by Council. The Town was advised by the Department of Local Government that it was intended to seek Governors orders to defer this requirement during the early phases of reform, including 2015. On this basis, the Town's resources were reallocated to reform activities. The decision of the Government to abandon the reform process also stopped any further orders being issued. During 2015 a review of the Corporate Business Plan was completed and endorsed by Council in June 2015. Although the Corporate Business Plan is effectively an internal business planning tool that translates Council priorities into operations within the resources available, it provided interim guidance and alignment with the Strategic Community Plan. Following the October Council elections a minor or Desktop review of the Strategic Community Plan was undertaken to review the Goals, Strategies and Key Actions within the plan. The updates to the plan concentrated on changes in wording to Key Actions to reflect the current status or improve understanding. It is a requirement of the Local Government Act that Councils undertake a major review of their Strategic Community Plan every 4 years. This review should include the Towns vision, priorities and aspirations including Goals, Strategies and Key actions to achieve the plan. As part of the review a full and wide ranging community engagement is required to be undertaken so that the plan is in line with community desires. It is planned to perform a comprehensive review of the Strategic Community Plan during the 2016/17 FY with endorsement by Council by June 2017. Costs associated with the review, e.g. Community Engagement related expenses, will be included in the 2016/17 Draft budget. Once the new Strategic Community Plan has been adopted by Council the associated Corporate Business Plan and other key plans within the Integrated Planning and Reporting framework will be reviewed, updated and aligned with the SCP. These plans will then be submitted to Council for adoption.

DETAILS:

Key Actions in the Strategic Community Plan have been updated with the more pertinent changes outlined below in green: Strategy 1.2 Promotion of a strong community identity Key Actions • Celebrate the Town’s heritage, history and culture Strategy 2.1 Focus on activating our major public open spaces Key Actions • Implement the Lake Monger Reserve Management Plan. Strategy 2.3 Improve the amenities of our bushland and coastal reserves Key Actions • Support the City Beach Bio Link Project • Implement Beach Shower Facilities



Strategy 3.1 Create and improve the places where community groups can interact Key Actions • Develop plans for our aging club facilities; This includes the Wembley Sports Park

Pavilion, Lake Monger Recreation Club and Leederville Recreation Club • Adopt and implement a master plan for the Quarry Amphitheatre.

Strategy 3.2 Deliver programs supporting local clubs and community groups’ capacity to run their community activities Key Actions • Support Community Gardening within the Town Strategy 3.3 Encourage activity that meets the needs of people of all ages, cultures and abilities Key Actions • Undertake the Bold Park Aquatic Centre redevelopment. • Develop concept plans for skate parks at Lake Monger, City Beach and implement

construction plans at Perry Lakes. • Develop and Implement a Youth Service Strategy Plan Strategy 3.4 Create and maintain safe environments Key Actions • Monitor, inform and educate the community on community safety and compliance issues.

Strategy 7.1 Care for and conserve our flora and fauna Key Actions • Develop a rehabilitation plan and rehabilitate the lakes at Perry Lakes Reserve. Strategy 11.1 Invest our wealth wisely so that current and future generations benefit Key Actions • Invest in the Wembley Golf Course Hospitality development and Miniature golf course. The detailed review of the Strategic Community Plan including progress comments is provided in attachment one for information. It should be noted that no new Goals or Strategies have been added or amended from the original Strategic Community Plan. Following Council endorsement of the Desktop review, the full Strategic Community Plan will be updated. Sections to be updated include:

• Message from the Mayor • Message from the Chief Executive Officer • Key Actions within Our Response - Priority Areas • Amendments to Key Documents within Linking Our Goals.

The attachment not only highlights the changes, but also provides brief comments on the status of the implementation of the strategies and key actions.




Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 Division 3 -- Planning for the future:

19C. Planning for the future: strategic community plans -- s. 5.56 19DA. Planning for the future: corporate business plans -- s. 5.56

In addition to the Regulations, the Department has released an Integrated Planning Advisory standard, which can be found at http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au/


Specific concepts and business plans have been developed for the Town’s major projects. The resulting information has been incorporated into the corporate business plan and financial plan.


This report seeks to adopt a revised version of the Strategic Community Plan, which sets out the communities long term (10+ years) vision, values, aspirations and priorities which provides strategic direction.


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy 1.2.11. In accordance with the assessment criteria, an "Inform" assessment has been made.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023 (Desktop Review January 2016)


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the minor changes to the Strategic Community Plan outlined in this report be

adopted; (ii) the Town provides notice that it has made minor amendments to the Strategic

Community Plan, ahead of a major review of the plan next financial year. Carried 5/0


http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/s19c.html

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/consol_reg/lgr1996443/s19da.html

http://integratedplanning.dlg.wa.gov.au/


CR16.23 COMMUNITY CONSULTATION AND ENGAGEMENT REVIEW

SUMMARY:

A review of the approach to community engagement by other local governments has revealed that many are guided by a consultation and engagement framework.

A number of local governments have also taken advantage of online engagement tools to broaden their methods of engagement.

This report recommends that a consultation and engagement framework be developed and submitted to the March meeting of Council.

BACKGROUND:

At its 15 December 2015 meeting, Council considered item 12.9 - Community Consultation and Engagement, and decided: "That the Chief Executive Officer prepare a report regarding the current methods of undertaking community consultation and engagement which should include the alternate methods used by other local governments. In particular, regard be given to the use of online feedback on current projects, and issues in the Town."

DETAILS:

Current Approach The Town's consultation and engagement activities are guided by the Town's Policy 1.2.11 - Community Consultation, and by the Communication Strategy adopted in February 2008 (refer GC08.2 - Communication Strategy). The level of consultation and engagement is determined by the Community Consultation Matrix that sits within the Policy and Strategy. This is based on the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2) model, modified to outline four levels of consultation/engagement:

• Inform – provide the community with balanced and objective information to assist them in understanding the problem, alternatives, and/or solutions.

• Consult – obtain community feedback on problems, analysis, alternatives, and/or decisions and to assist in decision making.

• Collaborate – work directly with the community throughout the process to ensure that their issues and concerns are understood and considered and to assist in decision making.

• Empower – within legislative parameters, delegate decision making to community groups.

The Town currently takes a decentralised approach to community engagement/consultation. Activities are conducted by individual sections of the organisation, in collaboration with the communications team. Beyond the policy, there is no further resource material to assist in planning and resourcing engagement activities, and so it is left up to each section to determine the strategy, tools and methods that will be employed. The approach is generally tailored for each project/activity and may encompass:



1. Brochure and/or letter explaining the project and inviting comment distributed to

affected residents and stakeholders; 2. Notice with background information and invitation to comment via online form on

the Town's website; 3. Advertising in local newspaper/s (via Cambridge News or display advertisement, or

both); 4. Statutory notices in newspapers (state and local; 5. Cambridge News eNewsletter (1600+ subscribers); 6. Notices placed in all Cambridge facilities; and 7. Twitter with link to online information and comment form (1,460+ followers); 8. Workshops for ideas sharing and collaboration; 9. Open Days / Information Sessions - an opportunity to explain the project and

respond directly to questions; 10. Project signage.

The Town has actively consulted and engaged with the community on a number of topics over the years, with varying degrees of participation/responses.

Empower • Cambridge Coastcare dune vegetation management Collaborate (Website, newspaper advertising, direct mail, promotional brochures, community notice

boards, workshops, forums, focus groups, displays, open days, surveys, invitations to comment, social media (Twitter), online feedback forms, signage)

• 2013 Strategic Community Plan • 2010 West Leederville Planning Study • Commercial Centres’ Strategy • Future Housing Options • Disability Access and Inclusion Consult (Website, newspaper advertising, direct mail, promotional brochures, community notice

boards, surveys, invitations to comment, social media (Twitter), online feedback forms, signage)

• Major project designs (City Beach Precinct, Bold Park Aquatic etc.) • Underground power • Town Planning Scheme amendments • Park concept plans • Annual Budget • Biolinc* Inform (Website, newspaper advertising, direct mail, promotional brochures, community notice

boards, social media (Twitter), invitation to comment, signage) • Treescape Plan • Events • City Beach Tennis Club lighting project* • Construction contracts* * engagement undertaken by Proponent



Review A review of community consultation resource materials and approaches has been undertaken focusing primarily on Local Government but with reference to a number of Eastern States organisations who appear to have well developed programs and strategies. Reference Material The Queensland and South Australian Departments of Local Government have produced comprehensive guides on developing and implementing a community engagement strategy. These guides are aimed at the practitioner level and encourage the adoption of a formalised engagement strategy for major engagement activities (the template was recently used for report 4.2 New secondary school in City Beach - site options and proposed community engagement approach, considered by Council in January 2016). Community Engagement Framework A number of Local Governments had also developed a Community Engagement Framework - a higher level document that captures the engagement intent of Council. The elements of a community engagement framework can vary between Local Governments, but essentially incorporate:

• the levels of community engagement • how and when to engage (level of impact, risk, degree of complexity, situations and

examples) • who should engage (the roles and responsibilities of elected members and staff) • what tools and methodologies should be employed/considered • resourcing and coordination

On Line Engagement The Australian Centre of Excellence for Local Government have produced a report entitled Connecting with Communities (How Local Government is using social media to engage with Citizens). The document notes that Councils are using social media to promote events and activities, reach out and communicate to hard-to-reach groups, develop networks within the community around specific issues, plan and implement consultation processes, deliver services such as libraries, and gain community feedback and reports on problems. It also notes that there are a number of perceived challenges and barriers including: • Risks: There is concern about the potential for people to post negative comments about

their council; of losing control of the communication message; about information technology security and information management protocols; and staff divulging confidential information. There are also fears of litigation.

• Lack of expertise: There is concern that staff may not have the skills to use social media effectively, or that they may make insensitive comments.

• Resourcing: There is concern that social media will place undue resourcing and workload pressures on employees.

• Community expectations: There is concern about raising the community's expectations, and potentially not being able to meet these expectations, as many in the community are more familiar with social media than those in councils.

The Town's review explored some of the online communication and engagement tools utilised by some Perth metropolitan local governments.



Most local governments do have a Facebook page and primarily use it for communication of events and activities. The Facebook page is governed by a number of protocols, administered by the Facebook coordinator. Importantly, Facebook is not used for community engagement. The Town itself has a number of social media channels, managed by individual departments: Department Facebook Twitter Instagram YouTube Communications 1,465 followers Yes Wembley Golf Course - Main 2,244 Likes 509 followers Wembley Golf Course - FootGolf 643 Likes Cambridge Youth 448 Likes Cambridge Library 215 Likes 741 followers Yes A number of local governments have actively pursued online community engagement and have utilised specialist tools, illustrated below: Council Online

engagement solution

Link to engagement solution Supports Discussion forums / quick polls, etc?

Can feedback be submitted online?

Cambridge Town website cambridge.wa.gov.au/haveyoursay No Yes Belmont EngagementHQ connect.belmont.wa.gov.au Yes Yes Melville The Hive werelisteningmelville.com.au Yes Yes Perth EngagementHQ engage.perth.wa.gov.au Yes Yes South Perth EngagementHQ yoursay.southperth.wa.gov.au Yes Yes Stirling Stirling website stirling.wa.gov.au No No Subiaco EngagementHQ haveyoursaysubiaco.com.au Yes Yes Vincent Vincent website vincent.wa.gov.au No Yes Note that the Town's existing website software does not support engagement activities such as quick polls, discussion forums, interactive maps or Q&As. It simply provides the opportunity for the community (through online forms and/or surveys) to lodge their feedback online. This is more akin to consultation rather than engagement. Future Engagement Activities Looking ahead, the Town has a number of significant engagement activities it needs to undertake. Some of the activities include:

• Strategic Community Plan (4 year review) • Underground Power • New High School in City Beach • Local Planning Strategy • Commercial Centre Strategies • Park Concept Plans

Council will need to give consideration to the timeliness of consultation and engagement; the resourcing effort and the number of consultation/engagement tools employed. This essentially is a trade-off between quality and quantity.



Conclusions From the review, it is apparent that whilst the Town has actively engaged with its community there are opportunities to raise the bar in terms of the level of engagement. In the first instance, a Consultation and Engagement Framework could benefit the organisation by espousing Councils position in terms of objectives, levels of engagement, roles and responsibilities, tools and resourcing effort. Secondly, there are a number of easy-to-implement initiatives such as assembling consultation and engagement resource material, which will assist the Town when it undertakes such activities. A Town Facebook page is also a reasonable proposition if it is used as a communication tool (ie. not as an online engagement tool). Thirdly, additional tools, particularly tools designed to facilitate on-line engagement could provide another aspect to collaboration with the community and central coordination and resourcing could ensure consistency in approach and the timeliness of consultation and engagement activities. Next Steps It is proposed to develop a Consultation and Engagement Framework to provide elected members, staff and the community with a set of shared principles, goals and objectives for community engagement. This will provide direction for the Town's overall approach. It is intended to present this to Council in March. The Framework will address social media, including Facebook which is supported as a communication tool, subject to the objectives and management protocols being established by the Chief Executive Officer. The report to Council next month will also expand on the following:

1. resourcing and budget to centralise all consultation/engagement activities; 2. online engagement tools to facilitate activities such as discussion forums, quick polls,

online forms, surveys, interactive maps, Q&As, etc. 3. extending our social media presence.



Final Comment A comment by Dr Chrispin Butress captures the intent of an engagement framework and strategy:

"A few people have a lot to say "More people have a little to say "Most people have nothing to say "And that’s okay. "So long as there are no barriers to communication"




Nil


The report reflects the following Goals and Strategies of the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023: Our Council Goal: Transparent, accountable governance. Strategy: Keep the community informed and consult on local matters that affect them.


This project has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No 1.2.11. Following consideration of the "Not Required" Consultation Assessment criteria listed in the policy, consultation is not required due to this matter being administrative in nature with no external impacts envisaged.

ATTACHMENTS:

Nil


Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell That:- (i) the report on Community Consultation and Engagement be noted;



(ii) a Community Consultation and Engagement Framework be developed and

presented to the March 2016 meeting of Council. Carried 5/0



8. CONFIDENTIAL ITEMS Meeting Behind Closed Doors Moved by Cr Carr, seconded by Cr Grinceri That the following matter be regarded as confidential in accordance with Section 5.23(2)(d) of the Local Government Act 1995. Carried 5/0 At 8.58 pm, The Presiding Member requested all persons other than Elected Members and Council Officers to leave the Council Chamber.

CR.24 LEEDERVILLE SPORTS CLUB - BREACH OF LEASE OF GRASSED CAR PARK

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Cr Powell

That the recommendation as outlined in the above report be endorsed.

Carried 5/0

Moved by Cr Grinceri, seconded by Mayor Shannon

That the meeting be reopened to the public.

Carried 5/0 At 9.14 pm, the meeting was reopened to the public.


COUNCIL TUESDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2016

10. COUNCIL REPORTS

10.1 UPDATE OF EXPENDITURE ON ACTION OPPOSING THE SUPREME COURT APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW - TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31

SUMMARY:

Council has previously decided to oppose the Supreme Court Application for Judicial Review with respect to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 and required the details of the expenditure to be provided to Council at suitable intervals. This report provides an update on the expenditure and seeks approval for a further $50,000.

BACKGROUND:

At the October 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council ITEM 10.5 Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Supreme Court Application for Judicial Review Process Council decided that:

(i) this report and actions taken in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application for Judicial Review in relation to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 be noted;

(ii) continuing action to oppose the Supreme Court Application to enable the Council's decision of 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015 to be implemented, be authorised;

(iii) additional expenditure of approximately $100,000 in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application be authorised from the Planning Budget and the budget be increased accordingly to be managed within the Town's overall 2015/16 Budget; and

(iv) details of the expenditure be provided to Council at suitable intervals as certainty of the costs are known.

DETAILS:

The Town engaged its solicitors and a senior counsel (SC) to oppose the application to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review by the CWRA. In response to the action by the Coast Ward Ratepayer Association for a Judicial Review of certain decisions relating to Scheme Amendment 31, the Town lodged an application for dismissal of the matter (or part thereof) on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of succeeding under the orders made by the Hon Justice Pritchard on 15 September 2015. On the 9 February 2016, the Hon Justice Pritchard heard the arguments from both parties on the Town's application and Her Honour has set aside her decision. It may be up to three months before a decision is made, however, the expectation is the decision will be made within the month. Up to the end of January 2016, the Town has incurred the following costs:

Mcleods 48,702.28 Ken Pettit SC 56,272.50 Total 104,974.78

It is estimated that a further $30,000 will be incurred for February 2016.

H:\Ceo\Gov\Council Agenda\16 Agenda\February 2016\23 February 2016.docx 1


It is unlikely that any substantial further costs will be incurred before her Honour Justice Pritchard makes her determination on the Town's application for dismissal. A number of scenarios may result following Her Honours decision and Council should consider its course of action at that juncture. However, some provision should be made for any immediate action that needs to be taken following the decision, consistent with the Council's current position on the matter. As such it is recommended that a further amount of $50,000 be authorised.




It is estimated a further amount of $50,000 is required to oppose the action. The actual amount will not be known until the action is complete. Costs have been incurred to date and will be allocated against the Planning cost centre which has an expenditure budget of $1,083,000. Authorisation is required to expend the funds above the existing Planning budget as no provision was made for this expense at the time of adopting the 2015/16 Budget.


Amendment 31 is consistent with the Town's Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023 Strategy 4.1 - Create opportunities for housing options to suit community needs - Promote a range of housing types in existing suburbs


This matter has been assessed under the Community Consultation Policy No.1.2.11 and consultation is not proposed as this matter is administrative in nature.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Nil


That: (i) the report on expenditure on action opposing the Supreme Court Application for

Judicial Review in relation to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 be noted. (ii) additional expenditure of $50,000 above the current approved expenditure be

approved.



11. URGENT BUSINESS

Nil 12. MOTIONS OF WHICH NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

12.1 ISSUE OF PERMITS FOR USE OF TOWN CONTROLLED PROPERTY

Submission by Cr Timmermanis That:- (i) a report be prepared for consideration at the March 2016 Council Meeting listing all

instances where the Town has issued permits for the use of Town controlled property and spaces by private for profit organisations where:

(a) the permit has been sought due to a technical failure of key plant, equipment

or building;

(b) insufficient installed capacity of key plant, equipment or building;

(ii) the report shall also advise with respect to each such permit the following information:

(a) ownership of the premises ie. are the premises owned privately, by a WA or

Commonwealth Govt. agency or the Town of Cambridge.

(b) if the circumstances leading to the application involved a failure or shortcoming of Town policy, procedure or administration.

The report to cover the period 1 January 2011 to the present.

BACKGROUND: The Town has made significant investments in new facilities some of which have been expressly built or redeveloped to incorporate commercial tenancies. The Town is also the regulator of many important aspects of commercial tenancies. This situation represents an intrinsic institutional conflict of interest. It is important both Elected Members and Town administrators have information available to establish if existing policies and procedures are sufficient to manage this fundamental conflict of interest. The report called for in this motion will provide important information about performance so far and a guide to possible improvements in policy and procedure in the future.



ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The Town does not have any policies that govern the issue of permits for the use of Town land by organisations in such circumstances, as described in the recommendation. However, practices do apply to the issue of approvals. BUDGET: There are no budget implications. LAW: The issue of permits (or approvals) are governed by the Local Government and Public Property local law, any lease or licence existing over an area, the Health Act 1911 and associated Regulations, the Health local law, and the Trading in Public Place local law. The scope of the request is uncertain at this stage and, as such, the requirement to have the report completed by March may not be achievable, depending on the investigations.



12.2 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31 - MOTION TO OBTAIN AN INDEPENDENT LEGAL OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE TOWN’S DEFENCE STRATEGY

Submission by Mayor Shannon

That the Chief Executive Officer obtain a legal opinion from an independent senior counsel regarding the merits of the Town’s current legal strategy and representation. BACKGROUND: The litigation commenced by the CWRA seeks a judicial review of the Town’s decisions on 24 February 2015 to initiate a Scheme Review and 1 July 2015 to recommend the Scheme Amendment to the WAPC. The Town’s opposition to the legal standing of the CWRA and its current strategy in the defence of the claim is novel and should be reviewed in light of the common law obligations to conduct this matter as a model litigant. Consideration should also be given to the question of whether our present lawyer has a conflict of interest in continuing to represent the Town in the Supreme Court proceedings. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT:

Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy The Council position on the current legal strategy and representation was confirmed at the October 2015 Ordinary Meeting of Council ITEM 10.5 Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 - Supreme Court Application for Judicial Review Process where it was decided that:

(i) this report and actions taken in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application for Judicial Review in relation to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 be noted;

(ii) continuing action to oppose the Supreme Court Application to enable the Council's

decision of 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015 to be implemented, be authorised; (iii) additional expenditure of approximately $100,000 in relation to opposing the

Supreme Court Application be authorised from the Planning Budget and the budget be increased accordingly to be managed within the Town's overall 2015/16 Budget; and

(iv) details of the expenditure be provided to Council at suitable intervals as certainty of

the costs are known. Elected Members also received a briefing at the November 2015 Elected Member Forum.



The matter was reconsidered at the November 2015 Council Meeting through a Notice of Motion lodged by the Mayor. The Council did not support the proposed Notice of Motion which read as follows:

That the Chief Executive Officer to immediately instruct the Town’s lawyers to not oppose the standing of the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association (CWRA) in responding to the CWRA’s Supreme Court’s action for a judicial review of the Town’s decisions on 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015.

Budget The Council has approved an amount of approximately $100,000 to oppose the application for judicial review. At the time this amount was approved at the October 2015 Council meeting, the Administration advised in the report that the estimate is in excess of $100,000 and will depend on the course of action. Also, the actual cost will not be known until the action is complete. Law The Town engaged its solicitors and a senior counsel (SC) to oppose the application to the Supreme Court for Judicial Review by the CWRA. These are the instructions that the legal team are working to. The legal team have identified that the matter of standing is something that can be challenged to successfully oppose the Application. Therefore, they have prepared court documents that would allow that argument to be considered. In response to the action by the Coast Ward Ratepayer Association for a Judicial Review of certain decisions relating to Scheme Amendment 31, the Town lodged an application for dismissal of the matter (or part thereof) on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of succeeding under the orders made by the Hon Justice Pritchard on 15 September 2015. On 9 February 2016 the Hon Justice Pritchard heard the arguments from both parties on the Town's application and Her Honour has set aside her decision. It may be up to three months before a decision is made, however, the expectation is that a decision will be made in a month.



12.3 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31 - LEGAL ACTION REPORT


That:-

(i) the Chief Executive Officer provide a report to the Council tonight regarding the expenditure of legal costs as relates to Town’s response to the Supreme Court action for a judicial review by the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer present a report to the meeting tonight regarding the

ongoing conduct of the litigation in response to the Coast Ward Ratepayers Association and present ongoing reports to Council Forums hereafter.

BACKGROUND:

The Council must have oversight in relation to the issues plead in response to this matter. The approval of $100,000 without any further oversight is inappropriate. The Chief Executive Officer has been given approval to oppose the litigation, however, there are many ways in which the litigation may be conducted, and the matters raised may directly impact upon the reputation of the Town.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy There is no policy relating to reporting on litigation matters, however, the Council could decide to request such reports if the Council requires. The Council decided at its meeting held on 13 October 2015 (Item 10.5): That:- (i) this report and actions taken in relation to opposing the Supreme Court Application for

Judicial Review in relation to Town Planning Scheme Amendment 31 be noted; (ii) continuing action to oppose the Supreme Court Application to enable the Council's

decision of 24 February 2015 and 1 July 2015 to be implemented, be authorised; (iii) additional expenditure of approximately $100,000 in relation to opposing the Supreme

Court Application be authorised from the Planning Budget and the budget be increased accordingly to be managed within the Town's overall 2015/16 Budget; and

(iv) details of the expenditure be provided to Council at suitable intervals as certainty of the

costs are known.



Budget The Council has approved an amount of approximately $100,000 to oppose the application for judicial review. At the time this amount was approved at the October 2015 Council meeting, the Administration advised in the report that the estimate is in excess of $100,000 and will depend on the course of action. Also, the actual cost will not be known until the action is complete. Item 10.1 of this meeting reports on the expenditure to the end of January 2016 which is reproduced below:- McLeods Barristers and Solicitors $48,702.28 Ken Pettit SC $56,272.50 Total $104,974.78 Law Any report related to the detail of the litigation will be a confidential matter under Section 5.23(2)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995.



12.4 TOWN PLANNING SCHEME AMENDMENT 31 – COURT DOCUMENTS PROVIDED TO ELECTED MEMBERS


That the Chief Executive Officer provide the Elected Members including the Mayor with copies of all documentation filed on behalf of the Town in this matter.

BACKGROUND:

The Council must have oversight in relation to the issues plead in response to this matter. The Elected Members must have involvement in the strategy adopted by the legal representatives engaged by the Town. An affidavit of over 300 pages has been filed on behalf of the Town and has not been made available to the elected members.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. Policy The Council, at its meeting of October 2015, has authorised the Chief Executive Officer to continue the action to oppose the Supreme Court application. Therefore the Chief Executive Officer has the responsibility for implementing that decision. In this case it is deemed that the legal documents surrounding the matter may be sensitive or be prejudicial to the action the Town is taking and under Policy 1.2.2 Legal Opinions - Management Arrangements and has not been released to date.

(ii) all Elected Members of the Council may inspect and/or obtain a copy of the legal advice so filed at any time, except in exceptional circumstances when it is considered by the Chief Executive Officer that the information is private and confidential (such as advice with respect to defamation, allegations of criminal activity or negotiations on commercial or contractual matters). In such cases a letter to this effect should be provided to the Elected Member who requested the information.

Budget There are no budget implications. Law Council and committee members have access to information which is additional to those rights given to the general public. This includes all written contracts, proposed or entered into or other information relevant to the Council's function, some of which may be of a confidential nature. These rights ensure members are properly informed on matters that are relevant to their functions.



This provision does not give Elected Members unlimited or unfettered access to information held by a Local Government. Members are required to demonstrate that the information sought is relevant to the performance of a function of the Council. For this reason, it is the Chief Executive Officer’s role to consider whether or not to release information and this will only occur where it is considered the request is associated with the Elected Members' function. Consideration also needs to be given to any conflicts that may exist in relation to providing information. This Chief Executive Officer's right to determine access documents aligns the Chief Executive Officer's functions described under Sec. 5.41 (b) and (h) of the Act: “(b) ensure that advice and information is available to the council so that informed decisions can be made; and (h) ensure that records and documents of the Local Government are properly kept for the purposes of this Act and any other written law;” Elected Members, as well as the general public, also have a right to seek access to Council documents under the Freedom of Information Act 1992. If Council supports the Notice of Motion, it should consider whether the documentation should remain confidential.



12.5 USE OF THE TOWN’S WEBSITE TO PROMOTE LEISURE AND SPORTING EVENTS OCCURRING WITHIN THE TOWN


That the Chief Executive Officer be authorised to allow the creation of a webpage on the Town’s website which promotes upcoming leisure activities and sporting events occurring within the Town. BACKGROUND:

As part of our encouragement of leisure activities within the Town, we should promote activities that are organised within the Town so that our community are aware of upcoming events.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The Town has a specific policy, 2.1.19 - Conduct of Special Events, Concerts, Parties and Large Events by third parties. Within the Policy it states that the Town will be provided with copies of all promotion material but it does not state the Town will promote the event. However, the Town has previously undertaken promotion of some events where those events are Town-sponsored events, or events held within the Town of a community, not-for-profit nature. Examples of non-Town hosted events advertised on our website and in Cambridge News include:

• Bold Park Guided Walks • Clean Up Australia Day • Sunshine Beach Run • City to Surf • Bright Blue Disco • Parkinson's Walk • Events run by local community groups at the Leederville Town Hall such as:

o Wembley Players - Pantomimes o Prompt Corner - Winnie the Pooh o Swan Virtuosi Concert

• Ballet at the Quarry • Donatelife Tree Planting and Thanksgiving Ceremony • Surf Life Saving WA Junior Championships • MS Ocean Ride • Great Strides Walkathon for MS



A few metropolitan Councils have been contacted to establish rules/procedures around their event promotion. The following summarises their approach:

City of Fremantle - have two websites (corporate site and their arts and events site, Fremantle Story). On their corporate website they promote civic and local community (non-commercial). Community groups can request to have an event posted at Fremantle Library or there is an email address. The Fremantle Story site is used for larger City of Fremantle festivals/events and for private organisers hosting events (including commercial) in Fremantle. Private organisers can post directly to the Fremantle Story site by registering. Town of Victoria Park - use google calendar to post their events. They have given access to a couple of very active community groups within the Town to post events direct to the calendar, using colour coding to differentiate between who is posting the event. They support advertising larger/one of events for sporting clubs and also promote Crown events. City of Stirling - on their corporate site the City advertises their own and local community events (non-commercial). All events advertised are held within the City of Stirling boundaries. They also have a seasonal Summerset Arts Festival site which contains only City of Stirling events. City of Vincent - generally don't unless the event is sponsored or supported by the City.

The idea of promotion external events, including sporting registration days, etc. has merit and is consistent with the Town's strategies, but the overall management of the information included should be undertaken by the event organiser, so it does not unduly impose on the resources of the Town. The Town's current website does not support community portals were groups can upload their own content. Howeve,r it is planned to upgrade the website this year and a community portal module may be added. BUDGET: The community portal module will require a budget, although it is not anticipated this will be a large amount. LAW: Nil



12.6 AMENDMENT TO QUARRY AMPHITHEATRE OPERATIONAL GUIDELINES


That the Chief Executive Officer amend the Quarry Amphitheatre Operational Guidelines to introduce a second category allowing the Mayor and CEO to distribute complimentary house tickets to members of recognised community groups operating within the Town. BACKGROUND:

Currently the guidelines distribute complimentary tickets for business hospitality purposes only. Community groups provide voluntary services to our community and deserve recognition by the Town.

ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: The Town has a Policy, 2.1.25. Quarry Amphitheatre House Tickets which gives the Chief Executive Officer or nominee authorisation to distribute house tickets for various performances at the Quarry Amphitheatre. In addition, the Town of Cambridge Hire Agreement for the Quarry Amphitheatre requires the Hirer to reserve for the Town up to ten (10) complementary house tickets for each performance. A review of the policies of other entertainment venues such as concert venues and sporting venues has been undertaken. Those venues have adopted guidelines for the distribution of House Tickets, which can be summarised as follows. Guidelines There are usually up to four categories for the distribution of House tickets in order of Priority; 1. Business Development 2. Relationship Building with existing stakeholders 3. Board/Director/Employee Education; and 4. Employee Recognition. Ticket recipients must be in attendance with invited guests. If the tickets are not used by the venue, they are returned to the promoter/hirer for sale to the public. In relation to the Quarry Amphitheatre, operational guidelines were developed by Administration in October 2015 to assist with the distribution of House Tickets in conjunction with Policy 2.1.25. The guidelines do not permit the distribution of House Tickets to Community organisations, however, they may be invited as guests of Councillors for non-business hospitality purposes.



The suggestion to amend these guidelines to include a specific category to allow the distribution of House Tickets to community organisations within the Town by the Mayor and CEO has merit but in practice, may create administration and equity problems. The Town has approximately sixty (60) community organisations and a volunteer function is hosted annually to recognise their efforts, including a club volunteer of the year award and community organisation award. These awards are determined by the Council. Some of the issues in considering the distributing of House Tickets to community organisations would be:

• What organisations are given priority • What performance the tickets are for (i.e. ballet, concerts, not-for profit, schools, carols,

etc.) as some tickets are perceived more valuable than others, and • Who decides - the Mayor/CEO jointly, Councillors, etc. • Follow up would then be required in relation to the pick-up of tickets and the return of

undistributed tickets to the promotor. The number of performances at the Quarry Amphitheatre has steadily grown over the years, and the process in managing the distribution of House Tickets has become time consuming. It may be an appropriate time that the Town no longer provides House Tickets and Policy 2.1.25 and the Hire Agreement could be amended to reflect this change. BUDGET: There are minimal financial implications with approximately $14.50 ticketing revenue lost per event in relation to the allocation of ten (10) house tickets per event. LAW: Nil



12.7 REPORT ON CURRENT HERBICIDE USE AND ALTERNATIVES TO HERBICIDE USE

Submission by Mayor Shannon That:- (i) the Chief Executive Officer report to the March meeting of Council on the Town’s

current herbicide spraying program including usage, sites, times of spraying and communication methods employed to advise the community;

(ii) the Chief Executive Officer report to the April meeting of Council investigating the alternative methods to herbicide use in particular the use of steam to control weeds;

(iii) the Chief Executive provide individual notices to the residents surrounding Roscommon Reserve regarding the Town’s intention to conduct herbicide spraying in the vicinity of Roscommon Reserve no later than seven (7) days prior to commencing spraying.

BACKGROUND: To be provided by Friday. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Clause 3.13(2)(c) of the Standing Orders provides that the Chief Executive Officer shall, not less than 24 hours prior to the meeting, send to each Member a report providing relevant and material facts and circumstances pertaining to the notice of motion on such matters as policy, budget and law, or for more complex issues, recommending that the matter be deferred to a later meeting to enable a report to be prepared. POLICY: Nil BUDGET: Nil LAW: The Health (Pesticides) Regulations 2011 and Health (Pesticides) Amendment Regulations 2016 provide guidance on use of all pesticides. The Town's website provides further information regarding the Town's approach to controlling weeds. This can be found at http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/eb6e919e-9c65-499c-be6f-a5a200a189fc/Weed_Control_FAQs.pdf


http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/eb6e919e-9c65-499c-be6f-a5a200a189fc/Weed_Control_FAQs.pdf

http://www.cambridge.wa.gov.au/files/eb6e919e-9c65-499c-be6f-a5a200a189fc/Weed_Control_FAQs.pdf


12.8 CHINESE NEW YEAR CELEBRATIONS

Submission by Cr Bradley That the Town incorporates Chinese New Year celebrations during the Summer of Fun festivities that occur each year in January to February. BACKGROUND: Chinese New Year is a celebration of the lunar New Year which occurs in that early part of our annual calendar. It is celebrated internationally with important significance for all nationalities in the Asian region. Recently, Chinese New Year was celebrated in Northbridge and was considered an immense success. Chinese New Year also incorporates a process of giving so the event can be used to raise funds for a worthy cause - an example would be the bushfire relief fund which was implemented to raise funds for the people who lost their homes in the recent Yarloop bushfire. ADMINISTRATION COMMENT: Report to follow.



13. CONFIDENTIAL REPORTS

13.1 CR16.24 LEEDERVILLE SPORTS CLUB - BREACH OF LEASE OF GRASSED CAR PARK

13.2 NON-COMPLIANT DWELLING HOUSE, WEST LEEDERVILLE - APPEAL - PROGRESS REPORT

14. CLOSURE


Date post:	18-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	5 times
Download:	0 times