ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 19 DECEMBER 2006 TABLE OF ... · Development Organisation, received an...

i

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING19 DECEMBER 2006

TABLE OF CONTENTS - MINUTES

1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER ...............1

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE.2

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST...........................................................................2

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER...........................................3

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES..................................................................................5

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS .......................................................................................................6

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE ........................................................................................................6

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS ........................................................................................................7

6.1 QUESTION TIME........................................................................................7

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS..............................................................................9

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES.............................................................................9

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS....10

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE......................................................10

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN...............................10

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY...............................................................................................10

13.5.3 CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW.................11

13.5.5 PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE CENTRAL MADDINGTON AREA ......................................................................................................20

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PROPOSED SHOP – SHOWROOM UNIT NO. 1, 216 (LOT 9003) LAKEY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER......34

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS.............................................................39

13. REPORTS ......................................................................................................39

ii

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT..............................................39

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT .................................................................40

13.2.1 DON RUSSELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE AUDIO UPGRADE STAGE 2 ....................................................................40

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES........................................................................42

13.3.1 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTS..........................................................42

13.3.2 BUDGET VARIATIONS.................................................................43

13.3.3 2006/2007 BUDGET - UNCOMPLETED WORKS........................46

13.3.4 2006/2007 BUDGET – YEAR END SURPLUS.............................62

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE.................................................................................65

13.4.1 TENDER 25/2006 – MANUFACTURE, SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF 240 LITRE AND/OR 120/140 LITRE MOBILE GARBAGE BINS..............................................................................................65

13.4.2 TENDER 51/2006 – CONSTRUCTION OF EXTENSIONS AT TOM BATEMAN PAVILION ..........................................................69

13.4.3 STANDARD LEASE AND LICENCE DOCUMENTATION............74

13.4.4 HIGHBURY CRESCENT RESIDENTIAL CELL, BECKENHAM – RE-OPENING OF HIGHBURY CRESCENT AT ALBANY HIGHWAY .....................................................................................79

13.4.5 FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF TRANSMISSION LINES WITHIN THE LOCALITY OF SOUTHERN RIVER......................................82

13.4.6 EXTENSION OF COUNCIL CIVIC CENTRE CAR PARK - MILLS ROAD WEST, GOSNELLS ...........................................................87

13.4.7 GOSNELLS SOUTH UNDERGROUND POWER PROJECT .......89

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY .........................................................93

13.5.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AND TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – PT LOT 35 AND LOT 802 OSMOND STREET, KENWICK.............................93

13.5.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – GOSNELLS TOWN CENTRE .........................99

13.5.3 CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)..............105

13.5.4 PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 5 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – LOT 3 RANFORD ROAD, SOUTHERN RIVER.....................................106

iii

13.5.5 PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE CENTRAL MADDINGTON AREA (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)..............110

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PROPOSED SHOP – SHOWROOM UNIT NO. 1, 216 (LOT 9003) LAKEY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)..............111

13.5.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – 42 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS – 17 (LOT 3) SOUTHDOWN PLACE, THORNLIE .........................112

13.5.8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – FIVE GROUPED DWELLINGS – 24 (LOT 389) EVELYN STREET, GOSNELLS..138

13.5.9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SINGLE DWELLING – 27 (STRATA LOT 2 OF LOT 211) OMAN PASS, CANNING VALE.149

13.5.10POLICY FINALISATION - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY – PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL HOUSING STRATEGY AND LARGE LOT OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ODP) AREAS ......................................160

13.5.11PROPOSED DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT TO THE WEST CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN...............................................................178

13.6 GOVERNANCE ......................................................................................182

13.6.1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR CONFERENCE - CANBERRA 13 - 15 MARCH 2007.................182

13.6.2 CENTENARY CELEBRATIONS - LAUNCH OF THE CENTENNIAL YEAR 2007 AND HISTORICAL DISPLAY IN THE ORANGE ROOM.........................................................................185

13.6.3 WALGA SOUTH EAST METROPOLITAN ZONE –DELEGATES...............................................................................187

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN......................190

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING ....................................................................................................191

15.1 CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENSIONS TO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING – WORKSHOP REQUEST ...................................................191

16. URGENT BUSINESS .........................................................................................192

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS...............................................................................192

18. CLOSURE ....................................................................................................192

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 19 December 2006

1

Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held in the Council Chambers, City of Gosnells Administration Centre, 2120 Albany Highway, Gosnells on Tuesday 19 December 2006.

1. OFFICIAL OPENING/ANNOUNCEMENT OF VISITORS/DISCLAIMER

The Mayor declared the meeting open at 7.36pm and welcomed those members of the public present in the public gallery, Councillors and staff.

DISCLAIMER

The Mayor read aloud the following statement:

Members of the public are cautioned against taking any action on Council decisions, on items on this evening’s Agenda in which they may have an interest, until such time as they have seen a copy of the Minutes of the meeting or have been advised in writing by Council staff.

COUNCIL MEETINGS – RECORDING OF

The Mayor advised all those present that the meeting was being digitally recorded.

Notice within the Public Gallery in relation to recordings state:

Notice is hereby given that all Ordinary Council Meetings are digitally recorded, with the exception of Confidential matters (in accordance with Section 5.23(2) of the Local Government Act 1995) during which time recording will cease.

Following documentation of the Minutes and distribution to Elected Members a copy of the digital recording shall be available for purchase by members of the public.

Recordings will be available in the following formats at a fee adopted by Council annually:

Digital recordings CD ROM (complete with FTR Reader) for use on a Personal Computer; or

Audio recordings CD ROM for use on a CD Player or DVD Player.

For further information please contact the Administration Assistant on 9391 3212.

I ________________________________________________CERTIFY THAT THESE MINUTES WERE CONFIRMED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOSNELLS ON _________________________


2

2. RECORD OF ATTENDANCE/APOLOGIES/APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

ELECTED MEMBERSMAYOR CR P M MORRIS AM JP Honorary FreemanDEPUTY MAYOR CR C MATISON OAM

CR P WAINWRIGHTCR O SEARLE JPCR R MITCHELLCR J HENDERSONCR S IWANYKCR J BROWNCR R HOFFMANCR W BARRETT

STAFFCHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER MR S JARDINEA/DIRECTOR COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MS B HORTONDIRECTOR CORPORATE SERVICES MR R BOUWERDIRECTOR INFRASTRUCTURE MR D HARRISDIRECTOR PLANNING & SUSTAINABILITY MR L KOSOVADIRECTOR GOVERNANCE MR T PERKINSMINUTE SECRETARY MS A CRANFIELD

PUBLIC GALLERY

17

APOLOGIES

Cr R Croft.

APPROVED LEAVE OF ABSENCE

Cr Griffiths was granted Leave of Absence vide Resolution 582 of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 November 2006.

3. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST

Cr W Barrett declared a Financial Interest in item 13.3.1 “Payment of Accounts”.Reason: Payment of account for former business (page 121 Cheque Payment Listing).


3

The Director Corporate Services declared a Financial Interest in item 13.5.3 “Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Review”.Reason: Own land in the ODP area.

Cr C Matison declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.3.4 “2006/2007 Budget – Year End Surplus”.Reason: Councillor appointed to the Centennial Celebrations Working Group.

The Mayor indicated that she, Cr J Henderson and Cr R Hoffman also had an interest in item 13.3.4 “2006/2007 Budget – Year End Surplus”. Also declared at the commencement of item 13.3.4.Reason: Also Members of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group.

Cr C Matison declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.6.2 “Centenary Celebrations - Launch of the Centennial Year 2007 and Historical Display in the Orange Room”. Declared at the commencement of item 13.6.2.Reason: Member of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group.

Cr J Henderson declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.6.2 “Centenary Celebrations - Launch of the Centennial Year 2007 and Historical Display in the Orange Room”. Declared at the commencement of item 13.6.2.Reason: Member of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group.

Cr R Hoffman declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.6.2 “Centenary Celebrations - Launch of the Centennial Year 2007 and Historical Display in the Orange Room”. Declared at the commencement of item 13.6.2.Reason: Member of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group.

Cr PM Morris declared an Impartiality Interest in item 13.6.2 “Centenary Celebrations - Launch of the Centennial Year 2007 and Historical Display in the Orange Room”. Declared at the commencement of item 13.6.2.Reason: Member of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group.

4. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE PRESIDING MEMBER(without discussion)

The Mayor circulated to Councillors a list of functions and events she had attended since Tuesday 14 November 2006.

The Mayor read aloud the following announcements:

Gosnells Primary School

A Certificate of Appreciation was presented to the City of Gosnells in recognition of Council’s support and contribution to the school.

In particular, the replacement of their old sun shelters with bright, safe and easy to assemble new ones.


4

2006 Australian Crime and Violence Prevention Awards

I have just returned from Parliament House where I attended this function today and I am delighted to advise that the City of Gosnells received a Certificate of Merit.

The awards are designed to reward good practice in the prevention or reduction of violence and other types of crime in Australia.

The City of Gosnells received recognition for its Operation Bounce Back initiative, a car theft reduction programme run in partnership with the National Motor Vehicle Theft Reduction Council

The Western Australian Sustainable Transport Awards 2006 - Local Government Innovation

The City of Gosnells’ efforts to progress, encourage and promote sustainable transport have been recognised with the Local Government Innovation Award at this year’s WA Sustainable Transport Awards.

The City is the first Council to receive this award for a second time, after receiving the Local Government Innovation Award in 2004.

The 2006 award was for ‘creating the climate for sustainable transport behaviour change’ highlights the City’s wide-ranging work to make alternative and more environmentally-friendly travel options a reality for everyone in the community.

The City supports a comprehensive approach to planning Transit Oriented Development with pedestrian and cycle linkages.

Travelsmart Workplace Program Award

This award was presented by the Department of Environment and Conservation and the Department for Planning and Infrastructure acknowledging the City of Gosnells for joining the TravelSmart Workplace Program and making a commitment to promote sustainable transport by developing a green transport plan for the City in 2007.

Road Safety Council

On the 23rd of November, the City of Gosnells had the pleasure of hosting the Road Safety Council of Western Australia's November meeting. During the meeting, the Chairman Mr Grant Dorrington presented the City of Gosnells with an award for outstanding commitment to road safety.

The Award acknowledges the long term involvement that the City of Gosnells has shown to improving the safety of the local road network. The award also recognises the City of Gosnells as a leader in road safety initiatives, and the direction that the City of Gosnells has undertaken in improving the local community road safety outcomes.

Receiving this award at the lead up to the festive season is a timely reminder for all road users within the City of Gosnells to drive safely these holidays.


5

The Australian Flag

Mr Don Randall MP, Member for Canning, recently presented the Chief Executive Officer and myself with an Australian Flag together with a Certificate of Authenticity signed by the Prime Minister, The Hon John Howard MP.

The flag is an original flag once flown above the Chamber at Parliament House, Canberra.

2006 B-Hert Awards

On 14 November 2006 the City of Gosnells, together with a number of other partnering organisations such as Edith Cowan University and the Gosnells Armadale Business Development Organisation, received an Honourable Mention for Outstanding Achievement in Collaboration in Research and Development and Education and Training at the Federal Government’s 2006 Business and Higher Education Round Table Awards for the “Practical Employee Management Skills (PEMS) Programme”.

The “PEMS Programme” is a collaboration between various organisations to deliver targeted programmes in essential business and employee management skills to diverse small business operators within the City of Gosnells and regional and rural Western Australia.

ICLEI

The City has received formal recognition and congratulations from the International Council for Local Environmental Initiatives (ICLEI) for demonstrating leadership in sustainability by joining it’s Triple Bottom Line Capacity Building Programme, which will assist Council in incorporating sustainability principles and practices into our operations.

5. REPORTS OF DELEGATES(without debate)

Cr J Brown reported that on Wednesday 6 December 2006 it was her pleasure to attend a combined Christmas function at The Agonis with the Gosnells Business and Tourism Association, tenants from the Business Incubator and also the Gosnells Centre for Business Development, for which she is Chairperson. Cr Brown advised she presented certificates to two retiring long serving members, Mr Ramon Lawrence and Ms Cheryl Gay who had been on the Business Incubator since its inception. Cr Brown added that she was pleased to accept, in the Mayor’s absence, a certificate of appreciation from the Gosnells City Business and Tourism Association Inc. for sponsoring their 2006 Business Awards for which they were extremely grateful. Cr Brown subsequently presented the framed certificate to the Mayor.

Cr W Barrett reported that he had great pleasure in attending graduation ceremonies at the Kenwick Special School (30 November), Thornlie High School (afternoon of 6 December), Yale Primary School (evening of 6 December) and Excelsior Primary School (8 December) at which he made presentations on behalf of the Mayor and Councillors. Cr Barrett made special mention of the Kenwick Special School and Principal Mark Watson for the outstanding achievements of students.


6

Cr W Barrett thanked staff from Community Engagement for inviting him to the Addie Mills Dinner (Volunteer Christmas Function) which he attended on 8 December and thoroughly enjoyed.

Cr R Hoffman reported that he, like other Councillors, was fortunate enough and honoured to attend various functions on behalf of the Mayor representing Council. Cr Hoffman made special mention of the Thornlie Christian College graduation which he said was exceptional in the extreme advising the presentation and speakers were phenomenal. Cr Hoffman added that Council supported the college by providing an educational scholarship which a young Asian girl won who had only been in Australia for three years. He advised that during this time she had learned the language, learned the culture and the subjects to excel by being awarded Dux of Year 10. Cr Hoffman added that he felt Council and the Community Engagement Directorate should be congratulated for the way in which they collaborated with the education system within the City.

6. QUESTION TIME FOR THE PUBLIC AND THE RECEIVING OF PUBLIC STATEMENTS

A period of fifteen (15) minutes is allocated for questions with a further period of fifteen (15) minutes provided for statements from members of the public. To ensure an equal and fair opportunity is provided to address Council, a period of three (3) minutes per speaker will be allowed.

The person's speaking right is to be exercised prior to any matter which requires a decision to be made at the meeting.

Questions and statements are to be –

a) Presented in writing on the relevant form to the Chief Executive Officer prior to commencement of the meeting; and

b) Clear and concise.

QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS AWAITING RESPONSE

28 November 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting

Fiona Gallon of 34 Staniland Street, Orange Grove asked the following question in relation to item 13.5.9 “Commercial Vehicle Parking – 25 (Lot 121) Staniland Street, Orange Grove” of the agenda:

Q 1 It has been brought to the Council’s attention that Lot 121 Staniland Street, Orange Grove has not complied with its conditions of subdivision particularly in relation to the re-vegetation requirement. What action has the Council taken to date to fix this breach of conditions?

Response: In response to question 1 the Director Planning and Sustainability advised he was unaware of any breach of conditions giving an undertaking that he would investigate the matter following which a written response would be provided.


7

RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE AT PREVIOUS MEETINGS

Nil.

6.1 QUESTION TIME

Mr Dave Finnie of 82 Chancery Crescent, Willetton (owner of Lot 212 Oman Pass, Canning Vale) asked the following questions in relation to item 13.5.9 “Development Application – Single Dwelling – 27 (Strata Lot 2 of Lot 211) Oman Pass, Canning Vale” of the agenda. Mr Finnie advised his questions were against the processes and timing used in determining the staff recommendations on a divided sub lot:

Q 1 As the staff recommendation to approve this development application relies on a delegated authority precedent of having already been passed on a single dwelling on Strata Lot 1, of the same block, as it somehow met the requirements of R17.5 and Council policy, but was carried out within Council review, how was this actually possible, on only a 265m2

sub lot, with an even less compliant application, with even less open space percentage than this application?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised the application on Strata Lot 1 was approved because it complied with the R17.5 provisions relating to residential development, except the minimum lot size requirement, as pointed out by Mr Finnie. The Director advised the reason staff dealt with the application was because it resembled a single dwelling on a legally created strata lot and it was not going to be possible from a staff perspective to prohibit the development from occurring, not withstanding the lot size was smaller than the R17.5 coding.

Q 2 Should any decision on accepting an inferred R40 influence, as we’ve just heard, for both of these strata sub lot applications (page 132), not have simply waited for the advertised and proper ODP review as also referred to in tonight’s agenda, or is the intent to go ahead and generate yet another convenient precedent?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that he did not believe this was a ‘convenient precedent’ as referred to by Mr Finnie. The Director advised the facts were that in September 2005 the WA Planning Commission approved subdivision of the property into two, with the subdivision approval subsequently being acted upon earlier this year resulting in the creation of two legally created strata lots. The Director added that Council had the discretion to defer consideration of any dwelling on Strata Lot 2 until such time as the Canning Vale ODP had been amended to reflect the density the lot had been created at, rather than the density it was currently designated.


8

Mrs Dawn Finnie of 82 Chancery Crescent, Willetton (owner of Lot 212 Oman Pass, Canning Vale) asked the following questions in relation to item 13.5.9 “Development Application – Single Dwelling – 27 (Strata Lot 2 of Lot 211) Oman Pass, Canning Vale” of the agenda.

Q 1 As Lot 212 is still zoned R17.5 how has the subdivision been allowed to persist?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised Councillors may recall that at the 14 February 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting a development application for two dwellings on this particular subject lot was refused by Council, and there was lengthy discussion contained within the staff report that identified an inconsistency between what was the colouring or designation of the property and adjoining properties on the ODP compared to the text on the ODP. The Director advised the situation had been complicated as the text allowed higher density within 200 metres of the nearby local centre, whereas the higher density radius nearest to this particular property measured approximately 170 metres. The Director advised in any event the adopted ODP for this property and the adjoining Finnie property identified the land for open space. The Director added clearly that was not the case as when development occurs in ODP areas these designations are rationalised to reflect subdivision.

Q 2 What guarantee do we have, as adjoining landowner, that these strata non-compliant plans will remain low bulk, single storey dwellings?

Response: The Director Planning and Sustainability advised that unfortunately he could not give Mr and Mrs Finnie any guarantee that would occur. The Director added this would be entirely the prerogative of future landowners of each of the properties should they choose to ever extend or submit an application for additions for a second storey. He advised once the Canning Vale ODP had been properly updated to reflect the density of the property any future applications would be assessed against the density applied to that land and if it was permissible it would be open to Council to approve it.

Notation

The Mayor invited Mrs Jennifer Napolitano, owner of 75 (Lot 10) Amherst Road, Canning Vale who had submitted questions on notice prior to the meeting to the microphone however she was not present at the meeting. The questions will be forwarded to relevant staff for a written response.

The Mayor invited Mrs Nicola Louise Webb of 442 Railway Parade, Beckenham who had submitted a question time form prior to the meeting in relation to item 13.5.10 “Policy Finalisation - Local Planning Policy – Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas” to the microphone however she was not present at the meeting. The question time form will be forwarded to relevant staff for a written response.


9

6.2 PUBLIC STATEMENTS

Mr David Finnie of 82 Chancery Crescent, Willetton (owner of Lot 212 Oman Pass, Canning Vale) made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.3 “Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Review”. Mr Finnie stated Finding 1 from the review of the Canning Vale ODP would overturn a past Council decision on a perceived density circle anomaly at the intersection of Fraser Road North and Gateway Boulevard advising he had challenged this previously with the Planning Minister’s office who advised in February that Council could either determine that the 200 metre ODP principle text could prevail, or the gazetted ODP map colouring (170 metre radius) could prevail, thus retaining the R17.5 density area around his property. Mr Finnie referred to Council’s decision of 14 February 2006 to retain the map density stating a legitimate precedent against increasing this density circle now existed. Mr Finnie stated that the proposal was flawed and ignored the precedent and in closing requested Council specifically exclude this already reviewed density zone from the ODP revision, and also retain its 170 metre radius.

Ms Angela Pascoe of 78 Etwell Street, East Victoria Park made a public statement in relation to item 13.5.6 “Development Application – Proposed Shop – Showroom Unit No. 1, 216 (Lot 9003) Lakey Street, Southern River” speaking in support of the proposal to change the zoning of Unit 1 to enable an organic shop supplying fresh organic produce to be prepared and sold from the premises. Ms Pascoe addressed concerns raised by staff in the agenda report relating to rezoning being inconsistent with the Southern River Precinct ODP, floor space and a precedent being set if approved. Ms Pasco advised she had spent six months researching and preparing a business plan and believed the demographics of the surrounding areas were particularly suited to an organics shop adding public opinion had been overwhelming. In closing Ms Pascoe sought Council’s support in approving the application as she believed the community would welcome a specialised organic food store supplying a wide range of products from one outlet.

7. CONFIRMATION OF MINUTES

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

620 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr J Henderson

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 28 November 2006 be confirmed.

CARRIED 10/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.


10

8. THE RECEIVING OF PETITIONS, DEPUTATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS

All petitions are to be handed to the Chief Executive Officer immediately following verbal advice to the meeting.

A copy of all documentation presented by Councillors is located on File and may be viewed subject to provisions of Freedom of Information legislation.

Nil.

9. APPLICATIONS FOR LEAVE OF ABSENCE

In accordance with Clause 2.9 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 1998:

(1) A Member seeking the Council’s approval to take leave of absence shall give written notice to the CEO prior to the commencement of the meeting.

(2) The notice referred to in paragraph (1) shall include the period of leave of absence required and the reasons for seeking the leave.

Nil.

10. QUESTIONS OF WHICH DUE NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN(without discussion)

Nil.

11. ITEMS BROUGHT FORWARD FOR THE CONVENIENCE OF THOSE IN THE PUBLIC GALLERY

At this point in the meeting the Mayor may bring forward, for the convenience of those in the public gallery, any matters that have been discussed during “Question Time for the Public and the Receiving of Public Statements” or any other matters contained in the Agenda of interest to the public in attendance, in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

621 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That the following items be brought forward to this point of the meeting for the convenience of members in the Public Gallery who have an interest: Item 13.5.3 Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Review; Item 13.5.5 Planning Framework For The Central Maddington

Area; and Item 13.5.6 Development Application – Proposed Shop –

Showroom Unit No. 1, 216 (Lot 9003) Lakey Street, Southern River.


AGAINST: Nil.


11

The Director Corporate Services due to owning land in the ODP area disclosed at Item 2 of the Agenda “Declarations of Interest”, a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.70 of the Local Government Act 1995.

13.5.3 CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEWAuthor: S O’SullivanApplicant: NilOwner: VariousLocation: Canning Vale Zoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential DevelopmentReview Rights: Final determination is by the Western Australian Planning

Commission, against which there is a right of review to the State Administrative Tribunal.

Area: Approximately 470haPrevious Ref: OCM 6 December 2005 (Resolution 584-587)

OCM 8 Nov 2005 (Resolution 505)OCM 12 July 2005 (Resolution 311)OCM 26 Oct 2004 (Resolution 598)OCM 11 May 2004 (Resolution 231)OCM 24 Feb 2004 (Resolution 80)OCM 24 Feb 2004 (Resolution 78-79)OCM 16 Dec 2003 (Resolution 811)OCM 9 Sept 2003 (Resolution 620)OCM 10 June 2003 (Resolution 366)OCM 11 Feb 2003 (Resolution 47- 48)OCM 26 March 2002 (Resolution 199)

Appendices: 13.5.3A Current Canning Vale Outline Development Plan13.5.3B Draft Revised Canning Vale Outline Development Plan13.5.3C Draft Canning Vale Outline Development Plan Text13.5.3D Proposed Detailed Area Plan – Lot 9 Amherst Road

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider the findings and recommendations emerging from a review of the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP).

BACKGROUND

The Canning Vale ODP has guided development in the area generally bound by Garden Street, Nicholson Road, Dumbarton Road, Campbell Road, Amherst Road and Warton Road since its adoption in April 2001. Approximately 75% of the ODP area has been developed.

The current ODP is contained at Appendix 13.5.3A.

On 6 December 2005, Council considered a report on the review of the cost sharing arrangement associated with the ODP. A review of the spatial elements of the ODP has since been undertaken, which has particularly focused on how the ODP functions as a mechanism to guide subdivision and development.

The outcome of this spatial review is a draft modified ODP which is contained at Appendix 13.5.3B.


12

DISCUSSION

Findings from the Review of the Canning Vale ODP

The findings emerging from the review of the Canning Vale ODP are summarised in the following table:

Finding Response

Provision for Residential Density

1. There are various anomalies with the “Residential Density Greater than R17.5” ‘density nodes’, including:

The radius of some ‘density nodes’ measure less than the 200m radius distance upon which the ODP density ‘circle’ principle is based

Density ‘nodes’ do translate well to typical road and lot layouts created through subdivision, which tend to be based on grid/modified grid configurations and regularly shaped lots. This has resulted in many lots located on the edge of the density ‘circles’ that straddle boundaries between differing density codings creating uncertainty and difficulties in proposal assessment

It is recommended that the extent of ‘density nodes’ be rationalised based on logical boundaries such as road reserves and cadastre.

Refer to Recommended Modification No.1.

2. A base coding for residential lots of R17.5 is considered low in the context of:

Contemporary regional and local residential planning strategies, particularly Council’s Local Housing Strategy, which recommends a base residential coding of R20 for residential zoned land throughout the district. The difference between R17.5 (minimum average lot size of 571m2) and R20 (minimum average lot size of 500m2) equates to 71m2 per lot

Increasing demand from subdividers seeking support for smaller lot sizes. When the ODP was first adopted 600m2 was the typical lot size, compared to 450m2 to 500m2 that is now being suggested by developers as being in demand

An increase in the base coding from R17.5 to R20, consistent with Council’s Local Housing Strategy, is recommended.

Refer to Recommended Modification No. 2.

3. The “Residential Density Greater than R17.5” ‘density nodes’ have neither a minimum nor a maximum density specified. This has resulted in:

A limited ability to ensure density development occurs, which undermines the intent of the ODP for achievement of sustainable built form and results in lack of creation of pedestrian based local centres and housing diversity

Assessment of density proposals being open to interpretation, with a lack of certainty for existing and prospective landowners and those potentially affected by a density development on the ultimate form of development that will result

It is recommended that the ODP be modified to indicate that a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) is required to guide subdivision and development of land included within a ‘higher density node’, detailing the form of development and how ODP objectives for density will be achieved.

Refer to Recommended Modification No. 15 and 18.


13

Provision for Mixed Use Development

4. Certain opportunities for mixed use development have not been taken up by developers. The creation of nodes of activity, around which provision for higher density is made, is a fundamental principle of the ODP aimed at achieving a sustainable urban form

It is proposed that Council adopt an ODP Text to better clarify the purpose, objectives and operation of the ODP, including the definition of acceptable and unacceptable development for Mixed Use Centres and the requirement for a DAP to guide development.

Refer to Recommended Modification No. 3, 14, 15, 18 and 19.

Provision for Land for Community Purposes5. The ODP identifies three community purpose sites notionally

located within mixed use centres near the intersections of:

1. Nicholson Road/Garden Street

2. Warton Road/Amherst Road

3. Amherst Road/Fraser Road North

Provision for a community purpose site at Site No. 1 has been made in the approved DAP for Lots 1, 3, 4, 14, 23 & 90 Nicholson Road, which was conditionally adopted by Council at its meeting on 10 October 2006 (Resolution 513). The DAP shows a 5,217m2 recreation reserve in the context of a “mainstreet” mixed use development.

Provision of a community purpose site at Site No. 2 will occur through development of the community facility planned for the City-owned Lot 8 Holmes Street (corner Warton Road).

The need for a community purpose site for Site No.3 requires reconsideration.

It is proposed to delete the community purpose site near the intersection of Amherst Road/Fraser Road North (Site No. 3).

Refer to Recommended Modification No.4 and Discussion section under heading of “Community Purpose Site – Lot 9 Amherst Road”.

Miscellaneous Findings6. There is a need to reflect the pattern of development that has

actually occurred, including the location of actual development, constructed roads, parkland/drainage areas and cadastre so that the ODP is more accurate and can make the transition from being a broad-scale indicative plan to a more refined and detailed plan that is typical of a town planning scheme map.

A series of modifications to the ODP are recommended to reflect the pattern of existing and proposed development.

Refer to Recommended Modification No. 5, 6, 8 and 12.

7. There is a need to update the plan to delete references to land uses that no longer exist or where Scheme terminologies have changed. In addition, clear textual guidance to supplement the ODP is required.

A series of modifications to the ODP are recommended to correct outdated references and terminologies.

In addition, an ODP text has been drafted. The text will contain many of the principles and other information currently on the ODP as well as clarifying certain aspects of its operation.

Refer to Recommended Modification No.7, 9, 10, 11 and 13 to 19.


14

Recommended Modifications to Canning Vale ODP

A set of recommended modifications to the Canning Vale ODP have been identified in response to the above findings. The recommended modifications are detailed in the table below and reflected on the revised draft ODP contained in Appendix 13.5.3B. A draft ODP text is also proposed, as contained in Appendix 13.5.3C.

Recommended Modification Reason

Plan Modifications1. Rationalise the extent of the “Residential

Density Greater than R17.5” ‘density nodes’.

To create certainty on the development potential of land and address development assessment process difficulties resulting from circular density areas.

Refer to Finding No.1.

2. Increase the base density coding for residential coded land from R17.5 to R20.

To be consistent with contemporary planning guidance and satisfy market demand.

Refer to Finding No. 2.

Will also assist to complete development of the ODP area, which would have a positive financial implication for the City by assisting the capacity to complete required common infrastructure works and open space acquisition under the ODP development contribution arrangement.

3. Rationalise the extent of land shown for “Mixed Use Centres”.

Currently the term “Mixed Use Centres” is not defined within TPS 6 or the ODP. The revised ODP and associated new ODP Text will provide this definition.

The revised extent of each Mixed Use Centre is based on:

The likelihood to achieve a Mixed Use Centre in the future

The distribution of Mixed Use Centres located across the ODP

The proximity to established Mixed Use Centres and other commercial activities.

Refer to Finding No.3 and 4.

4. Delete the Community Purpose Site previously shown in the Mixed Use Centre near the intersection of Fraser Road North and Amherst Road.

Refer to Finding No.5 and discussion below under the heading “Community Purpose Site – Lot 9 Amherst Road” in the Discussion section.

5. Illustrate revised locations and/or alignments of actual/planned infrastructure, including;

Stormwater detention basins, swales and major pipework;

The ultimate alignment of the three high voltage (132KV) powerlines that traverse the area;

Traffic management devices, including signals and roundabouts.

For accuracy and clarity.



15

6. Adjust the location and configuration of public open space areas.

The recommended modifications reflect both the actual location and configuration of constructed POS and the outcomes of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s consideration of proposals for subdivision yet to be implemented. The changes ensure land utilised for open space purposes is appropriately “reserved” by the ODP and land not required for open space is “zoned” for development.


7. Amend the reference to the “Church Precinct” to “Place of Worship Precinct”

The change in terminology is to ensure consistency with related definitions in TPS 6.


8. Include an indicative road layout where possible.

This additional information is intended to provide a guide to the road layout that is desirable or previously endorsed for land yet to be developed.


9. Label the Conservation Category Wetland as a Local Open Space reserve.

Provides clearer identification of the Conservation Category Wetlands and buffer.


10. Amend the Legend by incorporating cross-references to TPS 6 zones/reserves terminology and requirements for a Detailed Area Plan in certain circumstances.

Provides for clarity of zones, reserves, density codings and infrastructure that is identified on the Canning Vale ODP.

The change in terminology provides for a consistent link to appropriate definitions as provided for within the TPS 6.

Refer to Finding No.6 and 7

11. Delete Table One – Land Areas The table is useful only to indicate how the net developable area was originally calculated for developer contribution purposes. The table is contained in the Schedule of Works document for the Development Contribution Arrangements, adopted by Council at its meeting on 6 December 2005 and is no longer necessary to be on the ODP itself.

Refer to Finding No. 7.

12. Reflect the actual pattern of development and other land use changes that have occurred since adoption of the ODP, including:

Updating the cadastre

Reflecting the location of POS

Reflecting the location of constructed roads

Removing the notation of “poultry farm” from Lot 93 Gateway Boulevard

Adding the notation of “Catholic School” to Lot 12 (No. 131) Amherst Road


13. Remove the text under the heading “General Planning Principles”

The planning principles listed on the ODP have been removed from the Plan and replaced in an ODP text.



16

Adoption of an ODP Text

14. Adopt an ODP Text to better clarify the purpose, objectives and operation of the ODP, including:

i) Definition of the objectives, acceptable development, unacceptable development and implementation of Mixed Use Centres.

ii) Definition of the objectives, acceptable development, unacceptable development and implementation of Higher Density Nodes.

Based on the ODP plan developers are to identify the lots that are within the 200 m radius and provide a DAP that indicates how residential density and amenity through the links to a Mixed Use Centre are provided for.

The principles have been updated to reflect the changes of land use. Safety and sustainability and Liveable Neighbourhoods principles have been refined to reflect the principles of the ODP.

Refer to Finding No.3, 4 and 7.

15. Retitle the “Residential Density Greater than R17.5” area to “Higher Density Node” and provide a definition in the ODP Text

The “Residential Density Greater than R17.5” does not provide sufficient guidance for development. The term “Higher Density Node” will replace this terminology and the intent and parameters for development will be clarified through the ODP Text and requirement for a DAP to guide development.


16. Define a Mixed Use Centre within the ODP Text.

Currently the ODP provides for a zone termed Mixed Use Centres yet does not provide definition, detail or acceptable or unacceptable land uses within the zone.

The proposed ODP text will define Mixed Use Centres.


17. Detail acceptable and unacceptable development within Mixed Use Centres.

Currently the ODP provides no guidance on acceptable and unacceptable land uses within Mixed Use Centres.


18. Establish a requirement for a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) to be prepared for development within “Higher Density Nodes”.

The requirement for a DAP will provide guidance on density.


19. Establish a requirement for a DAP to be prepared for development within “Mixed Use Centres”.

The requirement for a DAP will provide guidance on the timing of and parameters for development of Mixed Use Centres.


Community Purpose Site – Lot 9 Amherst Road

In regard to the identified community purpose site near the intersection of Amherst Road and Fraser Road North (referred to in the table “Findings of the Review of the Canning Vale ODP” above as Community Purpose Site No.3), the City held several discussions with Prestige Project Management Pty Ltd, who is the Project Manager for the development of Lot 9 Amherst Road, in respect to the provision of a community purpose site. Discussions resulted in a proposal for a tenancy within a mixed use building on Lot 9 to be set aside for a community purpose facility.


17

The City’s Community Engagement Directorate and City Facilities Branch subsequently assessed the merit and potential purpose of the proposed community purpose facility and concluded that the community would be better served by a consolidated facility at Lot 8 Holmes Street.

At its meeting on 28 March 2006, Council considered a proposed DAP for Lot 9 Amherst Road (refer to Appendix 13.5.3D), which indicated subdivision of the site into 25 lots for residential use and two lots for mixed use development. It did not include provision for a community purpose site. Council resolved (Resolution 132) to defer consideration of the proposed DAP to:

“enable staff to:

1) investigate the cost sharing contribution arrangements for provision of the Community Purpose Site on Lot 9 under the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan, and the redistribution of those contributions for the provision of similar facilities elsewhere in the ODP area; and

2) investigate the density allowance based on a mixed use area which cannot be guaranteed.”

In respect to Point 1, developers of land in the Canning Vale ODP area are required to make contributions towards the acquisition of land for public open space, conservation and drainage purposes in addition to a range of common infrastructure works. The contribution towards open space is equivalent to 12.74% of the subdividable area for most of the ODP area, including Lot 9 Amherst Road. The ODP indicates approximately 42% of Lot 9 as required for open space, which does not include any land that may be required for a community purpose site. The owner of Lot 9 would therefore be entitled to either compensation for the provision of land for open space over and above their contribution obligation or to use this overprovision as credit for other contribution obligations for other land within the ODP area.

The deletion of the additional requirement for a community purpose site will result in a reduced compensation amount that the City will have to provide from ODP funds held in trust. This notional surplus will therefore be available to use on expenditure on the 55 hectares of land identified on the ODP for open space purposes, of which around 45 hectares are already acquired. It should however be noted that the continual escalation of land values is increasing the cost of land yet to be acquired for open space and an open space funds surplus is ultimately unlikely. Should a surplus occur, it could be used for improvements to open space in the ODP area, as many open space areas that have been provided by developers have only basic facilities and limited landscaping.

In respect to Point 2, land surrounding the intersection of Amherst Road and Fraser Road North is likely to be developed with facilities that will provide a basis for medium density development in close proximity. Land on the north-eastern corner of the intersection has been granted development approval for a home store. Land on the south-east corner has been approved for a child care centre. Concept plans have recently been submitted for a mixed use development adjacent to the child care centre site, with commercial floorspace on the ground floor and residential uses on the second storey. The proposed DAP for Lot 9 (see Appendix 13.5.3D) includes provision for mixed use and complies in all respects with the density provisions of the current ODP.


18

It is recommended that the draft revised ODP not indicate a community purpose site for Lot 9 Amherst Road (refer to Recommended Modification No.4 in the table above) and that the proposed DAP for Lot 9, as contained in Appendix 13.5.3D, be approved pursuant to clause 7.6.1 (e) of TPS 6.

Statutory Process

Collectively, the recommended changes to the Canning Vale ODP are considered to represent a major modification for the purposes of TPS 6 to the ODP, which will require the draft revised ODP and associated ODP text to be advertised for public comment prior to being determined by Council and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

If Council deems the ODP satisfactory for advertising pursuant to Clause 7.4.2 of TPS 6, it will be necessary to provide notice to all landowners and public authorities pursuant to Clause 7.4.5 (a) and (b) of TPS 6 inviting submissions on the draft revised ODP.

The following methods would be used to advertise the proposal pursuant to clause10.4.3(b) of TPS 6:

A notice published in each of the two local newspapers circulating in the ODP area inviting comment

Letters to all landowners within the ODP area

Details published on the City’s web site and on display at the City offices and libraries

Invitation to Western Power, Water Corporation, Department of Environment and Conservation, Alinta Gas, Department of Water and Main Roads WA to provide comment and the Western Australian Planning Commission for information

CONCLUSION

The Canning Vale ODP has proved to be a highly effective mechanism to guide development. There have however been some interpretation difficulties experienced. It is proposed that Council adopt the draft revised ODP contained at Appendices 13.5.3B and 13.5.3C for the purposes of public advertising as a necessary step towards an overall update and refinement of the ODP so that it can remain a contemporary tool for guiding appropriate subdivision and development within the ODP area.

FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

There will be costs associated with the advertising of the proposed modification to the ODP, which can be met within the City Planning Branch’s operational budget.


19

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 2) AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION

622 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council, pursuant to Clause 7.4.2 (a), of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, determine that the draft revised Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) and associated draft Text contained in Appendices 13.5.3B and 13.5.3C respectively are satisfactory for the purposes of advertising and therefore advertise the draft revised ODP in accordance with clause 7.4.5 of the Scheme by way of:

i) A notice published in each of the two local newspapers circulating in the ODP area inviting comment

ii) Letters to all landowners within the ODP area

iii) Details published on the City’s web site and on display at the City offices and libraries

iv) Invitation to Western Power, Water Corporation, Department of Environment and Conservation, Alinta Gas, Department of Water and Main Roads WA to provide comment and the Western Australian Planning Commission for information

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle.


623 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council pursuant to clause 7.6.1(c)(i) of Town Planning Scheme No.6 approve the Detailed Area Plan for Lot 9 Amherst Road, as contained in Appendix 13.5.3D, and forward a copy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.




20

13.5.5 PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE CENTRAL MADDINGTON AREA Author: C DonnellyApplication No: NilApplicant: N/AOwner: VariousLocation: MaddingtonZoning: MRS: Urban, Urban Deferred, Rural and Parks and Recreation

TPS No. 6: Residential R17.5, Residential R30, Residential R40, Highway Commercial, Mixed Business, Local Open Space, Public Purposes, Water Courses and General Rural

Review Rights: NilArea: 124haPrevious Ref: OCM 8 August 2006 (Resolution 382)

OCM 23 May 2006 (Resolution 228)OCM 26 October 2004 (Resolution 617)OCM 23 September 2003 (Resolution 644)OCM 8 April 2003 (Resolution 216)OCM 13 August 2002 (Resolution 654)

Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to determine whether to prepare an Outline Development Plan (ODP) for the Central Maddington Area instead of progressing with draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 (draft TPS 21).

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 8 August 2006 resolved (Resolution 382):

“That Council seek comment from landowners within the Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 area, for a period of 21 days, on the option of preparing an Outline Development Plan (ODP) for that area (but excluding the proposed Maddington Town Centre) and rezoning the area “Residential Development” instead of progressing with Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21.”

In accordance with the above Council resolution, comment was invited from landowners within the area for a period of 21 days, by the way of letters to all affected landowners and three landowner information evenings. The information evenings provided landowners with the opportunity to directly discuss with staff the implications of progressing an ODP instead of draft TPS 21.

DISCUSSION

During the advertising period, a total of 79 submissions were received of which:

13 submissions indicated a preference to continue with the preparation of draft TPS 21

57 submissions indicated a preference to proceed with an ODP instead of draft TPS 21

9 provided comment only


21

Of the submissions received, over 72 percent were in support of the City progressing with an ODP instead of Draft TPS 21. The submission form sent to all landowners enabled them to nominate their preferred planning framework and to provide comments on the matter. The following section provides a summary of the key comments, questions and issues raised by landowners:

Infrastructure – regarding the timing, alignment and cost responsibilities of new infrastructure required to support further subdivision and development, including new roads and upgrades to drainage networks

Flexibility – regarding the degree of flexibility inherent in the two different planning frameworks

Residential densities – mixed views, with some landowners seeking higher densities than those illustrated on draft TPS 21 and other landowners seeking lesser densities

Opportunities for landowner involvement – there is clear landowner interest in the planning for this area, particularly in being involved in the detailed planning for local areas

Timeframes – there are landowner concerns about the length of time that it may potentially take to finalise the planning for this area

Definition of precincts – should Council decide to progress with the preparation of an ODP instead of draft TPS 21, there is an expressed desire of landowners to have the precincts identified at the earliest opportunity

Traffic and noise – concerns regarding the additional traffic likely to be generated from additional residential properties within the area, in addition to the existing arterial road network

Public open space – comments regarding the retention of existing public open space, the provision of new public open space areas to meet increased demand and the need to adequately compensate landowners who would ultimately be required to cede land for public open space purposes

Compulsion to subdivide/develop land – there was concern that upon the finalisation of a planning framework for this area that landowners would be compelled to subdivide or develop their land

Retention of vegetation – particularly along River Avenue, where significant vegetation has been established within existing road verges

As can be seen from the above points, there is significant landowner interest in the planning for the draft TPS 21 area and a range of complex issues that will need to be properly addressed through whichever planning framework Council decides to progress. Comments made do not however identify any major reason why the City should not discontinue draft TPS 21 and progress with an ODP for the Central Maddington area.


22

Due to the number of submissions received and the common issues and comments raised in those submissions, staff have summarised the submissions in a different form to that ordinarily presented to Council. Table 1 below identifies the:

Number of submitters that expressed a preference for pursuing Draft TPS 21 or preparing a new ODP and those that only provided comment

Comments raised by submitters in regard to the different planning frameworks

Comments raised by submitters in regard to other issues affecting the planning and development of the area

Staff comments on the submissions received

The submissions reference numbers listed in Table 1 below relate to the submitters listed in Table 2.

Table 1 – Schedule of Submissions

Preferred option Submission reference numbers Totals

Draft TPS 21 1-13 13ODP 14-70 57Comment only 71-79 9

Comment in regard to planning frameworks Staff Comment

Submission reference numbers

Totals

InfrastructureStates that the planning framework needs to provide a level of certainty to allow for infrastructure planning.

An ODP identifies areas for particular land uses including residential densities. This information allows for effective infrastructure planning.

77 1

FlexibilityBelieves that an ODP framework is too flexible.

The preparation of precinct-level Detailed Area Plans (DAPs) will ensure that more detailed planning is undertaken prior to subdivision and development occurring.

5 1

StakeholdersBelieves that the ODP framework will not be appropriate with numerous stakeholders involved.

An ODP, supplemented by precinct-level DAPs, provides the flexibility required for the planning and development of an established area with highly fragmented landownership. The ODP approvals process provides legitimate opportunities for landowners to be involved.

6 1


23

Comment in regard to planning frameworks Staff Comment

Submission reference numbers

Totals

Timing of plan approvalEnquiry as to the timing of planning framework implementation.

The preparation and adoption of an ODP typically takes between 12 and 18 months. Much of the work required to prepare an ODP for the Central Maddington area and finalise developer cost contributions has already been completed in the form of draft TPS 21. The timeframes associated with the preparation and approval of precinct-level DAPs will depend on staff resources, however opportunities will exist for landowners to initiate the process.

1, 19, 48 3

PrecinctsEnquiry/suggestion as to precinct boundaries and/or priorities.

DAP precinct boundaries would be determined during the preparation of an ODP for the entire Central Maddington area. Proposed precinct boundaries would likely be subject to public comment during the advertising of an ODP. Whilst priorities for the progression of precinct-level DAPs may be set, the preparation of such plans will depend on the availability of City resources.

1, 23, 50, 62, 68, 69

6

Believes that the absence of an approved ODP should not inhibit development in precincts.

To allow for incremental development in a coordinated manner, an adopted ODP and precinct-level DAPs would be required prior to the approval of subdivision or development.

47 1

Other comments Staff CommentSubmission

reference numbers

Totals

InfrastructureEnquiry/concern as to the cost, timing and responsibility for provision of infrastructure.

A Developer Contribution Plan (DCP) may be prepared as part of an ODP, outlining the cost, timing and responsibility for provision of infrastructure.

4, 6, 15, 19, 48

5

TrafficConcern as to heavy traffic and/or traffic congestion.

Traffic management issues will need to be addressed through the preparation of an ODP and precinct –level DAPs.

5, 6, 15, 16, 43, 79

6

NoiseConcerns about traffic noise. Noise concerns will need to be

addressed through the preparation of an ODP and precinct-level DAPs.

15, 16, 79 3


24


reference numbers

Totals

Proposed roads under Draft TPS 21Does not support proposed road/s under Draft TPS 21.

51, 55, 56, 61, 68, 74, 75

7

Supports proposed road/s under Draft TPS 21.

9 1

Supports certain and opposes other proposed road/s under Draft TPS 21.

13, 33 2

Enquiry/concern about proposed roads under Draft TPS 21.

The preparation of ODPs and precinct-level DAPs provides opportunities for landowners to be involved in the planning of an area, including the location of new roads.

1, 32, 47 3

FloodingConcern that proposed road will result in flooding.

Drainage upgrades may be required to support further subdivision and development.

56 1

Public Open SpaceBelieves that landowners should not have to contribute to POS.

As a general requirement in Western Australia, 10 percent of land, or the cash-in-lieu equivalent, is required to be ceded free of cost for POS requirements at the time of subdivision. Should a landowner be made to cede more than the percentage of land required for POS, compensation may be available.

15, 76 2

Believes that enough POS already exists.

66 1

Does not wish to lose existing POS.

Increased residential densities will generate additional demands for POS. An ODP will need to provide guidance for future POS provision. 4 1

Ceding of land and compensationBelieves that landowners should not have to cede land and/or make financial contributions to compensate ceded land.

15, 71 2

Enquiry as to the compensation rate for ceded land.

19 1

Enquiry/concern as to the amount of land required to be ceded.

Landowners may be required to cede land at the time of subdivision for road reserves and POS, among other things. Depending upon what the ceded land is required for, compensation may be available. A DCP would provide a framework for future contributions and/or compensation.

19, 23, 47 3

Compulsion to subdivide and/or developEnquiry as to whether subdivision and/or development is compulsory.

There is no compulsion on landowners to subdivide and/or develop when an ODP is in-place.

19 1

Vegetation retentionSuggests that an existing planting of vegetation be recognised and/or retained.

Significant plantings of vegetation can be identified through an ODP and provisions can be incorporated into a DAP to ensure the retention of vegetation.

23, 75 2


25


reference numbers

Totals

Residential densityRecommends a higher residential density than that identified in Draft TPS 21.

51, 55, 67 3

Recommends a lower residential density than that identified in Draft TPS 21.

During the formal public advertising period for an ODP, comments in regard to proposed residential densities can be considered. 6 1

RezoningBelieves that spot rezoning should not be allowed.

4 1

Seeks a “Residential Development” zone to allow for the progression of precinct planning.

Through an ODP framework, the entire Central Maddington area will be rezoned to “Residential Development” under TPS 6. Prior to subdivision and/or development however, an adopted DAP encompassing an entire precinct would be required to ensure proper coordination.

68 1


26


27

Table 2 – Submitters

Submission Reference

No.Name and Postal Address Affected Property

1 J P Rolls20 Westfield StreetMaddington WA 6109

20 (Lot 109) Westfield StreetMaddington

2 R K and E L Lambkin18 The CrescentMaddington WA 6109

1 (Lot 6) Clifton StreetMaddington

3 D G Di Giacomo17 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109

32 (Lot 502) The CrescentMaddington

4 P and I C Di Giacomo11 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109

11 (Lot 36) Kelvin RoadMaddington

5 D and P Di Giacomo15 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109


6 W and A Baxter37 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109


7 O Wyss10 Purkiss StreetCannington WA 6107

53 (Lot 30) Westfield Street55 (Lot 4) Westfield StreetMaddington

8 K Wyss10 Purkiss StreetCannington WA 6107

53 (Lot 30) Westfield Street55 (Lot 4) Westfield StreetMaddington

9 R Rees610 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109

61 (Lot 7) River AvenueMaddington

10 R Anderson32 Clifton StreetMaddington WA 6109


11 L F Choo and Y Y Zhang32 Herald AvenueWilletton WA 6155

30A (Lot 94) Morley StreetMaddington

12 F Chiera30 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109

30 ( Lot 26) River AvenueMaddington

13 J Ryan35 Kelvin roadMaddington WA 6109


14 J J and R M McIntyre38 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109


15 C Romeo39 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109


16 O Manno20 Clifton StreetMaddington WA 6109


17 N Silvestri20 Clifton StreetMaddington WA 6109


18 C P Arandle9 Elton StreetMaddington WA 6109

9 (Lot 29) Elton StreetMaddington

19 D A Harrison44 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109



28



20 T Maras1921 Albany HighwayMaddington WA 6109

1921 (Lot 190) Albany Highway1925 (Lot 189) Albany Highway1929 (Lot 188) Albany Highway1917 (Lot 111)Albany HighwayMaddington

21 T Maras43B Canning Beach RoadApplecross WA 6153

1935 (Lot 5) Albany HighwayMaddington

22 M and V Maras1921 Albany HighwayMaddington WA 6109


23 R E Higgins38 Phillip StreetMaddington WA 6109

38 (Lot 79) Phillip StreetMaddington

24 T R Mayhew10 Prior CloseCanning Vale WA 6155

20 (Lot 12) Weston StreetMaddington

25 M Tayba14 Pintaclo WayCanning Vale WA 6155

139 (Lot 15) Attfield StreetMaddington

26 C Ye38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107

36B (Lot 1) Phillip StreetMaddington

27 J W Wang38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107

6 (Lot 18) Morley StreetMaddington

28 S M Liang38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107

10 (Lot 24) Elton Street30 (Lot 10) Keera CourtMaddington

29 S S Ye38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107


30 L L Ye38 Bungaree RoadWilson WA 6107

28 (Lot 74) Clifton Street27 (Lot 12) River AvenueMaddington

31 E and J Phillips37 Morley StreetMaddington WA 6109

31 (Lot 11) Morley Street37 (Lot 24) Morley Street35 (Lot 10) Morley StreetMaddington

32 A Miller23 Morley StreetMaddington WA 6109


33 S Miller23 Morley StreetMaddington


34 D Pearson and B Beard10 Kirby Court Huntingdale WA 6110


35 C Bowden22 Westfield StreetMaddington WA 6109


36 D R ElphickPO Box 885Victoria Park WA 6100

9 (Lot 55) Rand StreetMaddington

37 Claymont Land Pty LtdLevel 1, 189 St George’s Terrace Perth WA 6000


38 M P Dennon42 Aldinga StreetKenwick WA 6107


39 A J Trotter113 Attfield Street



29



Maddington WA 610940 G M Terry

1 Morley StreetMaddington WA 6109


41 J Jongaling2/38 Drury StreetWillagee WA 6156


42 A R Beer64 Weston StreetMaddington WA 6109

13A (Lot 1) Clifton Street13B (Lot 2) Clifton StreetMaddington

43 D B and G M Scotland12 The CrescentMaddington WA 6109

12 (Lot 7) The CrescentMaddington

44 A C F Tran8 Drysdale StreetShelley WA 6148


45 I Philp84 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109

84 (Lot 41) River RoadMaddington

46 G Foster12 Waring WayKardinya WA 6163


47 W E and J A Davis34 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109


48 E Okomuniewski10 Weston StreetMaddington WA 6109


49 O E Garland and S J Owen82 River AvenueMaddington WA 6109


50 M and J Fowles50 Phillip StreetMaddington WA 6109


51 M O’Brien4 Billabong CoveWilson WA 6108


52 G Shelley13 Tranquility PlaceMaddington WA 6109

13 (Lot 304) Tranquility PlaceMaddington

53 C H Hsueh and C L Hong47 Gallop RoadDalkeith WA 6009

48 (Lot 23) Orr StreetMaddington

54 K Unlu4 Forman CourtQueens Park WA 6107

28 (Lot 40) Olga RoadMaddington

55 A Sorgiovanni9 Serenity CourtMaddington WA 6109

9 (Lot 28) Serenity CourtMaddington

56 N and E Buters12 Westfield StreetMaddington WA 6109


57 I Smith31 Cortis WayLangford WA 6147

63 (Lot 45) Orr StreetMaddington

58 M Govorko10 Clifton StreetMaddington WA 6109


59 D and A FenwickPO Box 279Maddington WA 6989


60 D Fenwick 37 (Lot 18) Westfield Street


30



PO Box 279Maddington WA 6989

Maddington

61 G Glen35 Brabourne StreetMaddington WA 6109

35 (Lot 104) Brabourne StreetMaddington

62 G Goncalves1 Rowe Court Samson WA 6163


63 P James 1943 Albany HighwayMaddington WA 6109


64 J Battaglia38 Aralia WayForrestfield WA 6058

19 (Lot 108) Newenden StreetMaddington

65 C T and J Harris19 The OvalMadeley WA 6065

9 (Lot 37) Cowan StreetMaddington

66 V Marciano128 Attfield StreetMaddington WA 6109


67 Lisa EngelbrechtMGA Town Planners26 Mayfair StreetPO Box 104West Perth WA 6872

27 (Lot 32) Phillip Street33 (Lot 33) Phillip StreetMaddington

68 T G MorganLandvision On behalf of Mr and Mrs C Sorgiovanni and Mr A SorgiovanniSuite 5, 16 Nicholson RoadSubiaco WA 6008

78 (Lot 401) River Avenue74 (Lot 40) River Avenue9 (Lot 28) Serenity CourtMaddington

69 Planning Solutions (Aust) Pty LtdOn behalf of Claymont Land Pty LtdPO Box 8701Perth WA 6849

1993 (Lot 808) Albany Highway32 (Lot 26) River AvenueMaddington

70 M F Ghodsi, J S Palermo, O A Palermo, P Palermo and S J Palermo1 Picotee MewsCoogee Beach WA 6166


71 R Barrett17 Weston StreetMaddington WA 6109


72 V Saunders10 Phillip StreetMaddington WA 6109


73 E Graham32 Olga RoadMaddington WA 6109


74 P Hills13 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109


75 E Dowling13 Kelvin RoadMaddington WA 6109


76 A Della Posta129 Attfield StreetMaddington WA 6109


77 Water CorporationPO Box 100Leederville WA 6902

N/A

78 Bickley Ward Progress and Ratepayers Association (Inc.).

N/A


31



C/- 156 Lacey StreetBeckenham WA 6107

79 Fire and Emergency Services Authority N/A


32

Evaluation of Draft TPS 21 Versus Preparation of an ODP

Guided Development Schemes, such as draft TPS 21, are required to be progressed within a relatively rigid and slow statutory planning framework established under State legislation. Progressing with the preparation of an ODP instead of draft TPS 21 will offer a number of advantages, including:

A simpler and faster path for processing through statutory steps, which in turn provides greater certainty for landowners and for identified key issues to be addressed at the earliest opportunity

Greater opportunities for landowners to be involved in the detailed planning for local areas in addition to the opportunity for landowners to progress the detailed planning (instead of waiting for the City to progress it), once a suitable framework has been established

Consistency with the planning frameworks successfully established by the City in the localities of Canning Vale and Southern River

Based on the above key advantages and the strong community support for progressing with an ODP, staff will recommend that Council progress with the preparation of an ODP instead of draft TPS 21.

Future Steps in the Planning for Central Maddington

Should Council resolve to progress with an ODP framework for the Central Maddington area, City Planning staff will need to prepare necessary documentation and plans (based on draft TPS 21) and progress the ODP through the normal statutory processes. A further report would need to be presented to Council to determine whether the ODP is satisfactory for advertising, with or without modifications. In addition, Council would be required to make a formal decision not to proceed with the preparation of draft TPS 21 and advise the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure accordingly.

Should Council instead resolve to continue proceeding with draft TPS 21, City Planning staff will make appropriate modifications to draft TPS 21 as previously requested by the Minister prior to advertising the draft Scheme for public comment.

CONCLUSION

Based on the submissions received during the advertising period, there is broad support for the preparation of an ODP instead of draft TPS 21. In addition, progressing an ODP for the area will offer greater flexibility and a simpler statutory process than proceeding with draft TPS 21.

The ODP framework has been applied successfully by the City (and continues to be used) for the staged planning and development of other areas of the City such as Canning Vale and Southern River and in the draft Local Housing Strategy Implementation Policy. This approach will provide landowners with the ability to independently progress planning and development on a precinct-by-precinct basis, ahead of the City undertaking this work.


33


There are several options available for funding the preparation of an ODP. These include non-recurrent operational funds that Council may resolve to allocate to City Planning, funds from the Maddington-Kenwick Sustainable Communities Partnership and by landowners.

Costs associated with the provision of external technical assistance can be met by the existing City Planning operational budget.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council approve the preparation of an Outline Development Plan for the Central Maddington area to replace draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21, with staff to prepare a further report to Council to:

1. Determine whether the draft Outline Development Plan is satisfactory for advertising pursuant to clause 7.4.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, and

2. Formally resolve to discontinue draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 under the Planning and Development Act 2005

and further that all landowners within the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 area be advised of Council’s decision.

Foreshadowed Motion

During debate the Mayor read aloud the following foreshadowed motion that Cr P Wainwright indicated she would move if the motion under debate was defeated:

“That Council refer back item “13.5.5 Planning Framework for the Central Maddington Area” of the 19 December 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting to a future meeting of Council, to enable staff to seek comment from landowners who were not previously invited to comment in accordance with Council Resolution 382 of the 8 August 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting, and to enable the Schedule of Submissions to be re-compiled to include any new submissions and those that were erroneously omitted from the agenda report.”

The following written reason was provided:

“Following compilation and distribution of the 19 December 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda it was brought to the attention of the Director Planning and Sustainability that:

(i) Due to technical complications, approximately 56 landowners within the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 (TPS 21) area were not personally invited to comment on the possible replacement of TPS 21 with an Outline Development Plan (ODP)


34

(ii) A number of the submitters listed in Table 2 (Submitters) of the staff report to Council raised comments on the possible replacement of TPS 21 with an ODP, although those submissions are not referenced in Table 1 (Schedule of Submissions) included in that report. Specifically, submitters 7, 8, 12, 35 and 46 should have been recorded as also having raised comment on the “Timing of plan approval” at the top of page 78 in the agenda, while comments received from submitters 31, 40, 49, 59, 60, 72, 78 and 80 were erroneously omitted from Table 1 and should have been included.”

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put the staff recommendation, which reads:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL DECISION (LOST)

624 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council approve the preparation of an Outline Development Plan for the Central Maddington area to replace draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21, with staff to prepare a further report to Council to:

1. Determine whether the draft Outline Development Plan is satisfactory for advertising pursuant to clause 7.4.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, and

2. Formally resolve to discontinue draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 under the Planning and Development Act 2005

and further that all landowners within the draft Town Planning Scheme No. 21 area be advised of Council’s decision.

LOST 0/10 FOR: Nil.

AGAINST: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

Notation

As the staff recommendation was lost the Mayor invited Cr P Wainwright to put her foreshadowed motion, which Cr W Barrett seconded.

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

625 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council refer back item “13.5.5 Planning Framework for the Central Maddington Area” of the 19 December 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting to a future meeting of Council, to enable staff to seek comment from landowners who were not previously invited to comment in accordance with Council Resolution 382 of the 8 August 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting, and to enable the Schedule of Submissions to be re-compiled to include any new submissions and those that were erroneously omitted from the agenda report.


AGAINST: Nil.


35

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PROPOSED SHOP – SHOWROOM UNIT NO. 1, 216 (LOT 9003) LAKEY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: L GibsonReference: 236553Application No: DA06/02712Applicant: A PascoeOwner: Elderslie Finance Corporation LtdLocation: 216 (Lot 9003) Lakey Street, Southern RiverZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential DevelopmentReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 3.9923 HaPrevious Ref: Nil Appendix: 13.5.6A Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a proposed Shop at Unit 1, 216 (Lot 9003) Lakey Street, Southern River as determination of the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Proposal

The application seeks approval to change the use of an existing commercial tenancy from Showroom to Shop to enable the establishment of a small organic foods store. The applicant has advised that it intends to sell fresh fruit, vegetables, meat, dairy goods and packaged meals. The packaged meals will be prepared on site and offered for sale in the retail area to be consumed off site; the proposal does not involve the consumption of any goods on the premises. The store will also incorporate the sale of books, toys, gifts, personal care, cosmetics, baby care and gardening products.

Site Description

Lot 9003 is located adjacent to Ranford Road, south-east of Lakey Street and occupies approximately 4 hectares, however, the application relates only to the portion of the site located between Lakey Street and Boardwalk Boulevard. This portion of the site has recently been developed with eight Showroom units with associated access, car parking and landscaping.


36


37


38

DISCUSSION

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

The subject site is zoned Residential Development under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) and is identified for Mixed Business purposes on the Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan (ODP). Pursuant to Table 1 of TPS 6, a Shop is a “D” use in the Mixed Business zone, meaning a use that is not permitted unless Council exercises its discretion by granting planning approval.

Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan

Intent of Outline Development Plan

With regard to the subject lot, the intent of the ODP is to provide opportunities for commercial development within a defined area, generally bound by Lakey Street, Ranford Road, Balfour Street and the residential zoned land to the north-east. The ODP provides for a Retail/Commercial zoned core (based around the Bristle Avenue intersection) flanked by Mixed Business zoned areas on either side. The existing mix and location of commercial development is considered consistent with the zonings stipulated by the ODP, on the basis of a retail core (occupied by a Coles supermarket and a range of specialty shops) flanked by less intensive showroom-type development to both the north-west and south-east. It is important to note that all approved retail facilities within the Village Centre are located within the Retail / Commercial zoned land, where the ODP has made specific reference to such retail-based commercial activities.

Approval of the proposed shop within the Mixed Business zoned area would not be consistent with the planning that has taken place up to this point in time, which has restricted the Shop land use to the Retail/Commercial zoned land and has allowed only Showrooms and a Convenience Store (incorporating fuel sales) to be developed on the Mixed Business zoned land.

City staff consider that allowing the proposed Shop land use to be developed on the periphery of the commercial area would effectively undermine the planned and established retail core developed along Bristle Avenue. Based on the above, it is recommended that, with regard to the Southern River Precinct 5 ODP, the Shop land use, as defined by TPS 6, should be strictly limited to the Retail/Commercial zoned land, and not supported on the Mixed Business zoned land.

Retail Floorspace

The Southern River Precinct 5 ODP indicates the Village Centre (generally located at the intersection of Ranford Road and Bristle Avenue) is to be limited to a retail floor area of 4,500m2 NLA (net lettable area). The City has previously approved a total of 3,860m2 NLA within the Village Centre, and as such, has a balance of only 640m2 NLA retail floorspace that can further be allocated to the Centre. Whilst this balance is able to cater for the proposed Shop (which is to have a retail floor area of 157m2 NLA), City staff do not consider such an allocation is appropriate as the subject tenancy is not located within the designated retail core. Further, the extent of Showroom floorspace where the proposed shop would be situated is in excess of 3,700m2 NLA and is located approximately 270m from the established retail facilities to the south-east.


39

Notwithstanding the locational issues as outlined above, given that there is only 640m2 of retail floorspace available for change of use from Showroom to Shop, there is insufficient floorspace to accommodate similar applications that may be received in future. In this regard, City staff consider that the allocation of the remaining available retail floorspace on a ‘first come, first served’ basis does not represent orderly and proper land use planning. As such, it is recommended, to ensure the equitable distribution of any available retail floorspace for the centre, that no retail uses be allowed within any of the approved Showrooms on Lot 9003. This will enable the full quota of retail floorspace to be allocated to the Retail/Commercial zoned land indicated on the ODP.

City of Gosnells Local Commercial Strategy

With regard to the development of Shops within the Mixed Business zone, the City’s Draft Local Commercial Strategy generally states as follows:

“Mixed Business areas are potentially suitable for showrooms and other forms of car-orientated development, except Shopfront Retail development.”

Based on the above, the proposed development is inconsistent with the City’s Local Commercial Strategy.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is not supported for the following reasons:

The proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan

The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s Draft Local Commercial Strategy

The allocation of potentially available retail floorspace within the neighbourhood centre on a ‘first come, first served’ basis does not represent orderly and proper planning

Approval of the application would set an undesirable precedent for the approval of similar applications for change of use from Showroom to Shop in the showroom tenancies fronting Ranford Road

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be refused.


Nil.


40

STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council refuse the application for a change of use of Showroom Unit No. 1 at 216 (Lot 9003) Lakey Street, Southern River to a Shop for the following reasons:

1. The proposal is inconsistent with the intent of the Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan which seeks to consolidate all Shop land uses within the designated Retail/Commercial zoned area, centred around the intersection of Ranford Road and Bristle Avenue.

2. The proposal is inconsistent with the City’s Draft Local Commercial Strategy which states that Mixed Business zoned areas are not suitable to accommodate shopfront retail development.

3. The allocation of potentially limited available retail floorspace within the neighbourhood centre on a ‘first come, first served’ basis does not represent orderly and proper planning.

4. Approval of the application would set an undesirable precedent for the approval of similar applications for change of use from Showroom to Shop in the existing showroom tenancies fronting Ranford Road.

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr C Matison.

12. MINUTES OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS

13. REPORTS

13.1 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER’S REPORT


41

13.2 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT

13.2.1 DON RUSSELL PERFORMING ARTS CENTRE AUDIO UPGRADE STAGE 2

Author: G BradbrookPrevious Ref: OCM 8 March 2005 (Resolution 79)Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council approval for expenditure from the DRPAC Reserve to undertake audio upgrades at the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre (DRPAC).

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting of 8 March 2005 considered a report in regards to a staged upgrade of the audio system at the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre. Stage 1 of the upgrade of the audio system was approved via resolution 79 which reads:

“That Council authorise the purchase of the first-stage replacement of the sound system at the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre for an estimated cost of $19,900 and authorise the budget variations as follows:

Job/Account Details Dr $ Cr $Job300.700.3 Purchase of new sound system 19,900JobS2030.9527.49 Transfer from Reserve 19,900 ”

The Stage 1 of the upgrade of the audio system was completed in the 2005/06 financial year. Within the report presented to Council on 8 March 2005 it was outlined that a Stage 2 upgrade at DRPAC would be required to complete the upgrade of the audio system.

DISCUSSION

Within the report presented to Council on 8 March 2005 it was outlined that a Stage 2 upgrade at DRPAC would be required to complete the upgrade of the audio system.

The proposed Stage 2 upgrade would incorporate the purchase of speakers, microphones and stands that would be used for feature productions, private use hires, and the Centre’s annual performing arts festival “It’s on at the Don.”

Currently this equipment is hired at an annual cost of approximately $4,000. Purchase of the equipment would require capital expenditure of $18,400 (exclusive of GST).

It is proposed that the cost of the stage 2 audio upgrade be funded through the DRPAC Reserve Account which has a current balance of $99,578. The DRPAC Reserve Account was established by Council for the purpose of constructing and equipping the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre.


42


Completion of the Stage 2 of the upgrade of the audio system would result in capital expenditure of approximately $18,400. This equipment purchase would result in a decrease in operating expenditure of an estimated cost of $4,000 per annum.

It is proposed that the capital costs be met through the DRPAC Reserve Account number 64-1174-2060 which has a current balance of $99,578.



That Council authorise the completion of Stage 2 of the upgrade of the audio system at the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre at a cost of $18,400 (exclusive of GST) to be funded through the Don Russell Performing Arts Centre Reserve Account 64-1174-2060.

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 10/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.


43

13.3 CORPORATE SERVICES

The Mayor advised the meeting that Cr W Barrett due to payment of account to a former business (page 121 of Cheque Payment Listing) had disclosed a Financial Interest in the following item in accordance with Section 5.60 of the Local Government Act 1995.

8.12pm – Cr W Barrett left the meeting.

13.3.1 PAYMENT OF ACCOUNTSAuthor: M WerderPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of payments made for the period 1 November 2006 to 30 November 2006.

DISCUSSION

Payments of $7,572,965.48 as detailed in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 November 2006 to 30 November 2006 which was circulated to Councillors under separate cover and will be tabled at the meeting, have been approved by the Director Corporate Services under delegated authority.

Notation

The Mayor tabled the cheque listing for the period 1 November 2006 to 30 November 2006.



That Council note the payment of accounts as shown in the cheque and EFT payment listing for the period 1 November 2006 to 30 November 2006.

CARRIED 9/0FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Nil.

8.13 pm - Cr W Barrett returned to the meeting.

Notation

The Mayor, upon the return of Cr W Barrett to the meeting, advised that Council had endorsed the staff recommendation as contained in the Agenda.


44

13.3.2 BUDGET VARIATIONSAuthor: F SullivanPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek approval from Council to adjust the 2006/2007 Municipal Budget.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995 a local government is not to incur expenditure from its municipal fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure:

is incurred in a financial year before the adoption of the annual budget by the local government

is authorised in advance by Council resolution, or

is authorised in advance by the Mayor or President in an emergency.

Approval is therefore sought for the following budget adjustments for the reasons specified.


Account Number Type Account Description Debit$

Credit$

JL10.10041.3800.000 Increase Expenditure

West Canning Vale ODP – Community Infrastructure Works

468,270

JL10.10041.2507.000 Increase Income

Canning Vale ODP Reserve

468,270

Reason: To reimburse a subdivider within the West Canning Vale ODP area for the land ceded for the widening of Nicholson Rd


Sutherlands Park Cricket Wicket Project

28,000

JL15.60090.2605.000 Decrease Income

Sutherlands Park Reserve

28,000

Reason: Development of A3 Practice Wicket Block to be located on Sutherlands D Reserve

GL31.1050.3278 Increase Expenditure

Programme Activities 25,295

GL31.1050.1301 Increase Income

Government Grant 25,295

Reason: Riverbank grant received from Swan River Trust for foreshore works on Canning River.


45


Credit$

GL31.1050.1301 Increase Expenditure

Programme Activities 10,340

GL31.1050.1301 Increase Income

Government Grant 10,340

Reason: Swan River Trust funding received.


The Agonis – Plant Room Upgrade

26,000

JL12.10015.3800.000 Decrease Expenditure

Thornlie Sports Club Roof Restraint Programme

5,500


Thornlie Oval Change Room Roof Restraint Programme

2,000


Gosnells Soccer Club 3,000


Sutherland Reserve F Roof Restraint Programme

2,000


Sutherland Reserve A & B Roof Restraint Programme

2,500


Les Sands Pavilion Roof Restraint Programme

2,500


Leipold Pavilion Roof Restraint Programme

5,500


Seaforth Hall Roof Restraint Programme

3,000

Reason: Savings from Roof Restraint Programme used to fund urgent plant upgrades at the Agonis.


Plant Purchases – Graffiti Vehicle

45,500


Hillside Farm Roof Restraint Programme

8,500


Air-conditioning – Maddington Community Centre

37,000

Reason: Savings from Hillside Farm Roof Restraint Programme and balance of Maddington CC Air-conditioning to be used to purchase second vehicle for the Graffiti Removal Team.


46


629 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council approve the following adjustments to the Municipal Budget:

Account Number Account Description Debit$

Credit$

JL10.10041.3800.000 West Canning Vale ODP – Community Infrastructure Works

468,270

JL10.10041.2507.000 Canning Vale ODP Reserve

468,270

JL15.60090.3800.000 Sutherlands Park Cricket Wicket Project

28,000

JL15.60090.2605.000 Sutherlands Park Reserve 28,000GL31.1050.3278 Programme Activities 25,295GL31.1050.1301 Government Grant 25,295GL31.1050.1301 Programme Activities 10,340GL31.1050.1301 Government Grant 10,340JL12.10041.3800.000 The Agonis – Plant Room

Upgrade26,000

JL12.10015.3800.000 Thornlie Sports Club Roof Restraint Programme

5,500

JL12.10016.3800.000 Thornlie Oval Change Room Roof Restraint Programme

2,000

JL12.10017.3800.000 Gosnells Soccer Club 3,000JL12.10018.3800.000 Sutherland Reserve F

Roof Restraint Programme

2,000

JL12.10019.3800.000 Sutherland Reserve A & B Roof Restraint Programme

2,500

JL12.10020.3800.000 Les Sands Pavilion Roof Restraint Programme

2,500

JL12.10021.3800.000 Leipold Pavilion Roof Restraint Programme

5,500

JL12.10023.3800.000 Seaforth Hall Roof Restraint Programme

3,000

JL13.30376.3800.000 Plant Purchases – Graffiti Vehicle

45,500

JL12.10022.3800.000 Hillside Farm Roof Restraint Programme

8,500

JL12.10030.3800.000 Air-conditioning – Maddington Community Centre

37,000


AGAINST: Nil.


47

13.3.3 2006/2007 BUDGET - UNCOMPLETED WORKSAuthor: F SullivanPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT


BACKGROUND

At the time the 2006/2007 Budget was adopted by Council on 4 July 2006, the annual financial statements for the 2005/2006 financial year had not been completed. The actual value of uncompleted works to be carried forward into the 2006/2007 Budget was therefore only an estimate.

DISCUSSION

The 2005/2006 annual financial statements have now been audited and the actual income and expenditure to be carried forward has been finalised.





Approval is therefore sought for the following budget adjustments.

The adjustments now required to amend the 2006/2007 Budget are listed hereunder and require Council approval:



Credit$

90.90300.3384 Increase Operating Expenditure

Crime Prevention Plan 6,775


Kids out of crime 4,390


Car theft programme 11,727


Advertising 2,000


48


Credit$


Stationery 981

90-90511-3384 Increase Operating Expenditure

Sensor Lights in Senior Homes

2,155



2,500


Smoke detector & Batteries

454



2,500



454



466


Meals on Wheels 30,318

90-90502.3384 Increase Operating Expenditure

Inclusive Recreation Service

5,245


Parent Workshops 15,499


Parent Workshops 8,481


Indigenous Youth 1,200


GST on grants not paid 22,590

31.1051.3384 Decrease Operating Expenditure

Rebate – Cool or Cosy 800

92-91101-3384 Decrease Operating Expenditure

Orange Room Exhibit 19,000


Community sponsorship 25,520


Fire Management 28,479


Emergency Management

9,631


49


Credit$


Consultancy – Madd/Ken

19,535


ODP Martin 10,000

40-40210-3384 Decrease Transfer to Reserve

MGB Plant Reserve 248,294

11-50000-3384 Decrease Capital Expenditure

New Business Systems 170,628

12-10042-3384 Increase Capital Expenditure

CCTV Security Systems - Upgrade

14,941


Equity Access Programme - Upgrade

6,463


Administration Building - Phase 1

67,908

12-10029-2411 Increase Transfer From Reserve

Admin Building Reserve 67,908


New Operations Centre - Phase 1

27,213

12-10026-2416 Decrease Transfer From Reserve

Operations Centre Reserve

27,213


Addie Mills Centre Gazebo Construction

8,272


Fit-out of The Agonis Cafe

66


Building Construction Reserve

66


Yale Rd Bicycle Lane - Spencer Rd to Garden St Traffic Management

19,700


Fremantle Rd to Lissiman St - Anti skid treatment & improve signage

1,320


William St ChannelisationConversion of William St

8,607


Warton Rd - Amherst Rd Intersection

16,988

14-80044-2506 Increase Capital Income

Canning Vale ODP - Warton Rd - Amherst Rd Intersection

16,988

14-80082-1359 Increase Grant State Blackspot Grant 24,000


50


Credit$


Garden St/Forest Lakes Dr Traffic Signals

64,250


Ranford Rd/Campbell Rd Traffic Lights

2,050


Matilda St Pedestrian Island Modification

3,150

14-80083-1359 Increase Capital income

State Blackspot Grant 2,670


Brixton St Pedestrian Island

2,509


Nicholson Rd / Amherst Rd - Install Traffic Control Signal

6,982


Nicholson Rd / Yale Rd to Birnam Rd - Improve Street Lighting

1,355


Yale Rd / Hargrave Dr - Construct Median Islands

3,727




Spencer Rd / View Ave - Install Splitter & Seagull Island

860




Attfield St/Herbert St Construct Roundabout

1,498


Nicholson Rd/Wilfred Rd Install Left Turn Lane

1,088


Harry St/James St Construct Roundabout

2,458


Williams St/Luyer St Construct Roundabout

1,200


Kelvin Rd - Stage 1&2 - Stebbing St to Bickley Rd to Tonkin Hwy

844


Garden St Extension - Warton Rd to S/River Rd - DDRC

20


TPS17 - Garden St Extension - Warton Rd to S/River Rd - DDRC

20


Nicholson Rd - Garden St to Hughes St

34,332


51


Credit$


Nicholson Rd - Birnam Rd to Hughes St

8,441


Canning Vale ODP - Nicholson Rd - Birnam Rd to Hughes St

273,425


Spencer Rd – Road Rehabilitation

1,000


Warton Rd – Road Rehabilitation

9,191


Nicholson Rd – Road Rehabilitation

65,122


Land Acquisitions - Various

39


Realign Cricket Pitch - Mills Reserve

5,444


Kelvin Road Waste Disposal Site - Rehabilitation Project

5,473


Landfill Site Rehabilitation Reserve

5,473


Ellis Brook Valley Walkway - Area Assistance Grants Scheme

2,213


General Riverfront Rehabilitation (Hester Park)

26,200

15-60058-1471 Decrease Capital Income

Capital Contribution - General Riverfront Rehabilitation (Hester Park)

26,200


Peace Court Park 1,858


Baker Court Reserve 6,612


Tom Bateman Wetlands 3,092


Gosnells Sporting Oval Upgrade bore & pump

27,483


Greenway Reserve - Play Equipment Rubber Softfall & Sails

11,405


Hovea Pl - Play Equipment, Rubber Softfall & Sails

373


52


Credit$


Langford Oval -Asset Refurbishment

93,097


Landscaping Works - Various Parks

4,434


Osprey Reserve - New Reticulation System

30,976


Repairs, Sealing, Signage etc. Various Parks

2,402


Peace Court Park - linear park Tonkin Hwy to Alcock St

183


Playground Play Equipment/Shade Structures - Various Parks

8,601


Sutherlands Park Reserve (Replace bollard fencing)

3,245


Ellis Brook Valley - Sealing of Picnic Area Carpark

3,236


Tom Bateman Reserve - Replace Controller with Central Maxicom

2,186


Lexington Reserve - Playground at The Avenues

1,062


CV ODP POS - Lexington Reserve - Playground at The Avenues

1,062


Sutherlands Park Shade Provision

8,521


Sutherland Park Reserve

7,416


Westfield Reserve - Wheeled Sports Facility

192,484


Madd\Ken - Westfield St Reserve - Wheeled Sports Facility

79,520


Harmony Fields (Stage 2)

64,511


Harmony Fields 64,511


Jean Garvey Park - Wheeled Sports Facility

13,727


53


Credit$

12-60082-1355 Decrease Capital Income

Grant - Jean Garvey Park - Wheeled Sports Facility

89,327


Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

15,554


Walter Padbury Reserve - Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

15,554


Capital Contribution - Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

13,000


Capital Grant - Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

13,000


Astley Street – Footpath Construction

1,173


Kelvin Rd PTA Footpath Construction

2,300


SE66-Perth Bicycle Network

16,209


Gross Pollutant Traps 43,240


Lakeside Dr Reserve - Drainage

40,090


Corfield St/King St Drainage

17,216


Corfield St/Goodall St Drainage Upgrade

1,344


Federation Parade South - Stage 1

8,571


Town Centre Reserve - Federation Parade South - Stage 1

8,931


Town Square – Town Centre Revitalisation

3,346


Town Centre Reserve - Town Square – Town Centre Revitalisation

3,346


Pioneer Park Upgrade – Town Centre Revitalisation

354,515


Town Centre Reserve - Pioneer Park Upgrade – Town Centre Revitalisation

261,155


54


Credit$


Capital Grant - Pioneer Park Upgrade – Town Centre Revitalisation

125,000


Programme Development Admin – Furniture & Equipment

1,715


Records Management – Furniture & Equipment

222


Purchase Part Lot 75 Comrie Road

224,800


Canning Vale ODP POS - Purchase Part Lot 75 Comrie Road

221,300


Retention Payment 31,930


Leisure world Reserve 31,930

33-1360-2032 Increase Transfer to Reserve

Transfer to Harmony Fields Reserve

1,310,880


Transfer to Building Construction Reserve

33,173


Iveco Acco F2350G/285 - Truck

265,000


Plant & Equipment Reserve

230,000

13-30375-1501 Increase Sale Proceeds

Sale Proceeds – Trade for Iveco Acco F2350G/285 - Truck

35,000


Isuzu 3 Tonne D/C Truck

38,270



20,770


Sale Proceeds – Trade for Isuzu 3 Tonne D/C Truck

17,500


Mitsubishi 3 Tonne D/C Truck

38,270



20,770


Sale Proceeds – Trade for Mitsubishi 3 Tonne D/C Truck

17,500


55


Credit$


Toyota 3 Tonne D/C Truck

34,000



19,500


Sale Proceeds – Trade for Toyota 3 Tonne D/C Truck

14,500


Heavy Duty Trailer 11,000



10,000


Sale Proceeds – Trade for Heavy Duty Trailer

1,000


Ford Econovan 22,000



9,000


Sale Proceeds Trade for Ford Econovan

13,000





9,000



13,000





9,000



13,000





9,000



13,000


Ransomes TG3400 5 Gang Mower

55,000



40,000


56


Credit$


Sale Proceeds Trade for Gang Mower

15,000


Toro Groundsmaster 3500D Mower

36,000



36,000


Toro Groundsmaster 3500D Mower

36,000



32,000


Sale Proceeds – Trade for Toro Groundsmaster 3500D Mower

4,000


Toro 3280 Rear Discharge Mower

27,000



22,500


Sale Proceeds trade for Toro 3280 Rear Discharge Mower

4,500



27,000



22,500


Sale Proceeds – trade for Toro 3280 Rear Discharge Mower

4,500

99-9999-9600 Increase to Accumulated Surplus

Equity 2,164,204

99-9999-9600 Increase to Closing Surplus

Equity 996,340


630 Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr J Henderson



Credit$

90.90300.3384 Crime Prevention Plan 6,77590.90300.3384 Kids out of crime 4,39090.90300.3384 Car theft programme 11,72790.90300.3384 Advertising 2,00090.90300.3384 Stationery 981


57


Credit$

90-90511-3384 Sensor Lights in Senior Homes

2,155

90-90511-3384 Sensor Lights in Senior Homes

2,500

90-90511-3384 Smoke detector & Batteries 45490-90513-3384 Sensor Lights in Senior

Homes2,500

90-90513-3384 Smoke detector & Batteries 45490-90513-3384 Smoke detector & Batteries 46690-90400-3384 Meals on Wheels 30,31890-90502.3384 Inclusive Recreation Service 5,24590-90101-3384 Parent Workshops 15,49990-90101-3384 Parent Workshops 8,48190-90101-3384 Indigenous Youth 1,20090-90506-3384 GST on grants not paid 22,59031.1051.3384 Rebate – Cool or Cosy 80092-91101-3384 Orange Room Exhibit 19,00091-92309-3384 Community sponsorship 25,52040-0510-3384 Fire Management 28,47940-0530-3384 Emergency Management 9,63131-95010-3384 Consultancy – Madd/Ken 19,53532-1060-3384 ODP Martin 10,00040-40210-3384 MGB Plant Reserve 248,29411-50000-3384 New Business Systems 170,62812-10042-3384 CCTV Security Systems -

Upgrade14,941

12-10035-3384 Equity Access Programme - Upgrade

6,463

12-10029-3384 Administration Building - Phase 1

67,908

12-10029-2411 Admin Building Reserve 67,90812-10026-3384 New Operations Centre -

Phase 127,213

12-10026-2416 Operations Centre Reserve 27,21312-10038-3384 Addie Mills Centre Gazebo

Construction8,272

12-10039-3384 Fit-out of The Agonis Cafe 6612-10039-2405 Building Construction

Reserve66

14-80041-3384 Yale Rd Bicycle Lane - Spencer Rd to Garden St Traffic Management

19,700

14-80042-3385 Fremantle Rd to Lissiman St - Anti skid treatment & improve signage

1,320

14-80043-3385 William St ChannelisationConversion of William St

8,607

14-80044-3384 Warton Rd - Amherst Rd Intersection

16,988

14-80044-2506 Canning Vale ODP - Warton Rd - Amherst Rd Intersection

16,988

14-80082-1359 State Blackspot Grant 24,00014-80045-3384 Garden St/Forest Lakes Dr

Traffic Signals64,250


58


Credit$

14-80046-3384 Ranford Rd/Campbell Rd Traffic Lights

2,050

14-80049-3384 Matilda St Pedestrian Island Modification

3,150

14-80083-1359 State Blackspot Grant 2,67014-80054-3384 Brixton St Pedestrian Island 2,50914-80048-3384 Nicholson Rd / Amherst Rd -

Install Traffic Control Signal6,982

14-80056-3384 Nicholson Rd / Yale Rd to Birnam Rd - Improve Street Lighting

1,355

14-80057-3384 Yale Rd / Hargrave Dr - Construct Median Islands

3,727

14-80084-1359 State Blackspot Grant 3,20014-80085-3384 Spencer Rd / View Ave -

Install Splitter & Seagull Island

860

14-80085-1359 State Blackspot Grant 2,40014-80060-3384 Attfield St/Herbert St

Construct Roundabout1,498

14-80062-3384 Nicholson Rd/Wilfred Rd Install Left Turn Lane

1,088

14-80064-3384 Harry St/James St Construct Roundabout

2,458

14-80065-3384 Williams St/Luyer St Construct Roundabout

1,200

14-80066-3384 Kelvin Rd - Stage 1&2 - Stebbing St to Bickley Rd to Tonkin Hwy

844

14-80067-3384 Garden St Extension - Warton Rd to S/River Rd - DDRC

20

14-80067-2504 TPS17 - Garden St Extension - Warton Rd to S/River Rd - DDRC

20

14-80068-3384 Nicholson Rd - Garden St to Hughes St

34,332

14-80071-3384 Nicholson Rd - Birnam Rd to Hughes St

8,441

14-80071-2506 Canning Vale ODP - Nicholson Rd - Birnam Rd to Hughes St

273,425

14-84027-3384 Spencer Rd – Road Rehabilitation

1,000

14-84028-3384 Warton Rd – Road Rehabilitation

9,191

14-84029-3384 Nicholson Rd – Road Rehabilitation

65,122

14-80024-3384 Land Acquisitions - Various 3915-60054-3384 Realign Cricket Pitch - Mills

Reserve5,444

15-60055-3384 Kelvin Road Waste Disposal Site - Rehabilitation Project

5,473

15-60055-2403 Landfill Site Rehabilitation Reserve

5,473


59


Credit$

15-60057-3384 Ellis Brook Valley Walkway - Area Assistance Grants Scheme

2,213

15-60058-3384 General Riverfront Rehabilitation (Hester Park)

26,200

15-60058-1471 Capital Contribution - General Riverfront Rehabilitation (Hester Park)

26,200

15-60059-3384 Peace Court Park 1,85815-60060-3384 Baker Court Reserve 6,61215-60061-3384 Tom Bateman Wetlands 3,09215-60062-3384 Gosnells Sporting Oval

Upgrade bore & pump27,483

15-60063-3384 Greenway Reserve - Play Equipment Rubber Softfall & Sails

11,405

15-60064-3384 Hovea Pl - Play Equipment, Rubber Softfall & Sails

373

15-60091-3384 Langford Oval -Asset Refurbishment

93,097

15-60065-3384 Landscaping Works - Various Parks

4,434

15-60067-3384 Osprey Reserve - New Reticulation System

30,976

15-60068-3384 Repairs, Sealing, Signage etc. Various Parks

2,402

15-60069-3384 Peace Court Park - linear park Tonkin Hwy to Alcock St

183

15-60070-3384 Playground Play Equipment/Shade Structures - Various Parks

8,601

15-60071-3384 Sutherlands Park Reserve (Replace bollard fencing)

3,245

15-60073-3384 Ellis Brook Valley - Sealing of Picnic Area Carpark

3,236

15-60074-3384 Tom Bateman Reserve - Replace Controller with Central Maxicom

2,186

15-60076-3384 Lexington Reserve - Playground at The Avenues

1,062

15-60076-2400 CV ODP POS - Lexington Reserve - Playground at The Avenues

1,062

15-60077-3384 Sutherlands Park Shade Provision

8,521

15-60077-2413 Sutherland Park Reserve 7,41612-60080-3384 Westfield Reserve - Wheeled

Sports Facility 192,484

12-60080-2412 Madd\Ken - Westfield St Reserve - Wheeled Sports Facility

79,520

12-60081-3384 Harmony Fields (Stage 2) 64,51112-60081-2409 Harmony Fields 64,51112-60082-3384 Jean Garvey Park - Wheeled

Sports Facility13,727


60


Credit$

12-60082-1355 Grant - Jean Garvey Park - Wheeled Sports Facility

89,327

12-60090-3384 Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

15,554

12-60090-2417 Walter Padbury Reserve - Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

15,554

12-60090-1479 Capital Contribution - Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

13,000

12-60090-1367 Capital Grant - Berehaven Oval - Upgrade of Floodlighting

13,000

14-85011-3384 Astley Street – Footpath Construction

1,173

14-85012-3384 Kelvin Rd PTA Footpath Construction

2,300

14-87012-3384 SE66-Perth Bicycle Network 16,20914-88001-3384 Gross Pollutant Traps 43,24014-88005-3384 Lakeside Dr Reserve -

Drainage40,090

14-88006-3384 Corfield St/King St Drainage 17,21614-88007-3384 Corfield St/Goodall St

Drainage Upgrade1,344

14-80074-3384 Federation Parade South - Stage 1

8,571

14-80074-2406 Town Centre Reserve - Federation Parade South - Stage 1

8,931

15-60084-3384 Town Square – Town Centre Revitalisation

3,346

15-60084-2406 Town Centre Reserve - Town Square – Town Centre Revitalisation

3,346

15-60085-3384 Pioneer Park Upgrade – Town Centre Revitalisation

354,515

15-60085-2406 Town Centre Reserve - Pioneer Park Upgrade – Town Centre Revitalisation

261,155

15-60085-1355 Capital Grant - Pioneer Park Upgrade – Town Centre Revitalisation

125,000

12-50035-3384 Programme Development Admin – Furniture & Equipment

1,715

12-50036-3384 Records Management – Furniture & Equipment

222

10-10041-3384 Purchase Part Lot 75 Comrie Road

224,800

10-10041-2400 Canning Vale ODP POS - Purchase Part Lot 75 Comrie Road

221,300

16-10040-3384 Retention Payment 31,93016-10040-2401 Leisure world Reserve 31,93033-1360-2032 Transfer to Harmony Fields

Reserve1,310,880


61


Credit$

33-1360-2019 Transfer to Building Construction Reserve

33,173

13-30375-3800 Iveco Acco F2350G/285 - Truck

265,000

13-30375-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 230,00013-30375-1501 Sale Proceeds – Trade for

Iveco Acco F2350G/285 - Truck

35,000

13-30197-3800 Isuzu 3 Tonne D/C Truck 38,27013-30197-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 20,77013-30197-1501 Sale Proceeds – Trade for

Isuzu 3 Tonne D/C Truck17,500

13-30205-3800 Mitsubishi 3 Tonne D/C Truck

38,270

13-30205-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 20,77013-30205-1501 Sale Proceeds – Trade for

Mitsubishi 3 Tonne D/C Truck

17,500

13-30207-3800 Toyota 3 Tonne D/C Truck 34,00013-30207-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 19,50013-30207-1501 Sale Proceeds – Trade for

Toyota 3 Tonne D/C Truck14,500

13-30154-3800 Heavy Duty Trailer 11,00013-30154-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 10,00013-30154-1501 Sale Proceeds – Trade for

Heavy Duty Trailer1,000

13-30376-3800 Ford Econovan 22,00013-30376-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 9,00013-30376-1501 Sale Proceeds Trade for

Ford Econovan13,000


Ford Econovan13,000


Ford Econovan13,000


Ford Econovan13,000

13-30374-3800 Ransomes TG3400 5 Gang Mower

55,000

13-30374-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 40,00013-30374-1501 Sale Proceeds Trade for

Gang Mower15,000

13-30366-3800 Toro Groundsmaster 3500D Mower

36,000

13-30366-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 36,00013-30367-3800 Toro Groundsmaster 3500D

Mower36,000

13-30367-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 32,000


62


Credit$

13-30367-1501 Sale Proceeds – Trade for Toro Groundsmaster 3500D Mower

4,000

13-30368-3800 Toro 3280 Rear Discharge Mower

27,000

13-30368-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 22,50013-30368-1501 Sale Proceeds trade for Toro

3280 Rear Discharge Mower4,500

13-30369-3800 Toro 3280 Rear Discharge Mower

27,000

13-30369-2407 Plant & Equipment Reserve 22,50013-30369-1501 Sale Proceeds – trade for


4,500

99-9999-9600 Equity 2,164,20499-9999-9600 Equity 996,340


AGAINST: Nil.


63

The Mayor advised the meeting that she, Cr C Matison, Cr J Henderson and Cr R Hoffman, due to being members of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

13.3.4 2006/2007 BUDGET – YEAR END SURPLUSAuthor: F SullivanPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT


DISCUSSION

The 2005/2006 annual financial statements have now been audited and the actual income and expenditure to be carried forward has been finalised. After all adjustments are processed, an additional $635,369 has become available.

The largest proportion of the savings were generated from over-budget revenue from building fees and under-budget salaries and wages due to many positions not being filled due to the labour shortage currently being experienced.





It is recommended by the Executive Team that the following budget adjustments be made to allocate the savings from the 2005/2006 financial year

The adjustments now required to amend the 2006/2007 Budget are listed hereunder and require Council approval:



Credit$


Financial Management Review

17,500


Yale Rd Bicycle Lane - Spencer Rd to Garden StTraffic Management

19,700


Garden St/Forest Lakes Dr Traffic Signals

62,000


64


Credit$


Nicholson Rd - Garden St to Hughes St

82,000

14-80085.3384 Increase Capital Expenditure

Spencer Rd / View Ave - Lines and Signs

1,290


Hicks St and Holland St - Lines and Signs

2,195


Thornlie Ave - Lines and Signs

4,385


Brixton St - Lines and Signs 916


Spencer Rd / Thornlie Ave - Install Left Turn Slip LaneState Black Spot

1,418


Gosnells Town Centre Banners

20,000


Financial Sustainability Consult

15,000


Westfield St Park 85,000


Centennial Celebrations 10,000


HR Advertising 2,000










Tom Bateman Complex Pavilion

185,000


Admin Building Reserve 116,965

99-9999-9600 Increase to Opening Surplus

Equity 635,369


65





Credit$

71-1417-3384 Financial Management Review 17,50014-80041-3384 Yale Rd Bicycle Lane -

Spencer Rd to Garden StTraffic Management

19,700

14-80045-3384 Garden St/Forest Lakes Dr Traffic Signals

62,000

14-80068-3384 Nicholson Rd - Garden St to Hughes St

82,000

14-80085.3384 Spencer Rd / View Ave - Lines and Signs

1,290

14-80086-3384 Hicks St and Holland St - Lines and Signs

2,195

14-80087-3384 Thornlie Ave - Lines and Signs 4,38514-80054-3384 Brixton St - Lines and Signs 91614-80088-3384 Spencer Rd / Thornlie Ave -

Install Left Turn Slip LaneState Black Spot

1,418

12-50038-3384 Gosnells Town Centre Banners

20,000

10-1410-3384 Financial Sustainability Consult

15,000

12-60080-3384 Westfield St Park 85,00094-94010-3384 Centennial Celebrations 10,00040-1413-3384 HR Advertising 2,00050-1414-3384 HR Advertising 2,00060-1422-3384 HR Advertising 2,00030-1430-3384 HR Advertising 2,00070-1416-3384 HR Advertising 4,00012-10028-3384 Tom Bateman Complex

Pavilion185,000

71-1417-2619 Admin Building Reserve 116,96599-9999-9600 Equity 635,369


AGAINST: Nil.


66

13.4 INFRASTRUCTURE

13.4.1 TENDER 25/2006 – MANUFACTURE, SUPPLY AND DELIVERY OF 240 LITRE AND/OR 120/140 LITRE MOBILE GARBAGE BINS

Author: D DentonPrevious Ref: OCM 22 August 2006 – Revoked 26 September 2006

(Resolution 490)OCM 26 September 2006 (Resolutions 490 and 491)

Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of issues in relation to Tender 25/2006 – Manufacture, Supply and Delivery of 240 Litre and/or 120/140 Litre Mobile Garbage Bins.

BACKGROUND

Tender 25/2006 was advertised on 24 June 2006 and closed on 11 July 2006. The submissions were evaluated and a report, with a recommendation, was presented to Council on 22 August 2006. When the Manager Purchasing Services contacted the successful tenderer (GC Sales (WA) Pty Ltd) to arrange the signing of the contract, he was advised by the tenderer that they had made a pricing error in relation to the supply of 240 litre mobile garbage bins and that they could not supply the bins at the quoted price.

A further report was presented to Council on 26 September 2006 informing Council of this issue recommending that Council Resolution 417 be revoked and that the contract be awarded to an alternative tenderer. Accordingly, Council adopted Resolutions 490 and 491 which read:

Resolution 490

“That Council revoke Resolution 417 of the 22 August 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting which reads:

That Council award Tender 25/2006 – Manufacture, Supply and Delivery of 240 Litre and/or 120/140 Litre Mobile Garbage Bins to GC Sales (WA) Pty Ltd, PO Box 3381, Malaga DC WA 6954 for a two year period commencing 1 September 2006 for the following prices and that the purchase be funded from Account Number 52-1010-3132 – Mobile Garbage Bin Plant and Equipment Reserve Fund:

240 L Mobile Garbage Bins $38.87 each140 L Mobile Garbage Bins $37.10 each120 L Mobile Garbage Bins $39.38 eachLids $10.40 eachWheels $5.00 eachAxles $5.00 eachLid pins $0.30 each

”


67

Resolution 491

“That Council award Tender 25/2006 – Manufacture, Supply and Delivery of 240 Litre and/or 120/140 Litre Mobile Garbage Bins to Cleansweep, 7 Bulbey Street, Bellvue WA 6056 for a two year period commencing 27 September 2006 for the following prices and that the purchases be funded from Account Number 52-1010-3132 – Mobile Garbage Bin Plant and Equipment Reserve Fund:

240 L Mobile Garbage Bins $38.90 each140 L Mobile Garbage Bins $37.10 each120 L Mobile Garbage Bins $33.50 eachLids $8.80 eachWheels $3.65 eachAxles $3.95 eachLid Pins $0.40 each

”In accordance with Council’s resolution the contract with Cleansweep was signed on 29 September 2006.

DISCUSSION

Since the Council decision of 26 September 2006, the City has been contacted by the supplier of bins to one of the unsuccessful tenderers advising the report contained potentially misleading and erroneous information.

The persons providing this information expressed concern that:

Council was intentionally or unintentionally provided with misleading and erroneous information in a deliberate attempt to influence its decision; and

If the act was intentional, it should be referred to the Australian Crime and Corruption Commission (ACCC) for determination.

The section of the staff report to Council on 26 September 2006 that is under question is as follows:

“Staff research indicates that the bins offered by Cleansweep are manufactured by Ossie Plastics Australia, formerly known as Otto Plastics, which have a reputation similar to that of Sulo or Nylex bins and consider the bins to be extremely robust...” (Page 70 of the Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes)

Subsequent investigations by staff have revealed that:

1. Ossie Plastics Australia does not exist as a company – the company is actually called Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd and that company was never formerly known as Otto Plastics.

2. Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd do not actually manufacture bins, they import them from a third party from Malaysia.


68

Council’s solicitors have made several recommendations as follows:

“1. As soon as possible communicate in writing with Cleansweep requesting answers to the following questions:

(a) Whether there is a connection and if so what connection between Ossie plastics Systems Pty Ltd and Ossie Plastics Australia?

(b) Whether there is any connection between Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd and Otto Plastics Pty Ltd?

(c) Whether the bins Cleansweep tendered to supply are or will be manufactured in Australia or whether they are or will be manufactured in some other country and if so what other country and by what manufacturer?

2. Communicate with Mastec Australia Pty Ltd acknowledging that the matters they have raised are being considered, and if appropriate any inaccuracies in the information supplied to Council at its meeting of 26 September will be drawn to Council’s attention.

3. When you are clear on the relevant facts, you should report the matter as soon as possible to Council. If it is the Administration’s view on all of the facts including those ascertained as recommended above, and are not of such a nature as to justify Council in seeking to reverse the awarding of the Tender to Cleansweep, then the matter should be recommended accordingly. If on carrying out the investigations recommended above and on considering all the relevant facts it is considered that the Council should seek to terminate the awarding of the contract to Cleansweep, then the matter should be reported and recommended to Council accordingly.”

In accordance with Council’s solicitor’s recommendations, correspondence was sent to Cleansweep on 12 October 2006 requesting responses to the above questions. A response by Cleansweep was received on 5 December 2006, stating that:

“1. They have an association with Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd and are not aware of Ossie Plastics Australia.

2. Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd purchase bins from Otto Asia Pacific and on sell them to other suppliers such as Cleansweep.

3. The bins are manufactured in Malaysia by a joint venture including Otto Asia Pacific.”

Council staff enquired as to whether there were two independent companies – Ossie Plastics Australia and Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd and it has been revealed that there is no company named Ossie Plastics Australia. However the name does appear on the web site of Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd and it is from there that the error in the report was made.


69

At the time of writing the report to Council on 26 September 2006 Council staff were verbally informed by the Cleansweep representative that the bins came from Ossie Plastics (full name not used) and that they were known in the past as Otto Plastics. This verbal advice was accepted in “good faith’, without its authenticity being verified and included in the report because Otto Plastics did have a respected name in the waste industry as manufacturing bins that were robust and extremely hard wearing.

Although it now appears that the verbal information was wrong, there is no evidence to indicate it was provided with the intention to directly deceive Council as the person providing that information had no way of knowing the content of the report.

It should be noted that the ACCC did make tentative enquiries with Council staff to ascertain if a more detailed investigation was warranted but have determined it to be a “non-issue” and decided to take no further action.

The legal advice indicates that Council has the option of reversing the awarding of the contract to Cleansweep or allowing the contract to stand. It is the opinion of Council staff that, considering the bins supplied by Cleansweep appear to be well made and more than “fit for purpose” and cheaper than their rivals, Council should note the contents of the report and allow Resolution 491 of the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 September 2006 to stand.

Recently, Cleansweep has severed its association with Ossie Plastics Systems Pty Ltd and imports the bins direct from the overseas manufacturer. This will not alter the quality, price or specifications of their accepted tender.


Nil.


632 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council note the report pertaining to Tender 25/2006 – Manufacture, Supply and Delivery of 240 Litre and/or 120/140 Litre Mobile Garbage Bins and reaffirm its decision of September 2006 (Resolution 491) to award the contract to Cleansweep of 7 Bulbey Street, Bellvue WA 6056.


AGAINST: Nil.


70

13.4.2 TENDER 51/2006 – CONSTRUCTION OF EXTENSIONS AT TOM BATEMAN PAVILION

Author: J BrowningPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of submissions received in relation to Tender 51/2006 – Construction of Extensions at Tom Bateman Pavilion, and recommend the most advantageous tender for the purpose of awarding a contract.

BACKGROUND

Tenders were advertised in The West Australian newspaper on Saturday 30 September 2006 and closed on 26 October 2006 to select a contractor to construct extensions to the existing Tom Bateman Pavilion One.

Submissions were received from the following three companies:

Company Name AddressRobinson Buildtech 38 McCoy Street, Myaree WA 6154BGC Construction Pty Ltd PO Box 7223 Cloisters Square WA 6850 Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd PO Box 1052 East Victoria Park WA 6981

DISCUSSION

An assessment of the submissions was undertaken in accordance with the tender documentation and is shown in the matrix below.

Tenderers were requested to provide information in response to qualitative and compliance selection criteria.

Each company provided satisfactory responses against the compliance criteria relating to financial position and occupational safety and health and progressed to the qualitative assessment where their responses were scored and weighted as shown below:

Tenderer Relevant company

experience

Experience of key

personnel

Company capacity

OSH Price Total score

Possible score 20% 15% 20% 5% 40% 100%

Robinson Buildtech 8 9 8 3 $1,448,410.20 30.32 58.32

BGC Construction Pty Ltd

16 12 12 5 $1,365,854.00 32.15 77.15

Dalcon Construction Pty Ltd

12 6 12 3 $1,098,014.00 40 73


71

Robinson Buildtech provided an acceptable submission with details of previous projects that were not of a similar nature or value having mainly concentrated on maintenance work.

BGC Construction Pty Ltd achieved the highest score by identifying many previous projects of a similar nature, offering experienced key staff that will manage the project, demonstrating that they have the capacity to complete the project and excellent safety and health systems.

Dalcon Constructions provided an acceptable submission identifying some previous work of a similar nature, however they did not provide details of experienced personnel.

Due to BGC Construction’s demonstration of experience and capacity to undertake this project they are the preferred contractor, however their tendered price was above the allocated budget for this project.

The budget allocation for this project was based on two independent estimates provided by a Quantity Surveyor and an Architect in October 2005 at $997,000. Since this estimate was provided the construction industry in Perth has experienced continued high demand and prices have continued to rise at approximately one per cent per month giving a current estimate of $1,136,580. The original specification for this project was also expanded to include air conditioning in the function and office areas in an attempt to construct the facility to current standards, which has further increased the costs.

Reduction of the scope of work was investigated in order to bring this project within the existing budget such as removal of the air conditioning and removal of the covered viewing area. Any removal of this scale will detract from the design of the facility and deliver a product less than an acceptable standard for a modern day facility of this type.


This project is included in the Capital Works budget with an allocation of $997,000, which includes Department of Sport and Recreation funding and club contributions.

There is also $177,800 allocated in the budget to relocate the playground at Tom Bateman Reserve closer to the Wetlands as proposed in the Master Plan for this reserve. This work cannot proceed until Wilfred Road is realigned.

Total costs to date on this project for design and preliminary work is approximately $65,000 and if the preferred tender is accepted the total project cost including overheads (3%) will be $1,500,000.

It will be recommended that this project be funded from the $997,000 original budget, with the $177,800 allocated for the playground relocation, plus $140,000 from the Building Construction Reserve and the balance of $185,000 coming from the 2005/2006 budget surplus.

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 2)


72

Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council approve the following budget variation to enable the allocation of funds to Job Number 12-10028 Tom Bateman Complex Pavilion:

Account Description Debit CreditJob 12-10028-3800-000 Tom Bateman Complex

Pavilion$502,800

Job 15-60004-3800-000 Tom Batemen– Relocation of Playground

$177,800

Job 12-10028-2405-000 Building Construction Reserve

$140,000

2005 / 2006 Budget Surplus

2005 / 2006 Budget Surplus

$185,000

(ABSOLUTE MAJORITY REQUIRED)


Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council award Tender No 51/2006 – Construction of Extensions at Tom Bateman Pavilion to BGC Construction Pty Ltd, PO Box 7223 Cloisters Square WA 6850 at the tender price of $1,365,854.00.

Amendment

During debate the Mayor read aloud the following amendment to staff recommendation (1 of 2), which Cr J Brown moved and Cr R Hoffman seconded:

“That staff recommendation (1 of 2) be amended by deleting the numerals “$502,800” where they appear in the “Debit” column of the first row and substituting them with the numerals “$317,800”, and deleting the fourth row in its entirety including all wording and numerals.”

The following written reason for the proposed amendment was provided:

“To more accurately reflect the budget variation required as the allocation of $185,000 funding for the Tom Bateman Complex Pavilion has been addressed at item 13.3.4 in this agenda.”

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr Brown’s proposed amendment, which reads:


73

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That staff recommendation (1 of 2) be amended by deleting the numerals “$502,800” where they appear in the “Debit” column of the first row and substituting them with the numerals “$317,800”, and deleting the fourth row in its entirety including all wording and numerals, with the amended recommendation to read:


Account Description Debit CreditJob 12-10028-3800-000 Tom Bateman

Complex Pavilion$317,800


$177,800


$140,000



The amendment was put and carried with the amendment becoming the substantive motion. The Mayor then put the substantive motion, which reads:

Amended Staff Recommendation (1 of 2):

COUNCIL RESOLUTION



Account Description Debit CreditJob 12-10028-3800-000 Tom Bateman Complex

Pavilion$317,800


$177,800


$140,000

CARRIED BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.



74

The Mayor then put staff recommendation (2 of 2) which reads:


634 Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council award Tender No 51/2006 – Construction of Extensions at Tom Bateman Pavilion to BGC Construction Pty Ltd, PO Box 7223 Cloisters Square WA 6850 at the tender price of $1,365,854.00.




75

13.4.3 STANDARD LEASE AND LICENCE DOCUMENTATIONAuthor: J FlatowPrevious Ref: OCM 19 December 2000 (Resolutions 1058 and 1059)

OCM 13 June 2006 (Resolutions 265 to 267)Appendix: 13.4.3A Lease

13.4.3B Single User Licence (Annual)13.4.3C Shared Facility Licence (Annual)13.4.3D Single User Licence (Seasonal)13.4.3E Shared Facility Licence (Seasonal)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek Council approval to adopt a revised suite of standard lease and licence documentation that reflects changed needs and management practises.

BACKGROUND

On 19 December 2000 (Resolutions 1058 and 1059) Council adopted a set of standard lease and licence documentation which has served the City well in simplifying and streamlining the various tenancy arrangements. On 13 June 2006 Council agreed (Resolutions 265 to 267) to amend this documentation by deleting the option for lessees to insure the leased facilities and for Council to undertake this responsibility and to increase the rent to accommodate this cost. In addition, in response to the size of successful public liability claims in the public sector a minimum of $10 million public liability cover is required of all lessees and licensees of Council facilities. Interim transitional arrangements were also put in place for existing lessees (licensees are not responsible for building insurance) who elected to insure their leased facilities.

DISCUSSION

The adopted standard documentation has stood the test of time and is certainly worthy of continuing with the principle, but like most documents of this nature requires revision from time to time.

The methodology adopted in the design of the original documents is planned to be continued but changes are required to acknowledge:

Practical experience in the operation and interpretation of some existing clauses

Improved management practices

A small number of errors in the original documentation

Amended manner of legal wording in some instances

Council solicitors who prepared the original documentation were appointed to undertake the revision process. Copies of the proposed revised documentation are attached as Appendices 13.4.3A – 13.4.3E. The proposed amendments are highlighted in colour.

A summary of the major changes are as follows:

Leases


76

Definitions

“CPI Adjusted Rent”. Amended to reflect that “rent subgroup” is no longer available and replaced with Perth All Groups category.

“Fixtures and fittings”. Correction of typographical error.

Clause 3.6 - Maintain and repair premises

Amending the phrase “good and substantial repair, order and condition” with “good repair” which is also defined and appears elsewhere in the standard document.

Improving the wording to make it clear that the lessee is responsible for all maintenance resulting from its own actions of negligence or inaction.

Requiring when stated trade repairs are undertaken that only qualified trades people can be used.

Adding a requirement that the lessee shall paint the premises at least once every 10 years or in any event during the last 3 months of tenancy. See also Schedule 1 Item 11.

Clause 3.9 - Alterations and installations

Make it clearer that the City can require the lessee to replace window treatments prior to the expiration of the lease.

Clause 3.11 - No Transferring, sub-leasing and parting with possession

Improved and more appropriate legal wording.

Clause 3.14 - Public risk insurance

Acknowledging that Public Liability Insurance is difficult to obtain in joint names.

Clause 3.15 - Other insurance

Requiring the lessee to take out insurance for its assets.

Removing the option for the lessee to take out building insurance cover.

Schedule 1

Item 10 - Increasing public risk insurance from $5 million to $10 million.

Item 11 - Stating repainting dates.


77

Annual Single and Shared Licences

Definitions

Fixtures and fittings typographical correction and minor consequential amendments from other changes.

Clause 3.4 - Insurance

Acknowledging that Public Liability Insurance is difficult to obtain in joint names and increasing value to $10 million.

Clause 3.8 - Maintain and repair Licensed premises

Amending the phrase “good and substantial repair, order and condition” with “good repair” which is also defined and appears elsewhere in the standard documents.

Improving the wording to make it clear that the licensee is responsible for all maintenance resulting from its own actions of negligence or inaction.

Requiring when stated trade repairs are undertaken that only qualified trades people can be used.


Make it clearer that the City can require the licensee to replace window treatments prior to the expiration of the licence.

Clause 3.16 - Indemnities

Subsection (d) Correct legal wording.

Clause 3.22 - Tenant Brochure

Tenant Brochure no longer applicable, now referred to in Clause 3.8 as Annexure 3.

Clause 9.2 - Execution of deed of extension of licence

Legal costs of licence preparation made consistent with Clause 3.7 where the licensor meets half the cost.

Clause 13 - Goods and Services tax

Correction from lessee terminology to licensee.

Schedule

Standardising numbering system and adding repainting dates clause.


78

Seasonal Single and Shared Licences

Definitions

Fixtures and fittings typographical correction and minor consequential amendments from other changes.

Removal of Operating Committee requirement for Single User Licence.

Repainting dates not appropriate for seasonal licenses.

Clause 3.4 - Insurances

Acknowledging that Public Liability Insurance is difficult to obtain in joint names and increasing value to $10 million.

Clause 3.8 - Carpets and paint and decorate

Removing an inappropriate requirement that licensees have to replace carpets and repaint when using on a seasonal basis only.


Requiring when maintenance works are undertaken that must be by qualified trades people. (The requirements for seasonal users are not as stringent as for annual users).

Amending window treatment requirements so that a seasonal licensee is not responsible for replacement unless damage caused by licensee.

Clause 6

Removal of requirement for an Operational Committee for a Single User only.

Clause 12.2 - (Single) and 13.2 (Shared) Execution of deed of extension of licence

Legal costs of licence preparation made consistent with Clause 3.7 where the licensor meets half the cost.

Schedule

Standardising numbering system.

The only documentation used since the inception of the standard system is leases and annual licenses. There have been no seasonal or shared licences used to date, although there is likely to be a shared licence recommended to Council for the Clubs utilising the proposed Harmony Fields Sports Pavilion.


Nil.


79



That Council adopt amended standard Lease Agreement, Annual Single and Shared Facility Licences and Seasonal Single and Shared Facility Licences as base documents for future tenancy agreements in accordance with Appendices 13.4.3A – 13.4.3E.


AGAINST: Nil.


80

13.4.4 HIGHBURY CRESCENT RESIDENTIAL CELL, BECKENHAM – RE-OPENING OF HIGHBURY CRESCENT AT ALBANY HIGHWAY

Author: O PereiraReference: Highbury Crescent Road Reserve FilePrevious Ref: OCM 25 May 2004 (Resolution 247)

OCM 21 December 2004 (Resolution 751)OCM 14 February 2006 (Resolution 6)

Appendix: 13.4.4A Re-opening of Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway – Option 1

13.4.4B Cul-de-sac of Highbury Crescent – Option 2

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To advise Council of the cost associated with the re-opening of Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway, as per Council Resolution 6 of 14 February 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting.

BACKGROUND

Following a recommendation from the Beckenham Traffic Study conducted in April 2004 and adopted by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 25 May 2004 (Resolution 247), the City of Gosnells appointed Traffic and Transportation Consultant Garry Mason to undertake a review of the traffic and access arrangements for the Highbury Crescent residential cell, located south of Albany Highway and bounded by Nicholson Road, the Canning River and the Kenwick Link, to improve accessibility for local residents.

The Highbury Crescent Residential Cell, Beckenham – Traffic Review was presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting of 21 December 2004 (Resolution 751) with one of the recommendations being to review the access and egress for the Highbury Crescent area to improve the accessibility to the area for local residents.

A survey was sent out to all property owners and residents of the Highbury Crescent residential cell on 1 September 2005, providing options and requesting their preferred treatment for this area. The public feedback supported the opening of Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway, and to cul-de-sac Highbury Crescent.

Re-opening Highbury Crescent to Albany Highway without the installation of any other treatment will increase the volume of through traffic in Highbury Crescent and some motorists may use this route to avoid the traffic signals at the intersection of Nicholson Road and Albany Highway, which is undesirable. A proposal by the City to install speed humps in Highbury Crescent to deter through traffic was not supported by many residents.

While a number of traffic management options were presented to the community and Council for consideration, Council resolved to adopt an option which ensured a minimum standard of access to the area.

In order to ensure that the Highbury Crescent Residential Cell is provided with a minimum of two access points, at the Ordinary Council Meeting of 14 February 2006, Council adopted Resolution 6, which reads:


81

“That Council approve re-opening vehicle access to Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway, and modifications are to include:

1. Realignment of Highbury Crescent (North of Packer Street) to join Packer Street directly and Highbury Crescent (South of Packer Street) to join Packer Street as far south/east as possible as to become a “T” junction.

2. Appropriate signage to be installed at either end of Highbury Crescent (Albany Highway and Nicholson Road).

3. “Give Way” sign/s to be installed at the new “T” junction.

4. Traffic readings within the “Highbury Crescent Residential Cell” are to be taken at relevant times over the 12 months following project completion.

5. A survey of the “Highbury Crescent Residential Cell” to be conducted 12 months after project completion.

6. A report to be submitted to Council after traffic readings and survey are completed.”

DISCUSSION

When this item was originally under consideration by Council, it was recommended that $50,000 be listed for funding consideration in the 2005/2006 budget for road modifications in the Highbury Crescent area. In the 2005/2006 Budget $25,000 was allocated to this project with a further $25,000 in 2006/2007. When a detailed design of the re-opening was completed, as shown in Option 1 and attached as Appendix 13.4.4A, a detailed estimation of the costs associated with the above works was calculated to be $80,000, an increase of $30,000 over the budget provision. This increase in cost is due to the area of new road construction required to modify the junction being much larger than anticipated in the preliminary design. In addition to the road construction, it will also be necessary to install traffic control devices to reduce the attractiveness of the new route as a short cut from Albany Highway to Nicholson Road.

As a minimum, it is suggested that a section of the new road be constructed as a single lane only, with priority given to east-bound traffic, as shown in Option 1 (Appendix 13.4.4A). This alone will not deter through traffic as the number of vehicles exiting Highbury Crescent is not high, but it will assist. Further traffic control measures along Highbury Crescent may be required in the future, at an additional cost of $30,000.

There is a substantial increase in the cost to re-open vehicle access to Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway due to an increase in the area of new road construction required. Council Resolution 6 of the 14 February 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting makes provision for these modifications to be reviewed and a further report to be submitted to Council.

In addition to the design, in accordance with Council Resolution 6, an alternate design was produced which is based on the residents’ preferred treatment of modifying Highbury Crescent to a cul-de-sac, as chosen by residents of the Highbury Crescent Residential Cell. The cost of this alternative design is $70,000. The cost to convert the design in Option 2 (attached as Appendix 13.4.4B) to the alternate design is estimated


82

to be $25,000, with a further $10,000 required if the section of the single-lane carriageway is removed.

There is currently $160,900 in Council’s 2006/2007 Traffic Management budget, which is made up of the following projects:

2006/2007 Traffic Management Projects Cost EstimateHighbury Crescent – Re-open Road Access at Albany Highway $25,000Yale Road: Nicholson Road to Spencer Road – Install Raised and Painted Median Islands $70,000

Chamberlain Street: Southern River Road to Verna Street – Install Raised and Painted Median Islands $42,000

Astley Street/Gerald Street – Install Intersection Median Islands $11,900Discovery Drive/Voyager Drive – Install Pedestrian Refuge Island $12,000Total $160,900

Should Council support the increased costs to re-open vehicle access to Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway, then either some of the existing listed projects would need to be deferred or the increased funds listed for funding consideration in the 2007/2008 Budget.


To provide the increased costs to re-open vehicle access to Highbury Crescent at Albany Highway, funds would need to be sourced from the deferment of existing projects on Council’s 2006/2007 Traffic Management budget under Job 14.80019.3800, or alternatively the increased costs would have to be listed for 2007/2008 Budget consideration. It will be recommended that the latter option be adopted.


636 Moved Cr W Barrett Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council note the additional expenditure of $30,000 required to connect Highbury Crescent to Albany Highway, as detailed in Appendix 13.4.4A and approve the inclusion of the additional funds for consideration in the 2007/2008 Budget.




83

13.4.5 FUTURE ALIGNMENT OF TRANSMISSION LINES WITHIN THE LOCALITY OF SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: I BarkerPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.4.5A Adopted Southern River Precinct 2 Outline Development

Plan13.4.5B Proposed Alignment of Powerlines – Option 113.4.5C Proposed Alignment of Powerlines – Option213.4.5D Proposed Alignment of Powerlines – Option313.4.5E Proposed Alignment of Powerlines – Option4

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider the future alignment of transmission lines to provide electricity supplies to the locality of Southern River.

BACKGROUND

Western Power is currently seeking advice from the City of Gosnells and the City of Armadale on the proposed alignment of transmission lines within the locality of Southern River. This follows the installation of a new supply sub-station on Southern River Road to provide for a suitable power supply to enable the development of the area. The existing high voltage power lines in the area now require upgrading to provide the feeder circuit into the sub-station.

This report provides Council with the opportunity to select a preferred alignment for the future transmission lines.

DISCUSSION

A number of matters need to be considered by Council in selecting a preferred alignment for the future transmission lines, including:

Adoption of the revised Outline Development Plan (ODP) for Southern River Precinct 2

Impact on existing residents

Impact on residential properties, both existing and future

Environmental impacts

Cost implications to Western Power

Impact on future widening of important regional roads and access onto Southern River Road

To provide better continuity of power supply in the event of a disruption to the feeder line, Western Power is looking to provide more than one supply line to the sub-station.

The revised and adopted Southern River Precinct 2 ODP was progressed through normal statutory processes, including public advertising and referral to relevant government agencies, including Western Power. The revised ODP provided for an alternative road network which did not include the retention of Furley Road, which runs through the Southern River area from Balfour Street to Southern River Road and


84

Matison Street. A copy of the revised and adopted ODP is attached as Appendix 13.4.5A. Western Power did not make a submission during the advertising of the revised ODP. Council at its meeting of 10 October 2006 (Resolution 512) adopted the revised ODP pursuant to Clause 7.4.15 of Town Planning Scheme No 6. Western Power has since advised that its original planning allowed for a feed to the new sub-station from the existing 132 kV supply line in Furley Road running through the unmade section of Furley Road to Southern River Road and a second running along Southern River Road, as shown on the plan marked Option 1 and attached as Appendix 13.4.5B. This is Western Power’s preferred option, as it requires the shortest length of transmission lines and does not require the relocation of existing lines. The developer of the subdivision which would be affected by the overhead power lines in Furley Road does not support this option as it would adversely affect the existing planning of the subdivision layout.

With the proposed closure of Furley Road, Western Power has investigated alternative routes for the supply lines and is seeking comments from the City of Gosnells and City of Armadale on their proposed overhead supply line routes. The statutory processes for the closure of Furley Road have not yet concluded and will need to be presented to Council following an advertising period for public comment.

The preferred option of the City of Gosnells and City of Armadale Officers is Option 2, attached as Appendix 13.4.5C. From the west, it is proposed to install a double run of 132 kV overhead power lines along Skeet Road, Ranford Road and Southern River Road into and out of the new sub-station (refer to Appendix 13.4.5C). This will link in with the existing North/South power line to Furley Road at Skeet Road. From the south Western Power proposes to install a single 132kV overhead line along the northern boundary off Matison Street and then into the rear of the new sub-station. The existing 132 kV line from the East along Southern River Road will remain. This option will require the location of only one set of transmission lines in any road reserve and allow sufficient clearance to install street lights in each road reserve. Objections may be raised from the existing residents of Matison Street to the installation of a transmission line opposite their properties.

Option 3, attached as Appendix 13.4.5D, shows all mains running along Southern River Road. The existing line will remain in place in what will eventually be the median of the road, with a double circuit line constructed on the southern side of the road. This option is not supported, as it will provide a cluttered streetscape which will be very difficult to construct and illuminate as a dual carriageway due to the overhead lines. It will also be difficult or expensive to construct access roads onto Southern River Road from the adjoining land due to the number of poles.

Option 4, attached as Appendix 13.4.5E, shows the installation of the dual 132 kV line as an underground supply cable in the current Furley Road reserve. This would be cost prohibitive to Western Power, as undergrounding the cables costs $2 million per kilometre and would require either the retention of Furley Road or the creation of an alternative route and easement through the subdivision.

In addition to the road alignment issues, the land in the area has a number of environmental constraints, due to the proximity of Bush Forever sites and an Environmental Protection Policy wetland in the immediate vicinity of the power lines. These issues are further compounded by the proposed improvement of Southern River Road and Ranford Road to divided four-lane configuration. The power supply poles must therefore be placed to allow the construction of the road and any new road junctions proposed to allow the subdivisional development of the area, whilst having


85

minimal impact on the environment. It should be noted that the regional road reservation for Southern River Road has not been formally established under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). An amendment to the MRS to establish the road reservation may be the subject of formal environmental review by the Environmental Protection Authority.

The impact of the proposal to install the overhead line along Matison Street in front of existing residences must also be considered and it is suggested that Western Power should carry out a significant public notification and consultation programme to inform affected residents of the proposal.


There is no direct financial impact to Council in the selection of the routes of the power lines, provided that their location is designed to accommodate the dualling of Ranford Road and Southern River Road.


Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council support Western Power’s proposal to locate 132 kV supply lines along Ranford Road, Southern River Road and Matison Street, as shown on the plan Option 2, and attached as Appendix 13.4.5C, subject to Western Power conducting a satisfactory public consultation programme.

Amendment

The Mayor read aloud the following amendment to the staff recommendation which Cr R Hoffman moved and Cr J Brown seconded:

“That the staff recommendation be amended by inserting the words “, subject to the option of locating the 132 kV power supply line through Lot 1770 Southern River Road, Southern River being considered by the appropriate authorities,” after the word “Council” where it appears in the first line.”

Additional Motion

The Mayor read aloud the following additional motion which Cr C Matison moved and Cr S Iwanyk seconded:

“That Council authorise the Director Infrastructure to negotiate with Western Power for an option of locating the 132 kV power supply line through Lot 1770 Southern River Road, Southern River.”

The following written reason for the proposed amendment and additional motion was provided:

“To enable an additional option to be considered for locating the 132 kV power supply line through Southern River.”

Notation


86

Cr Brown sought clarification that Lot 1770 Southern River Road was bounded by Southern River Road, Ranford Road and Matison Street which the Director Infrastructure confirmed as correct. Cr Brown then asked that it be noted for the record that she had no interest in lot 1770 as she did not live in this section of Matison Street.

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr Hoffman’s proposed amendment, which reads:

Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr J Brown

That the staff recommendation be amended by inserting the words “, subject to the option of locating the 132 kV power supply line through Lot 1770 Southern River Road, Southern River being considered by the appropriate authorities,” after the word “Council” where it appears in the first line, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council, subject to the option of locating the 132 kV power supply line through Lot 1770 Southern River Road, Southern River being considered by the appropriate authorities, support Western Power’s proposal to locate 132 kV supply lines along Ranford Road, Southern River Road and Matison Street, as shown on the plan Option 2, and attached as Appendix 13.4.5C, subject to Western Power conducting a satisfactory public consultation programme.”


AGAINST: Nil.


Amended Staff Recommendation:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

637 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council, subject to the option of locating the 132 kV power supply line through Lot 1770 Southern River Road, Southern River being considered by the appropriate authorities, support Western Power’s proposal to locate 132 kV supply lines along Ranford Road, Southern River Road and Matison Street, as shown on the plan Option 2, and attached as Appendix 13.4.5C, subject to Western Power conducting a satisfactory public consultation programme.


AGAINST: Nil.

The Mayor then put the additional motion, which reads:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION


87

638 Moved Cr C Matison Seconded Cr S Iwanyk

That Council authorise the Director Infrastructure to negotiate with Western Power for an option of locating the 132 kV power supply line through Lot 1770 Southern River Road, Southern River.


AGAINST: Nil.


88

13.4.6 EXTENSION OF COUNCIL CIVIC CENTRE CAR PARK - MILLS ROAD WEST, GOSNELLS

Author: I BarkerPrevious Ref: OCM 8 August 2006 (Resolution 376)Appendix: 13.4.6A Parking Layout Plan

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to approve the extension of the existing car park off Mills Road West, Gosnells serving the Council Civic Centre and also approve the funding of the works.

BACKGROUND

As part of the upgrade of the Civic Centre, the existing car park adjacent to the west wing of the building will be used as the contractor’s site depot. This will leave a shortfall in visitor and staff parking. Part of the car park will also be used to accommodate the transportable building to temporarily house the staff currently located in the western wing.

Included in the works required for the development of the Civic Centre is the provision of additional car parking for visitors and staff, to be located to the north of the Civic Centre.

DISCUSSION

The additional parking can be provided by extending the current sealed parking area off Mills Road in a westerly direction and linking it through to the access to Albany Highway, as shown on the plan attached as Appendix 13.4.6A. This will provide the additional parking in a location accessible to all users of the building and provide for improved traffic flow across the site.

While the car park formed part of the discussions on the overall landscaping concept for the Civic Centre project, Council’s formal approval of the extension of the car park is sought.

To provide sufficient parking for the Civic Centre whilst the building works are taking place, it is proposed to construct the additional car parking in the 2006/2007 financial year. The estimated cost of the car park, as shown on the plan, is $130,000.


The redevelopment of the Civic Centre is to be principally funded by using loan funds, with $12,554,845 budgeted in Job Number 12-10029-3800 in the 2006/2007 annual budget. It is proposed to use part of these funds for the construction of the car park which will mean an increase in the overall project cost of $130,000.


89


639 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council approve the construction of an extension to the existing car park adjacent to Mills Road West, Gosnells with estimated expenditure of $130,000 being funded from Job 12-10029-3800 – Stage 1 - Redevelopment Administration Centre.

CARRIED 9/1FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr C Matison.


90

13.4.7 GOSNELLS SOUTH UNDERGROUND POWER PROJECTAuthor: R McConkeyPrevious Ref: OCM 25 November 2003 (Resolution 764)

OCM 10 May 2005 (Resolution 204)OCM 11 October 2005 (Resolution 445)

Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To inform Council of the outcome of the community survey relating to the Gosnells South Underground Power Project and to seek Council’s direction on the future of the project.

BACKGROUND

In consideration of a request from the Office of Energy for Expressions of Interest for Round Four Major Residential Projects of the State Underground Power Programme, Council, at its meeting of 11 October 2005 adopted Resolution 445, which reads,

“That Council support a submission for an Expression of Interest for the State Government Round Four Underground Power Major Residential Projects for the areas of Maddington and Gosnells, subject to advice from Western Power regarding power reliability in these areas.”

In March 2006, the City was advised of the successful selection of the Gosnells South Project in Round Four of the Underground Power Programme, subject to the successful completion of the Detailed Proposal Stage.

The Project with an area defined generally by King Street, Eudoria Street, Verna Street and Corfield Street will include over 1,000 properties and will cost approximately $8.2 million to implement.

The State Government through the Office of Energy and Western Power will pay 50% of the cost of the project, with the remaining 50% to be borne by Council and affected property owners.

The action resulting from the selection of the Gosnells South Project was the authority to proceed with the community survey to gauge support for underground power and the acceptance of suggested charges.

A survey newsletter was mailed to all property owners within the project area at the start of November 2006.

The survey newsletter provided a number of critical details and offered some explanation of the project, with particular reference to:

Benefits of underground power

Cost of the project

Maximum network and service charges to be borne by residential property owners


91

A pensioner concession of 50%

Improved levels of street lighting

Payment options

Property owners were requested to respond to the following questions:

“1. Do you believe that removing power lines will make the street environment more attractive?

2. Do you believe that removing power lines will add value to the properties in the area?

3. Do you favour the installation of underground power in your area?

4. The cost of underground power is $9,108 per property. Are you prepared to contribute $3,810 to install underground power to your property?

5. If you answered yes to question 4, which of the following payment options would you prefer (choice is not binding):

(a) Payment within 35 days of issue of the notice (ie, $3,810)

(b) Extended payment by instalments over 5 years (ie, $762 a year plus a $5 administration fee per instalment).

DISCUSSION

The Gosnells South Underground Power Project has been deliberately structured to accommodate the very high proportion of registered pensioners and to encourage support by containing the charges and repayment options to an affordable level.

While the project area will be the subject of a detailed survey of existing power connections to every property it is estimated that the City will be required to contribute approximately $775,000 to fund the pensioner discounts and recognised improvements to community infrastructure.

The questionnaire to property owners was based on a maximum contribution of $3,810 per residential property with discounts for pensioners and existing components of the underground network.

Of the 1,050 questionnaires mailed out 353 questionnaires were returned representing a return rate of 33.6%. For the Gosnells North Underground Power Project 928 questionnaires were mailed out and 308 questionnaires were returned, representing a return rate of 33.2%. In terms of questionnaire responses this is considered a very good response.


92

The following table illustrates the level of response to each of the questions for the Gosnells South Underground Power Project.

Gosnells South Underground Power Project Survey ResultsQ1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Yes No

No

Com

men

t

Yes No

No

Com

men

t

Yes No

No

Com

men

t

Yes No

No

Com

men

t

Q5A Q5B

No

Com

men

t

254 90 9 211 132 10 241 102 10 161 184 8 68 104 18172% 25% 3% 60% 37% 3% 68% 29% 3% 46% 52% 2% 19% 29% 51%Total responses – 353 (33.6%)

Of critical interest to the “detailed submission” stage of the project is the response to questions three and four, detailed as follows:

Gosnells South 241 or 68% of respondents favour the installation of underground power.

(Gosnells North 257 or 83% of respondents favoured the installation of underground power).

Gosnells South 161 or 46% of respondents are prepared to pay up to $3,810 towards the cost of undergrounding power.

(Gosnells North 219 or 71% of respondents were prepared to pay up to $1,500 towards the cost of underground power.)

While there is clearly a high level of support for underground power in the area, the high cost of the project and the resultant high contribution required of the property owner are clearly a deterrent to proceeding.

The increased cost compared to the Gosnells North Underground Power Project where property owners only paid up to $1,500 is due to:

Reduced State Government subsidy

Increased costs

The latter are driven by the economic boom in Western Australia. A recommended strategy is to approach the State Government to review its subsidy decision.


The City of Gosnells is required to contribute 50% to the cost of the Gosnells South Underground Power Project. Whilst further costing analysis will ultimately determine the total Project cost it is expected to be around $8.2million. However in the case for the Gosnells North Underground Power Project additional funding assistance of 15% for low socio-economic status was obtained. The Gosnells South Underground Power Project was not eligible for this funding, which may put the cost per lot to residents above their capacity to pay.


93

While further costing analysis will ultimately determine the contributions expected of Council, it is expected to be in the region of $775,000. This has not been provided for in the Forward Financial Plan. Notation

The Mayor announced she would deal with each of the staff recommendations individually:

STAFF RECOMMENDATION (1 of 3) AND COUNCIL DECISION (LOST)

640 Moved Cr O Searle Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council advise the Underground Power Steering Committee of the results of the survey of affected owners for the Gosnells South Underground Power Project, and that given the results of the survey the City is unable to proceed with the project.

LOST 0/10FOR: Nil.

AGAINST: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman, Cr W Barrett and Cr PM Morris.



That the Underground Power Steering Committee be requested to review the level of contribution expected of local governments given the increase in cost of undergrounding power and the significant benefits that Western Power’s infrastructure gains through this programme.


AGAINST: Nil.



That the City make representations to the Minister for Energy, The Honourable Francis M Logan BA (Hons) MLA on the financial impact of the State Government Underground Power Programme.


AGAINST: Nil.


94

13.5 PLANNING AND SUSTAINABILITY

13.5.1 PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE METROPOLITAN REGION SCHEME AND TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – PT LOT 35 AND LOT 802 OSMOND STREET, KENWICK

Author: L GibsonReference: 225510/302882Application No: N/AApplicant: Gray & Lewis Land Use PlannersOwner: Lot 35 – Goldspire Corporation

Lot 802 – C PellegriniLocation: 19 (Pt Lot 35) and 15 (Lot 802) Osmond Street, KenwickZoning: MRS: Urban, Urban Deferred & Parks and Recreation

TPS No. 6: Residential R30 & General RuralReview Rights: Nil.Area: Pt Lot 35 – 1.2326 ha

Lot 802 – 1.2346 haPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider and provide a recommendation to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on the proposed lifting of the Urban Deferment under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) for a portion of Pt Lot 35 and Lot 802 Osmond Street, Kenwick and an associated amendment to Town Planning Scheme No.6 (TPS 6).

BACKGROUND

Proposal

The owners of Pt Lot 35 and Lot 802 Osmond Street are seeking Council’s support to amend the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) by lifting the Urban Deferment status over a portion of these lots. The area proposed to be amended is shown on the Location Plan below.

The Planning and Development Act 2005 provides that Council may make a recommendation to the WAPC to progress the lifting of an Urban Deferment status. Section 126(3) of the Act enables Council to request that TPS 6 be automatically amended, to rezone the subject land to Residential Development, as part of the lifting of the Urban Deferment.


95

Site Description

Pt Lot 35 and Lot 802 are located in a relatively contained cell between Kenwick Link and a Parks and Recreation Reserve adjacent to Canning River and Bickley Brook.

Pt Lot 35 is largely cleared of native vegetation and flat. It is mainly undeveloped, containing only a small outbuilding near the eastern lot boundary.

Lot 802 is also largely cleared of native vegetation and flat. The site has a number of existing improvements, including a dwelling, outbuildings and a large shade house.

Portions of both lots are reserved under the MRS for Parks and Recreation. Most of the balance of Pt Lot 35 is zoned Urban Deferred in the MRS and Rural in TPS 6. Part of the balance of Lot 802 is similarly zoned, while a substantial area is zoned Urban in the MRS and Residential R30 in TPS 6 (refer to the MRS Zoning Plan below).


96

Surrounding land uses include medium density residential development to the south and low density rural-residential lots to the east and west.

DISCUSSION

Lifting of Urban Deferment

The proposed amendment area is understood to be zoned Urban Deferred under the MRS due to the lack of a suitable planning framework to address the following issues:

The future urban structure of the area (that is, road layout and residential density)

Possible impacts on Conservation Category Wetlands (CCW) to the north

Implications of being located in a flood fringe area associated with adjacent watercourses

The proximity of the subject sites to Bush Forever Site 246 and the Canning River and

The possible presence of Acid Sulphate Soils.


97

As part of seeking Council’s support for the lifting of the Urban Deferment status of the subject lots under the MRS, the proponent has provided information to address, and which complies with, the requirements of the WAPC’s Guidelines for the Lifting of Urban Deferment.

The Urban Deferment zoning under the MRS is no longer considered necessary as a means of ensuring the planning issues are resolved prior to development for the following reasons:

The proximity of the site to the Conservation Category Wetlands (CCWs) to the north is not considered by the Department of Environment and Conservation (DEC) as a reason to refuse the lifting of the Urban Deferment, but rather, an issue that will need to be addressed as part of future detailed planning processes.

Notwithstanding the environmental issues associated with land abutting the Canning River reservation, the vast majority of such land within the district is zoned Urban under the MRS.

Whilst it is acknowledged that there are a number of outstanding environmental issues (including flood plain management, stormwater management and acid sulphate soils) such issues are more appropriately addressed as part of detailed planning associated with the formulation of an Outline Development Plan (ODP) and proposals for subdivision. In this regard, should the Urban Deferment be lifted from the subject land, it would be necessary to amend TPS 6 to accord with the change made to the MRS. Rezoning that portion of land from General Rural to Residential Development under TPS 6 would, pursuant to clause 7.2.1, require an ODP to be adopted prior to subdivision and /or development of the land.

It should be noted that portions of nearby Lots 14, 17, 100 and Pt 23 Osmond Street and the whole of Lot 22 Osmond Street are also zoned Urban Deferred under the MRS. City staff believe the lifting of Urban Deferment for these sites should be pursued separately from the subject proposal due to the need for more detailed investigations into such matters as the interface with the Canning River reservation, floodway protection and stormwater drainage. This is considered due to physical separation of the two areas by means of the Osmond Street road reserve.

Amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Previously, under the provisions of the now repealed Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (as amended), a separate amendment to TPS 6 would have been required to bring Council’s Scheme into conformity with the MRS following the lifting of the Urban Deferment status of any land. However, Section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 (which came into effect in April 2006 and replaced the former Town Planning and Development Act 1928) states as follows:

“If –

(a) it is proposed that a region planning scheme delineate land comprised in a local planning scheme as land in an Urban zone;

(b) the local government of the district in which the land directly affected by the proposed region planning scheme zoning is situated requests the


98

Commission to amend the local planning scheme under this subsection to change the zoning of that land under the local planning scheme, and the Commission agrees; and

(c) notice of the amendment, as made by the Commission, is published in the Gazette on or after the coming into operation of the region planning scheme,

then the local planning scheme, in so far as it operates in relation to that land, is, by force of this section and without any further action under this Act, amended as set out in that notice on the date of publication of the notice.”

This report provides Council with the opportunity to consider lodging a formal request with the WAPC, pursuant to Section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to automatically amend TPS 6 to accord with the intended Urban zoning under the MRS.

Using Section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 to amend TPS 6 will offer administrative efficiencies and associated cost-savings to both the City and landowners, and is supported by City staff. This course of action is the same as that adopted by Council at its meeting of 14 November 2006 (Resolution 570) for MRS Amendment No. 1113/33A and would be consistent with WAPC guidance on automatic changes to local planning schemes.

An automatic amendment to TPS 6 would not allow the opportunity for public input that is provided by conventional amendment processes. However, it is suggested that the process for the preparation and assessment of an ODP would provide adequate opportunity for public input.

If Council is not supportive of this approach, it could firstly seek comment from persons likely to be affected by the proposed lifting of the Urban Deferment status and TPS 6 amendment, prior to further consideration. However, this is not considered necessary as the land has been zoned Urban Deferred for some years now and lifting the deferment that applies is, in some respects, a formality.

Further, should Council decide to not support an automatic amendment to TPS 6, a ‘stand alone’ amendment to TPS 6 would need to be progressed, as would otherwise have been the case under the former Town Planning and Development Act.

CONCLUSION

Although there are a number of planning issues still to be resolved that apply to Pt Lot 35 and Lot 802, it is considered that the existence of these planning issues should not prohibit the subject sites from being zoned Urban under the MRS, as these issues can be addressed more appropriately through the preparation of an ODP and a proposal or proposals for subdivision.

With regard to TPS 6, Section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 enables TPS 6 to be automatically amended upon the lifting of the Urban Deferred status which will offer administrative efficiencies and associated time and cost savings to both the City and landowners. In addition, the progression and finalisation of the rezoning of the sites under TPS 6 will provide the opportunity to progress more detailed planning, in the form of an ODP.


99

It is therefore recommended that Council:

Advise the WAPC that it supports the lifting of Urban Deferment under the MRS, at it applies to Pt Lot 35 and Lot 802.

Request the WAPC to automatically amend TPS 6 to rezone the subject area to Residential Development so as to accord with the Urban zoned land being introduced by the proposed lifting of Urban Deferment under the MRS.

Advise all landowners whose properties are the subject of, or immediately adjoin land the subject of, the proposed lifting of the Urban Deferment of Council’s decision.


Nil.



That Council advise the Western Australian Planning Commission through the South East District Planning Committee that it supports the lifting of the Urban Deferment and subsequent inclusion in the Urban zone, under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, for Pt Lot 35 and Lot 802 Osmond Street, Kenwick.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council, pursuant to Section 126(3) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, request the Western Australian Planning Commission to automatically rezone the subject portions of land to Residential Development under Town Planning Scheme No. 6.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council advise all landowners whose properties are the subject of, or immediately adjoin land the subject of the proposed lifting of the Urban Deferment under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, of its decision.


AGAINST: Nil.


100

13.5.2 PROPOSED AMENDMENT NO. 65 TO TOWN PLANNING SCHEME NO. 6 – GOSNELLS TOWN CENTRE

Author: L GibsonReference: TPS/6/65Application No: N/AApplicant: City of GosnellsOwner: VariousLocation: Gosnells Town CentreZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Zones – Residential, Local Centre, Highway Commercial and OfficeCode – Special Control Area Reserve – Local Open Space

Review Rights: NilArea: Approximately 1.66 hectaresPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To consider an amendment to the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6) to extend the Special Control Area that applies to the Gosnells Town Centre.

BACKGROUND

Based on extensive community consultation during the mid to late 1990’s, it became apparent to the City that the improvement of the Gosnells Town Centre was of the highest priority. During 1998, a participative process to develop strategies for the regeneration of the town centre was initiated. As part of this process, Council at its meeting on 21 December 1999 resolved (Resolution 1121) to adopt the Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines which were developed to provide design guidance based on traditional townscapes, identify the urban form issues for the town centre and outline actions to improve the built environment. At that same meeting, Council also resolved (Resolution 1121) to adopt for final approval Amendment No. 521 to former Town Planning Scheme No. 1 which rezoned the Gosnells Town Centre area to a new “Town Centre” zone. This amendment was subsequently gazetted on 20 June 2000.

Town Planning Scheme No. 1 was later reviewed and ultimately superseded by TPS 6, which was gazetted on 15 February 2002. TPS 6 does not currently include a dedicated Town Centre zone, but rather, designates the Gosnells Town Centre area as a Special Control Area within Part 6 of the Scheme text. Clause 6.2.1 of the Scheme states that in considering any application for planning approval within the Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area, Council shall have regard to the Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines adopted by Council on 21 December 1999.

A recent review of the guidelines by Council staff has highlighted the need for changes to be made to the guidelines to improve their operation and function as a decision-making tool, and also to extend the current Special Control Area to which the guidelines relate.


101

DISCUSSION

Proposal

It is proposed to amend TPS 6 by:

1. Extending the boundaries of the existing Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area shown on the Scheme Map to incorporate a number of lots fronting Wheatley Street and Albany Highway, which staff believe should be subject to the same special controls as the remainder of the town centre area. A plan showing the extent of the existing and proposed Special Control Area is provided below.


102

2. In Clause 6.2.1(a) deleting reference to the Council needing to have regard to the “Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines (adopted in Minute OCM 21.12.1999 1121)” and replacing that reference with a new “Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy”. The policy will provide the additional means of development control for the Gosnells Town Centre area within a more flexible and clear planning framework than the current Guidelines.

3. Modifying Table 1: Zoning Table of TPS 6 to encourage and facilitate mixed use development within the Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area. The modification will effectively serve to change a limited number of uses, which are currently “A” (discretionary subject to advertising) or “X” (prohibited) uses within the Local Centre, Office and/or Residential zones, to “D” (discretionary) uses, provided they are developed in conjunction with a residential component.

Development Control/Local Planning Policy

The proposed Scheme Amendment will effectively delete reference to the existing Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines and replace it with reference to the proposed Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy.

A copy of the draft policy has been circulated to Councillors, with the matter expected to be formally referred to Council for consideration in early 2007. With regard to the progression of the subject scheme amendment and the draft Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy, the following sequence of events is proposed:

1. Council considers proposed Amendment 65 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

2. Council considers draft Gosnells Town Centre Policy.

3. Amendment 65 and the draft Gosnells Town Centre Policy are advertised for public comment.

4. Council considers the final adoption of the draft Gosnells Town Centre Policy, after advertising, and revokes the existing Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines.

5. Council considers the final adoption of Amendment No. 65, after advertising.

6. Amendment 65 is gazetted.

Although there will be a period of time (between steps 4 and 6 as outlined above) that the Scheme text will refer to the revoked Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines, development control will still be maintained by means of clause 6.2.1 of the Scheme (relating to the current Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area) which states that Council shall, additionally, have regard to any planning policy formally adopted by Council for the Gosnells Town Centre. The abovementioned process in no way compromises the orderly planning of the area, and as such, is supported by City staff.


103

Statement of Planning Policy No. 9 – Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement for the Perth Metropolitan Region

The purpose of the Metropolitan Centres Policy Statement for the Perth Metropolitan Region is to provide a broad regional planning framework to co-ordinate the location and development of retail and commercial activities in the metropolitan region. With regard to the proposed scheme amendment, the policy requires that the shopping floor space for District Centres on a “Main Street” (such as the Gosnells Town Centre) be limited to 16,000m2. Whilst the proposed scheme amendment will allow Council to approve applications for planning approval involving the development of commercial land uses on sites where such uses were previously prohibited by TPS 6, City staff do not expect that the shopping floor space limit prescribed by Statement of Planning Policy No. 9 will be exceeded.

Relative to the above, the proposed amendment and any resultant development is not expected to undermine or compromise the roles of the existing Regional, District and Local Centres in the area.

CONCLUSION

The proposed Scheme Amendment is recommended for adoption for the following reasons:

The expansion of the Gosnells Town Centre boundary will facilitate the further upgrade and revitalisation of the Town Centre, building upon the significant work that has already taken place in the locality

The Amendment will streamline the planning framework for development control within the Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area and provide for a more flexible, policy-based approach

The Amendment will explicitly encourage and facilitate mixed use development, which will contribute to a more vibrant and active Gosnells Town Centre


All costs associated with the proposed Scheme Amendment (including the documentation and advertising) will be borne by the City Planning operational budget.

8.38pm - The Director Governance left the Meeting.

8.43pm – The Director Governance returned to the meeting.


646 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, adopt Amendment No. 65 to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 for the purpose of:

1. Amending the Scheme Map to extend the existing Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area so as to include Lots 1 (No. 43), 1 (No. 69), 2, 7, 15, 69, 190, 192-194, 196-202, 205, 206, 210-215,


104

300, 1025, 1026 & 1283 Wheatley Street Gosnells and Lots 1, 3, 4, 6, 46, 47, 55, 56, 98, 99, 101, 102, 103, 1356, 1993, 4137 and 4211-4214 Albany Highway, Gosnells, as depicted on the Scheme Amendment Map.

2. Amending the Scheme Text by:

(i) in clause 5.8.4(c) deleting the words “Gosnells Town Centre Revitalisation Urban Design Guidelines” and replacing them with the words:

“Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy”

(ii) in clause 6.2.1(a) deleting the words “Gosnells Town Centre Urban Design Guidelines (adopted in Minute OCM 21.12.1999 1121)” and replacing them with the words:

“Gosnells Town Centre Development Policy”

(iii) inserting a new clause 4.3.3 into the Scheme that reads as follows:

“Where in the Zoning Table the permissibility of a use class in a particular zone is nominated by the symbol “X/D” or “A/D”, the discretionary (“D”) classification shall only apply to the development of land within the Gosnells Town Centre Special Control Area where such development incorporates one or more residential dwellings”.

(iv) renumbering existing clause 4.3.3 as clause 4.3.4.

(v) changing Table 1: Zoning Table to show the following permissibility of Use Classes corresponding to the Residential, Local Centre and Office zones.

ZONESUSE CLASS

Residential Local Centre Office9. Betting Agency X/D13. Child Care

PremisesA/D

19. Consulting Rooms A/D20. Convenience

StoreX/D

22. Educational Establishment

A/D

23. Exhibition Centre X/D45. Lunch Bar X/D47. Medical Centre A/D54. Office A/D59. Restaurant X/D63. Shop X/D X/D64. Showroom X/D X/D X/D71. Veterinary Centre A/D


AGAINST: Nil.


105


647 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr J Brown

That Council forward Amendment No. 65 to:

1. The Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment, pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

2. The Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for information;

and subject to no objections being received from the Environmental Protection Authority, the amendment be advertised for public comment pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations for a period of 42 days to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.


AGAINST: Nil.


106

13.5.3 CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN REVIEW (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the first report in these Minutes.


107

13.5.4 PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO SOUTHERN RIVER PRECINCT 5 OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN – LOT 3 RANFORD ROAD, SOUTHERN RIVER

Author: L GibsonReference: Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan (ODP)Application No: N/AApplicant: Greg Rowe & AssociatesOwner: M RasheedLocation: Lot 3 Ranford Road, Southern RiverZoning: MRS: Urban


decision of Council.Area: 7,646m2

Previous Ref: OCM 26 September 2006 (Resolution 499)OCM 16 December 2003 (Resolutions 809-810)OCM 10 June 2003 (Resolutions 367-368)OCM 11 February 2003 (Resolutions 52-53)OCM 9 July 2002 (Resolution 503)OCM 26 April 2000 (Resolutions 251-252)

Appendices: 13.5.4A Adopted Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan

13.5.4B Plan of proposed modification to Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan

13.5.4C Concept Plan – Lot 3 Ranford Road

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider a proposed modification to the Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan (ODP) pursuant to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6).

BACKGROUND

Proposal

The proposal involves a modification to the Southern River Precinct 5 ODP as it relates to Lot 3 Ranford Road, Southern River to recode the subject lot from Residential Density Greater Than R20 and Residential Mixed Use to Mixed Business and to restrict the uses permitted on the property to:

Hotel Tavern Restaurant Liquor Store Fast Food Outlet Residential Office

A copy of the adopted ODP as it relates to Lot 3 is contained at Appendix 13.5.4A, while the proposed modification is depicted on the plan contained at Appendix 13.5.4B.

A concept plan indicating the possible future development of Lot 3 for a hotel, café and bottle shop is contained in Appendix 13.5.4C, however, in this regard it must be noted


108

that this plan is conceptual only and will not prejudice any future Council decision regarding development of the property.

Site Description

Lot 3 is 7,646m2 in area and contains an existing dwelling and ancillary outbuildings. The site is relatively flat and has access to both Ranford Road (constructed) and Balfour Street. Surrounding land uses include low-density rural-residential lots to the south-west (within the City of Armadale), retail and commercial uses to the north-west, undeveloped residential land to the north and rural land to the east.

DISCUSSION

Land Use Permissibility

The current ODP indicates the subject lot as being coded Residential Density Greater Than R20 and Residential Mixed Use. Whilst it is clear (pursuant to Table 1 of the Scheme) what uses can be supported on the Residential Density Greater Than R20 coded land, as Residential Mixed Use is not a listed zone under TPS 6 and it is therefore unclear as to what uses can be approved on that portion of the site. The proposed modification to the current ODP will stipulate precisely what uses can and cannot be approved on the subject site, providing guidance and clarity that currently does not exist.


109

The uses permitted on Lot 3 will be restricted to those listed in the table below with their corresponding use class permissibility within the Mixed Business zone:

Land Use Land Use Permissibility within the Mixed Business Zone

Hotel A (discretionary subject to advertising)Tavern A (discretionary subject to advertising)Restaurant D (discretionary)Liquor Store A (discretionary subject to advertising)Fast Food Outlet A (discretionary subject to advertising)Residential D (discretionary)Office P (permitted subject to planning approval)

Appropriateness of Restricted Uses

The proposal to modify the Southern River Precinct 5 ODP, to delineate Lot 3 as Mixed Business (with restricted uses) will limit the range of land uses that Council can approve on the subject site.

The proposed list of Restricted Uses is considered appropriate for the subject land for the following reasons:

Although Hotel, Tavern, Restaurant, Liquor Store and Fast Food Outlet land uses can be regarded as high impact uses, it is considered that the subject site is an appropriate location for these uses due to it’s accessibility and configuration (i.e. corner lot) and frontage to Ranford Road. Additionally, the uses, if developed, would round off the extensive retail (shop and showroom) facilities that have been developed along Ranford Road

All of the proposed uses offer some legitimate benefit to the district and will provide an important social and/or economic function within a developing area

The nominated uses provide for mixed use development, which is considered a desirable type of use on the subject site

The nominated uses do not provide for any shop or showroom development to take place on the site, as it is considered that there is already adequate provision made for retail floor space within the Southern River locality

High Impact Uses

A number of the proposed restricted uses, if developed, have the potential to have a significant impact on the surrounding local area. If the proposed ODP modification is approved any potential impacts from the resultant development (ie noise, vibration, traffic, etc) could be addressed at the development application stage.

Statutory Process

Clause 7.5.1 of TPS 6 states that Council may adopt a minor change to or departure from an ODP if it is satisfied that the change or departure “does not materially alter the intent of the Outline Development Plan”. In this regard, City staff believe the proposal will materially affect the intent of the ODP, which currently is to facilitate only Mixed Use and Residential development on what is likely to be a prominent location as development continues in the locality in the future. As such staff consider that the


110

proposal cannot be dealt with as a minor modification to the ODP and must therefore be dealt with in accordance with Clause 7.4.2 of TPS 6.

Clause 7.4.2 of TPS 6 requires Council to determine if the proposed modification is satisfactory for advertising (with or without alterations).

Should Council determine that the proposed ODP modification is satisfactory for advertising, it is recommended the proposal be advertised for a period of 21 days, by way of written invitation to comment to all landowners within 300 metres of the subject site and the City of Armadale, in addition to a newspaper advertisement and a sign being placed on site. After the advertising period, all submissions will be summarised and collated in a report to Council to decide whether to adopt the ODP modification pursuant to clause 7.4.7 of TPS 6 and forward it to the WAPC for determination.

CONCLUSION

The proposal involves modifying the Southern River Precinct 5 ODP to facilitate the development of the site for Hotel, Tavern, Restaurant, Liquor Store, Fast Food Outlet, Residential and/or Office land uses. The proposed modification to the ODP is considered satisfactory for the purpose of advertising so as to gain an indication of the community’s views.

It is important to note that if Council determines that the proposal is satisfactory for advertising, it is in no way bound to adopt the plan when it is referred back to Council at the conclusion of the consultation period.


Nil. All costs associated with advertising the proposed modification to the ODP will be borne by the applicant.



That Council, pursuant to clause 7.4.2(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6, determine that the proposed modification to the Southern River Precinct 5 Outline Development Plan, as contained in Appendix 13.5.4B is satisfactory for the purpose of advertising and is therefore to be advertised for public comment for a period of 21 days, to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability, by way of written invitation to comment to all landowners within 300 metres of the subject site and the City of Armadale, in addition to an advertisement in a newspaper circulating within the district and placement of a sign on the site.


AGAINST: Nil.


111

13.5.5 PLANNING FRAMEWORK FOR THE CENTRAL MADDINGTON AREA (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the second report in these Minutes.


112

13.5.6 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – PROPOSED SHOP – SHOWROOM UNIT NO. 1, 216 (LOT 9003) LAKEY STREET, SOUTHERN RIVER (ITEM BROUGHT FORWARD – REFER TO ITEM 11)

The above item was brought forward in accordance with paragraph (9) of Sub-Clause 2.15.4 of the City of Gosnells Standing Orders Local Law 2003 and is relocated under Item 11 “Items Brought Forward for the Convenience of those in the Public Gallery” as the third report in these Minutes.


113

13.5.7 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – 42 MULTIPLE DWELLINGS – 17 (LOT 3) SOUTHDOWN PLACE, THORNLIE

Author: A LefortReference: 216453Application No: DA06/02532Applicant: Broadview DesignsOwner: Surizah Pty Ltd as Trustee for Spencer Gardens TrustLocation: 17 (Lot 3) Southdown Place ,ThornlieZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Mixed BusinessReview Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 5,525m²Previous Ref: Nil Appendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for 42 Multiple Dwellings at 17 (Lot 3) Southdown Place, Thornlie as determination of the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Site Description

Lot 3 is 5,525m², vacant, mostly cleared and slopes down towards the north-east. The site abuts a railway reserve to the south-east, “Hungry Jacks” to the south-west and Spencer Village Shopping Centre to the north-west. The site is also located within approximately 140m of the Thornlie Railway Station.

Proposal

The proposal is for the development of 42 multiple dwellings which include:

32 three bedroom residential apartments ranging in size from 88m² to 93m²

10 two bedroom residential apartments ranging in size from 79m² to 105m²

Private balconies to all dwellings

42 covered and 28 uncovered car parking bays

7 on-street visitor car parking bays

Individual 4m² storage areas for each dwelling

A central, communal swimming pool and landscaped garden area

Security gate to parking area

Open fencing to street front dwellings


114


115


116


117


118


119

Zoning

The subject site is zoned Mixed Business in the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6). Clause 5.8.4 of TPS 6 provides that where residential development is proposed in a commercially zoned area, Council is to have regard to a number of matters including the provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) at the R80 density code and the objectives of the Scheme. The proposal has therefore been designed based on an R80 density code.

Consultation

The proposal was advertised for public comment for 14 days in accordance with Council Policy and TPS 6 requirements, during which time 29 submissions were received. A summary of these submissions and staff comments thereon are provided in the Schedule of Submissions included in this report.

Schedule of Submissions

1

Name and Postal Address:G Wilkins17/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:24 (Lot 86) Southdown PlaceThornlie

Summary of Submission Staff CommentObject to the proposal.

1.1 Concerned that an increase in traffic will be dangerous, as many residents are over 55 and use walking sticks and gopher wheelchairs.

Noted.

Refer to the Traffic Impacts section of the report below.

1.2 Concerned that the proposed development will cause an increase in noise and would affect our way of life.

Refer to the Noise Impacts section of the report below.

1.3 Concerned about children running around the street.

This is not a valid planning consideration.

1.4 Concerned that people will throw their rubbish in the river.

The development proposes bin facilities in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes. Staff can see no reason why residents would dispose of rubbish in the river which is at least 285m from the site.

2

Name and Postal Address:P Galvin35 Salisbury StreetLeederville WA 6007


Summary of Submission Staff CommentNo objection to the proposal.

2.1 Support high quality developments such as this that are close to transport and shops.

Noted.

2.2 Believe that it will increase services and bring a greater mix of people to the local community.


120

3

Name and Postal Address:A Tsai88 Casserley DriveLeeming WA 6149

Affected Property:210 (Lot 2) Spencer RoadThornlie

Summary of Submission Staff CommentNo objection to the proposal. Noted.

4

Name and Postal Address:J Ferguson4 Dorset PlaceThornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:4 (Lot 14) Dorset PlaceThornlie

Summary of Submission Staff CommentNo objection to the proposal. Noted.

5

Name and Postal Address:Y Wee10 Gunbower RoadMount Pleasant WA 6153

Affected Property:6 (Lot 11) Corriedale PlaceThornlie


5.1 Concerned that there are too many residences in a quiet, residential part of Thornlie.

Noted. However, the site is zoned Mixed Business and as such, Council can consider residential development to the R80 density.

5.2 Concerned that the proposal will devalue houses and attract the wrong occupiers.

The perceived impact of the development on property values and the potential occupiers of the dwellings are not valid planning considerations.

5.3 Believes that the number of dwellings must be decreased.

The proposed density of development complies with the R80 coding of the R-Codes.

6

Name and Postal Address:D Krygger4A McLean StreetMelville WA 6156


Summary of Submission Staff CommentComment on the proposal.

6.1 Concerned that if the development is not restricted in age limit, then families with children may be admitted. Questions whether it should proceed based on the nearby retirement village.

Noted.

The age of future residents is unknown and not relevant to the planning merits of the proposal. The City encourages a diverse range of households in the community including children, couples, families, single persons and retired persons.

6.2 Agrees that due to the quality of the development and if properly managed, the development would improve the area.

Noted.

7

Name and Postal Address:S Herbert21/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



7.1 Concerned about the size of the complex.

Noted.

The number of dwellings complies with the R80 coding of the R-Codes.


121

Summary of Submission Staff Comment7.2 Concerned about an increase in traffic that

will be created.Refer to the Traffic Impacts section of the report below.

7.3 Concerned about anti-social behaviour that would result from families with young children living in the development.

Refer to staff comment in response to submission 6.1.

7.4 Concerned about privacy for residents of 24 Southdown Place.

The proposed development complies with all privacy requirements of the R-Codes.

7.5 Concerned about how the development will impact property values in the area.

The perceived impact of the development on property values is not a valid planning consideration.

7.6 Concerned that across the road at No. 24 is a retirement village of residents between the ages of 60-90 and this development would affect their quality of life.

Refer to the staff comment in response to submission 6.1.

8

Name and Postal Address:M Stock32/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



8.1 If this complex is not restricted to over 55s, concerned about the influx of hoons causing traffic issues.

Noted.


8.2 Concerned about the visual amenity if washing is hung over upper balconies resulting in eventual slum conditions as is occurring in East Perth.

The proposal provides laundry facilities in each dwellings as well as designated outdoor communal drying areas located on the western boundary of the site.

9

Name and Postal Address:R Hoyne and K O’Brien10/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Not happy with three storey development, but has no objection to single or two storey development.

Noted, however the proposed height of the dwellings complies with the relevant provisions of the R-Codes.

10

Name and Postal Address:J Turnor23/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



10.1 Believes that the appearance of a three storey development is not suitable for the site.

Noted.

Refer to the Streetscape section of the report below.

10.2 Concerned that the high concentration of people in such a small area could cause many problems and affect the community.

The number of dwellings complies with the R80 coding of the R-Codes.


122

11

Name and Postal Address:E Shanks26/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



11.1 Concerned that the entrance to the development is too close to Willow Glades Retirement Village.

Noted.

The proposed entrance point is considered appropriate to the development and is located approximately 7m from the entrance to the adjacent retirement village.

11.2 Concerned that there is no footpath in that area.

Should Council approve the proposal, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a footpath to be installed on the verge adjacent to the subject site and to connect to the existing footpath.

11.3 Believes that two storey units would be less troublesome.


11.4 Concerned that entry by traffic into Spencer Road from Spencer Village and Southdown Place will increase as Spencer Road is very busy.

Refer to Traffic Impacts section of the report below.

11.5 Concerned about where the rubbish bins are to be placed.

Rubbish bins will be collected from the bin store in the north eastern portion of the site.

11.6 Concerned that drainage water from the development will go into the “sacred spring”.

Staff are unaware of what the submitter is referring to as a “sacred spring”. The Department of Indigenous Affairs has advised that there are no registered Aboriginal heritage sites on or in the vicinity of the subject lot. If the proposed development is approved, the site will be required to connect to the City’s district drainage system.

12

Name and Postal Address:C and R Rutty25/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Concerned that should the development be anything other than a retirement village, it would have an enormous impact to our lives. We are totally against a housing estate if residents are under the age of 55.

Noted.


13

Name and Postal Address:Porter Matthews Pty Ltd64 Canning HighwayVictoria Park WA 6100

Affected Property:208 (Lot 4) Spencer RoadThornlie


13.1 Generally supportive of the proposal but suggest the issues below need to be addressed.

Noted.


123

Summary of Submission Staff Comment13.2 Environmental - Concerned that the Spencer

Village Food Hall with associated exhaust hoods, compressors and air conditioning units is situated only metres away from the proposed development. As the food hall is an approved use and as Lot 3 is zoned for business use, we do not want to be in a position where the owner of Lot 4 is penalised or impositioned due to odour or noise associated with the food hall.

Refer to the Noise Impacts and Odour Impacts sections of the report below.

13.3 Rights of Carriageway – Concerned that at present Lot 3 enjoys a right of carriageway through adjoining Lot 2 and shopping centre Lot 4. Concerned that access between the commercial and residential sites is an inappropriate and dangerous interface which could give rise to a substantial public risk. Recommends that as a condition of approval that the owners of Lot 3 voluntarily surrender access rights over Lot 2 and 4.

Refer to the Parking and Access section of the report below.

13.4 Boundary Fencing – Believe that Council should require a high level of specification for the proposed boundary fence between Lot 3 and the adjoining commercial lots.

Refer to the Fencing section of the report below.

13.5 Notes that the proposed development is at a substantially higher density than original zoning of the land permitted and concerned that upper level units will be exposed to unattractive visual sight of the roof of the Spencer Village Shopping Centre.

The property is zoned Mixed Business and as such Council can consider residential development to the R80 density. Whilst some windows of the upper level dwellings will have a view of the shopping centre roof, most of the balconies of dwellings closest to the commercial sites have been designed to face internally over the central pool and landscaped area.

14

Name and Postal Address:R and E Chisholm11/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



14.1 Would prefer units to be limited to two storeys rather than three.


14.2 Concerned about the increase in the volume of traffic and proposed parking of cars on road.

Refer to the Traffic Impacts and Parking and Access sections of the report below.

14.3 Concerned about the possible increase in vandalism.

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will result in an increase in vandalism in the area.

14.4 Concerned that the over 55s development opposite may have to increase security which would be an added expense and a further depreciation of living standards.

There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed development will result in the need for increased security to nearby properties.


124

15

Name and Postal Address:F Crossley3/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



15.1 Concerned that the three storey development does not fit into the type of neighbourhood and has proved to be likely to attract the wrong type of tenant.

Noted.

The proposed development is considered to offer an alternative form of housing in the area which is appropriate due to its close proximity to commercial and public transport facilities. Further, the proposed height of the development complies with relevant provisions of the R-Codes.

15.1 Concerned that each flat will have at least one parking bay.

Refer to the Parking section of the report below.

16

Name and Postal Address:D John1/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



16.1 Concerned that the proposal will become the future slums due to the number of people that could be housed and if investors purchase and rent out to “all and sundry”.

Noted.

The number of dwellings complies with the permitted R80 density. The tenure of the proposed dwellings is not a valid planning consideration.

16.2 Concerned about noise from traffic created from 42 cars or more plus visitors, particularly if driven by youths who come and go at all hours.

Refer to the Traffic Impacts section of the report below. The age of future residents is not a valid planning consideration.

16.3 Concerned that the proposed car bays along Southdown Place could be dangerous to pedestrians from the retirement village, many of whom suffer disabilities.

Refer to the Parking and Access section of the report below.

17

Name and Postal Address:T and J Elliot28/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



17.1 Concerned that the units are too small if children are involved and questions where there is room for children to play.

Noted.

The proposed dwellings comply with the dwelling size requirements of the R-Codes. Under the R-Codes, the development is not required to provide separate playgrounds or play areas for children. However, the proposal is considered to provide a sufficient amount of private and communal open space.

17.2 Concerned about how the development will connect to sewer and questions whether the development will have to comply with normal Government Water Board scheme or a special agreement the same as the retirement village opposite. Do not want the proposed development tapping in to retirement village’s high pressure line which is buried under the footpath.

The development would be required to connect to a reticulated sewerage system to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation.


125

Summary of Submission Staff Comment17.3 Questions who pays for damage to the

sewer line while the units are under construction.

The developer would be required to make good any damage that might occur to the sewer line, however this is a Water Corporation issue.

17.4 Concerned that there is a large cement water drainage pipe running across the subject site which could be damaged by the weight of 3 storey buildings.

There is an easement (shown on the site plan) which prevents any buildings being constructed over the drain.

17.5 Concerned about extra traffic near the retirement village on the weekends as parking is limited in Southdown Place as it is a cul-de-sac. As residents of the retirement village are elderly, traffic bothers us and the thought of trucks driving in the street during construction appalls us.

Refer to the Traffic Impacts section of the report. Development on the subject site will (as with all construction) require heavy vehicles to access the site during construction. Such a nuisance would be temporary and does not warrant refusal of the proposal. It should also be noted that construction work will be regulated through the building licence process.

18

Name and Postal Address:I Mackenzie2/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



18.1 Concerned that three storey buildings encroach on people’s privacy.

Noted.

The proposed dwellings comply with the R-Codes privacy provisions.

18.2 Concerned about additional traffic where elderly people live.


19

Name and Postal Address:G Bozanich24/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108


Summary of Submission Staff CommentObject to the proposal. Noted.

20

Name and Postal Address:K Cully9/24 Southdown Place Thornlie WA 6108

Affected Property:24 (Lot 86) Southdown Place Thornlie


20.1 Concerned that an additional 40 cars using Southdown Place could cause a problem.

Noted.


20.2 Concerned as this is an area for retired people and that the development will house young people who will be partying all the time.


20.3 Concerned about the sewer outlet as retirement village has had problems with this before.

The development would be required to connect to a reticulated sewerage system to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation.


126

21

Name and Postal Address:A Dalling20/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



21.1 Concerned about the increase in traffic that residents of the retirement village opposite will have to contend with.

Noted.


21.2 Object to three storey buildings being erected.

The proposed height of the dwellings complies with the relevant provisions of the R-Codes.

22

Name and Postal Address:J Woolhouse33/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Don’t approve of two storey houses.

Noted.

The proposed height of the dwellings complies with the relevant provisions of the R-Codes.

23

Name and Postal Address:L Krawec13/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Concerned about traffic.

Noted.


24

Name and Postal Address:H Ruitenberg30/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Believes that only people aged over 55 and worried about people below the age of 55 and children.

Noted.



127

25

Name and Postal Address:G Cleary34/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108


Summary of Submission Staff CommentNo objection to the proposal.

25.1 Would like to see adequate visitor parking for the development within the complex. If not, can see problems with visitors parking on road verges and on the street which would make entry and exit traffic dangerous for elderly residents of the adjoining retirement village

Noted.

Refer to Parking and Access section of the report below.

25.2 Would like to see No Parking signs erected at the end of Southdown Place.

This comment will be referred to the City’s Technical Services branch.

26

Name and Postal Address:J and E Harrison15/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108


Summary of Submission Staff CommentObjection to the proposal.

26.1 Concerned about too much traffic entering and leaving the north east end of Southdown Place.

Noted.


26.2 Concerned that three storey buildings are too high and would not conform to the surrounding area.

Due to its proximity to the shopping centre, fast food outlets and railway station, staff are of the opinion that the proposed development is appropriate to take advantage of its location and is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the visual amenity of the area. Further the height of the development complies with relevant provisions of the R-Codes.

27

Name and Postal Address:S Wain5/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108


Summary of Submission Staff CommentObjection to the proposal.

27.1 Believes that the area planned for the development is too small and the amount of noise and traffic would make the street too busy.

Noted.

The proposed development complies with the R80 density coding. Please refer to the Traffic Impacts and Noise Impacts sections of the report below.

27.2 Concerned that there are a number of elderly people who would feel scared and unsettled due to the large residential area.

The proposed development is not expected to cause nearby residents to feel scared or unsettled.

27.3 Concerned that if the proposed development was built, residents of the retirement village would lose their privacy and make the area an insecure place to live.

The proposal is not considered to detrimentally impact on the privacy of nearby residents and the proposal complies with all privacy provisions of the R-Codes.


128

28

Name and Postal Address:J Gerritsen7/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Concerned for the safety of elderly residents from the adjoining retirement village due to the increased traffic as a result of the development.

Noted.


29

Name and Postal Address:N Krakouer22/24 Southdown PlaceThornlie WA 6108



Concerned about an increase in traffic and that sewerage is to be handled correctly.

Noted.

Refer to the Traffic Impacts section of the report below. The development would be required to connect to a reticulated sewerage system to the satisfaction of the Water Corporation.


129

Other Referrals

The proposal was also referred to the Public Transport Authority (PTA) for comment due to the adjacent railway line. PTAs response and staff comments thereon are summarised in the table below.

1

Name and Postal Address:Public Transport AuthorityPO Box 8125Perth Business Centre WA 6849

Affected Property:Railway Reserve abutting the south-eastern boundary of the subject lot.

Summary of Submission Staff Comment1.1 Due to the proposed development’s close

proximity to an operating railway, the developer should be responsible for all noise abatement as part of the project. The freight lessee WestNet should not be left to deal with complaints from future residents about rail noise. The PTA recommends that notifications be placed on certificates of title alerting purchasers to the proximity of the railway and associated consequences.

Noted. The applicant has engaged the services of an appropriately qualified consultant to undertake an Environmental Noise Assessment of the proposed development. The assessment recommends measures to reduce noise impacts and can be imposed as a condition should Council approve the proposal. It is also recommended that Council impose a condition requiring notifications on titles advising prospective purchasers about potential noise issues as a result of the proximity to the railway.

1.2 PTA advise that there are double gates at the end of Southdown Place which allows access to the railway which needs to remain.

These gates have not been incorporated into the design but it is recommended that if Council approves the proposal, an advice note be included encouraging the applicant to liaise with the PTA regarding this matter. Advice on this issue has been sought from the PTA and WestNet Rail, however no response has been received at the time of writing this report.

1.3 PTA requires fencing between the railway reserve and proposed development to be brick and to a minimum height of 1.8m.

Refer to staff comment at 1.1 above.

1.4 PTA requires all stormwater run off from the development to be directed away from railway land.

Noted. Should Council approve the proposal, it is recommended that this be imposed as a condition.

DISCUSSION

The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6, the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) and City Policies, with the exception of those discussed in the table below.

Residential Design Codes (R-Codes)

The R-Codes include Acceptable Development Criteria (prefixed by “A”) and Performance Criteria (prefixed by “P”). Applications not complying with the Acceptable Development Criteria can be assessed against relevant Performance Criteria. The Performance Criteria assessment applicable to this application is summarised in the following tables:


130

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment1. Clause 3.4.1 Open Space Provision

A Open Space provided in accordance with Table 1 and Elements 2 and 3. An open space provision of 60% is required for development at the R80 density.

The development proposes 54% open space.

P Sufficient open space around buildings to complement the building, allow attractive streetscapes and suit the future needs of residents having regards to the type and density of the development.

Residential Development Policy 6.2.1.1 allows a variation for open space to within 90% of the requirement specified by Table 1 of the R-Codes, providing that outdoor living areas are compliant with the R60 density coding. However, the R-Codes do not require private outdoor living areas for Multiple Dwellings at R80 and therefore the policy does not address open space variations for this type of development. Notwithstanding this, the proposal is considered to provide adequate open space in relation to the size of dwellings. Each dwelling has its own outdoor living area in the form of a balcony or courtyard (for ground floor dwellings) and the use of visually permeable fencing abutting Southdown Place is considered to create an attractive streetscape.

2. Clause 3.5.1 On-Site Parking ProvisionA Multiple dwellings require not less than

10 per cent of the required spaces to be provided for exclusive use of visitors where more than four dwellings are provided; This equates to the need for 5 visitor bays for this development.

The development does not propose to locate any visitor parking bays on-site and instead proposes 7 paved in-verge visitor bays to be located within the Southdown Place road reserve abutting Lot 3.

P Adequate car parking provided on-site in accordance with projected need related to the type, number and size of dwellings; the availability of on-street and other off-site parking and the location of the proposed development in relation to public transport and other facilities.

The reduction of 5 visitor bays on site is considered appropriate due to the provision of adequate parking for residents in accordance with the acceptable development criteria and the proposed location of 7 parking bays within the Southdown Place road reserve and the proximity of the development to the Thornlie Train Station which is located approximately 150m from the subject site.

Strategic Context

The subject site is located within approximately 150m of the Thornlie Train Station and abuts the Spencer Village Shopping Centre. The proposed R80 density accords with the State Government planning policies DC 1.6 (Planning to Enhance Public Transport) and Liveable Neighbourhoods, which encourages increased residential densities and urban infill within a compact 800m walkable catchment of activity centres and transport nodes. In addition, Lot 3 is located within the Thornlie East precinct of Council’s Local Housing Strategy (LHS), where residential zoned land located within 400m of the Spencer Village Shopping Centre has been identified for an R40 density. The close proximity of the subject site to these important activity nodes makes the site well located and ideal for an increased residential density, to encourage walkability, increased public transport usage and a reduction in car usage.


131

The proposed housing type is considered to make efficient use of the land and provide a diverse form of housing in an area dominated by single, detached residential dwellings. Providing this alternative housing type in Thornlie is consistent with the State Government’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy in providing for a variety of lot sizes and housing types to cater for the diverse housing needs of the community.

Traffic Impacts

Many of the submissions from nearby residents (predominantly from the adjoining retirement village at Lot 86 Southdown Place) have expressed concern about the increase in traffic in the area as a result of the proposed development. The applicant has submitted a Traffic Assessment Report and a summary of the findings include:

The extra volume of traffic entering the Council controlled road network as a result of the proposed development will not impact on Spencer Road to the degree that it reduces the average normal flow on Spencer Road

During construction, due to the volume of trucks entering and exiting the site in close proximity to the retirement village, the retirement village residents are recommended to be advised at the start of works, what the works are and what they can expect on their roads while construction is in progress

The proposed development is unlikely to negatively impact on residents of surrounding streets including Corriedale Place, Merino Court and Dorset Court

The City’s Road Safety Officer has assessed the proposal and Traffic Assessment Report and provided the following comments:

The increase in traffic volume in Southdown Place and Spencer Road would be minimal due to the non-connectivity of the roads off Southdown Place, and would be within the desirable volume for the classification of these roads, in accordance with the City’s functional road hierarchy

Requests that the entrance and access roads be redesigned to increase the site distance for motorists entering and exiting the site. Should Council approve the proposal it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring this redesign

It should be noted that the City will be constructing a seagull island in Spencer Road and a left turn lane from Spencer Road into Southdown Place this financial year, as part of the 2006/2007 Black Spot Program

The Traffic Assessment Report together with the assessment by the City’s Road Safety Officer indicate that whilst increased traffic volumes will ultimately occur as a result of the development, the levels of traffic are acceptable in relation to the type of roads involved. Therefore the proposal is unlikely to have an unacceptable impact. Noise Impacts

The proposed development is not anticipated to create unreasonable noise levels for surrounding properties due to its residential nature. However, noise from the railway line which abuts the site may have the potential to cause an impact on residents of the proposed dwellings. The applicant has commissioned appropriately qualified consultants to prepare an environmental noise impact assessment. The purpose of the assessment was to demonstrate if the environmental noise impact upon the proposed


132

development is compliant with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Draft Statement of Planning Policy (SPP): Road and Rail Transport Noise and if not, what measures were required to ensure the development would be within acceptable noise exposure levels.

The Draft SPP sets exposure criteria for outdoor noise levels for noise sensitive premises, as defined in the policy (including premises for residential purposes). Exposure Level 1 refers to a level of outdoor noise that is considered a desirable target for residential development. It should be noted that the Draft SPP does state that where infrastructure already exists, achievement of Exposure Level 1 may not be practicable. The assessment has revealed that the noise levels are not generally regarded as acceptable for the proposed residential development unless sufficient noise control measures are introduced to achieve the “target” Exposure Level 1 for required outdoor living areas; and the “satisfactory” criteria under Australian Standard AS 2107:2000 for indoor areas.

The assessment recommends the following measures to reduce noise impacts on the proposed dwellings in accordance with the draft SPP:

Light-weighted noise barriers to the balconies (outdoor living areas) of Units 23 and 39

Noise barriers, including noise walls, roofing materials, window glazing and door materials as prescribed in the Noise Impact Assessment submitted with the proposal to be installed to noise sensitive rooms of Units 6-10, 23-27 and 39-40 (two and three storey buildings directly facing the railway line in the south-east direction)

A 3.4m high concrete noise wall to be constructed on the common boundaries with the railway reserve and Lot 2

Should Council approve the proposal, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the developers to amend the plans for the proposal to incorporate the noise attenuation measures outlined above to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.

Odour Impacts

There are potential odour impacts for future residents of the proposed development from the two fast food outlets on adjoining properties and shopping centre food hall which must be considered. Should Council approve the proposal, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a notification in the form of a memorial to be placed on the Certificates of Title advising prospective purchasers of the proximity to nearby land uses that may result in exposure to food odour.

Parking and Access

Several submissions expressed concern about the proposed in-verge parking to be used as visitor bays for the development. The proposed in-verge parking is considered to be acceptable for visitor parking and accords with the performance criteria of the R-Codes, as discussed in the Residential Design Codes section of the report. All resident parking is contained on site behind the security gate.


133

Currently, the subject site enjoys a right of carriageway through the adjoining Lot 2. This access is proposed to be retained via a pedestrian access gate between the two sites. This pedestrian thoroughfare is considered appropriate to encourage residents to walk to the adjoining commercial premises and obtain convenient access to the Thornlie train station. No vehicle access will be provided between Lots 2 and 3.

Fencing

Fencing to the development must comply with Clause 5.8.3 of TPS 6 which states that:

“On any land which is zoned for Commercial purposes and which adjoins land zoned for residential purposes, the commercial development shall be screened from the abutting residential land by a masonry or similarly constructed wall or fence not less than 2 metres in height and by trees and shrubs to the satisfaction of the Council.”

Although the subject site is not residentially zoned, the development of residential apartments abutting commercial developments is considered to warrant the same requirement. Should Council approve the proposal, it is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring a 2m high masonry or similarly constructed wall to be built along the boundary of the subject site and the adjoining Lot 4 with a concrete noise wall constructed along the boundary of Lot 2 Spencer Road, as recommended in the Noise Impact Assessment.

Fencing to Southdown Place is proposed to be visually permeable in accordance with Council Policy and this can also be imposed as a condition, should Council approve the proposal. Fencing to the railway reserve, is proposed to consist of a noise wall as recommended in the Noise Impact Assessment and discussed in the Noise Impacts section of the report above.

Streetscape

The proposed streetscape to Southdown Place consists of three storey multiple dwellings with courtyards to each apartment on the ground floor and balconies to each apartment on the first and second floors. The proposed development is considered to provide an attractive streetscape which creates excellent passive surveillance to Southdown Place through the large number of windows, balconies and visually permeable fencing to the ground floor dwelling courtyards. The portico articulates the entrance to the development and proposed landscaping is considered to enhance the visual amenity of the area.

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported for the following reasons:

The proposal complies with all aspects of the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 6, policies and the Residential Design Codes

The proposal is considered to provide a concentration of residential development in close proximity (approximately 150m) to the Thornlie Railway Station and the neighbouring local centre, which is consistent with the principles and objectives of the State Government’s Planning Policies DC 1.6 (Planning to Enhance Public Transport) and Liveable Neighbourhoods, the State Government’s ‘Network City’ plan and Council’s Local Housing Strategy which


134

all promote higher residential densities within close proximity to transport and activity centres.

The proposal is considered to contribute to an attractive streetscape

The proposal provides an alternative housing option in a locality currently dominated by single houses

The proposal is considered to be well designed and makes good use of the site in relation to the proximity of the adjoining railway reserve, fast food and other commercial uses on adjacent sites

The proposal is not considered to negatively impact on the amenity of the surrounding area, as discussed earlier in the report

The proposal has been designed to address potential noise impacts from rail noise

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.


649 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council approve the application for 42 Multiple Dwellings at 17 (Lot 3) Southdown Place, Thornlie, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions

1. Development may only be carried out in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plan.

2. The submitted plans shall be amended to incorporate all design changes recommended in the Noise Amelioration Plans as part of the Environmental Noise Assessment provided with the application prior to the issue of a building licence, to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.

3. Drainage plans shall be submitted for approval prior to the issue of a building licence and shall show gully and manhole locations; pipe sizes, locations and falls; subsoil drainage requirements; all invert levels; falls to paved areas; on-site stormwater compensating devices; proposed connections to the City's system; soakwells (if any); buildings (including floor levels); carparks (including pavement levels) and fill (proposed levels).

4. Stormwater is to be disposed of on-site through interconnected soakwells, with an overflow connection to the district drainage


135

system. The system shall be designed to accommodate a 1 in 5 year frequency storm. Larger events shall drain to the street. Relative to this requirement, stormwater run-off from the development shall be directed away from the adjacent railway reserve.

5. A geotechnical report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City certifying that the land is physically capable of development. The geotechnical report must also be in accordance with Australian Standard 2870.1 certifying that the soil conditions of the land are suitable for on-site disposal of stormwater and all necessary associated works provide the site with the capability to dispose stormwater on-site for infiltration. The geotechnical report is to be submitted prior to applying for a building licence and the commencement of or carrying out of any work or use authorised by this approval.

6. The crossover and accessway shall be redesigned to increase the site distance for motorists entering and exiting the site to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Services.

7. Prior to the issue of a building licence a landscaping plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge(s) is to be submitted for approval of the Manager City Planning in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy.

8. Landscaping and reticulation of the development site and adjoining road verges is to be installed prior to occupying the proposed development in accordance with the approved landscaping plan and thereafter maintained by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City.

9. The applicant is to lodge a development bond or bank guarantee with the City for the sum of $84,000 to cover the cost of installing landscaping/reticulation and construction of carparking areas/accessways, prior to the issue of a building licence.

10. The common property accessways, carparking and open space areas being constructed and drained at the subdivider’s cost to the specifications and satisfaction of the City.

11. On-street car parking adjacent to Southdown Place is to be designed and constructed to the satisfaction of the Director Infrastructure.

12. Existing crossovers that are not required as part of the development shall be removed and the verge reinstated to the satisfaction of the Manager Technical Services.

13. Footpaths being provided on the Southdown Place road verge for the entire width of the lot and to connect with the existing footpath to the satisfaction of the Director Infrastructure.


136

14. Trees identified on the site plan to be retained are to be suitably protected and incorporated into the proposed development.

15. External finishes and colour schemes are to be submitted prior to the issue of a building licence to the satisfaction of the Manager City Planning.

16. Fencing abutting Southdown Place shall be visually permeable 750mm above ground level and have a maximum height of 1.8 metres.

17. Fencing abutting Lot 4 Spencer Road is to be constructed of solid masonry or similar material not less than 2 metres in height to the satisfaction of the Manager City Planning.

18. Fencing along the south eastern and south western boundaries of Lot 3 (where the subject site abuts the adjoining railway reserve and Lot 2) is to be a 3.4m high concrete noise barrier wall to attenuate railway noise, certified by an appropriately qualified acoustic consultant as achieving compliance with Table 1 (Level 1) of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Draft Statement of Planning Policy: Road and Rail Transport Noise.

19. All cut and fill is to be retained within the property boundaries by structural engineer designed retaining walls of masonry or similar approved material, and are required to provide support to the boundary and any structure reliant on its integrity.

20. Visitor parking bays are at all times to be permanently marked and maintained by the proponent/strata company to the City’s satisfaction for exclusive use by visitors to the property.

21. A rubbish bin storage area shall be provided to accommodate 42 dwellings, located and screened from view from all units and the street to the satisfaction of the City.

22. A legal agreement shall be prepared at the proponents cost to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability, prior to the issue of a building licence indemnifying the City of Gosnells and its appointed contractors against any potential damage that may occur within the site area as a result of the City performing waste removal services for the occupants of the subject development.


137

23. Notification in the form of a memorial shall be placed on the Certificate of Title of the subject site and any subsequent titles of subdivided lots (should the property be subdivided) advising the existence of noise and odour impacts associated with the location of the development to the satisfaction of the Director Planning and Sustainability.

24. The development is to be connected to a reticulated sewerage system.

Advice Notes

1. You are advised of the need to apply for a Building Licence from the City’s Building Services Branch prior to the commencement of work. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia in this regard.

2. In relation to Condition 4, this condition is required due to the small lot sizes involved and the lack of space available to provide adequate on-site drainage disposal capacity, where the water table is high or where the soils are such that soakwells will not function effectively.

3. In relation to Condition 6, this condition has been imposed to increase sight distances for motorists entering and exiting the development.

4. In relation to Condition 8:

i) Any landscaping or earthmoving in the street verge is to be set at levels as directed by the City’s Infrastructure Directorate to ensure minimum disruption to future footpath levels. In this regard you are required to submit levels to the Infrastructure Directorate.

ii) The existing trees within the road verge shall not be removed and written permission shall be obtained from the City prior to any earthworks being carried out within four metres of those trees.

iii) The developer is advised that the City has a Shade Policy which must be considered as part of the development process.

iv) Where deciduous tree plantings are proposed, management measures must be developed to avoid leaf fall being delivered to the stormwater drainage network.

5. In relation to Condition 9, the bond will be returned to the applicant upon completion of the above works in accordance with the approved landscaping plan.

6. Where an “Alternative Design Solution” is proposed in place of “Deemed to Satisfy” provisions of the Building Code of Australia,


138

a Design Brief submitted by a suitably qualified Engineer is to be agreed upon in principle by Council prior to the lodgement of the final report. The final report will be required to address all the relevant performance requirements, indicating the satisfactory qualification of all safety provisions of the Building Code of Australia.

7. Fire and Emergency Services Authority assessment is required prior to approval of a Building Licence application, in accordance with Building Regulations 1989.

8. Footing and slab details and a site report from a structural engineer are required to be submitted with the Building Licence application.

9. Your attention is drawn to the following to minimise the impact of development works;

i) All development works must be carried out in accordance with Control of Noise Practices set out in section 6 of AS2436-1981. For further details please contact the Department of Environment.

ii) Development work is only permitted between 0700 hours and 1900 hours on any day which is not a Sunday or public holiday, without the written approval of the City.

iii) Development work shall comply in all respects with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

10. An approved site toilet is to be provided, maintained and serviced in accordance with the Health (Temporary Sanitary Conveniences) Regulations 1997.

11. This is a development approval issued under the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6. It is not an approval or consent to commence or carry out development under any other written law, act, statute, or agreement, whether administered by the City or not. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all relevant approvals are obtained prior to the commencement of any development covered by this approval.

12. The proponent is encouraged to liaise with the Public Transport Authority and WestNet Rail regarding their requirements for the provision of access to the adjacent railway reserve.

CARRIED 8/2FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr O Searle, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr R Hoffman and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr J Brown and Cr W Barrett.


139

13.5.8 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – FIVE GROUPED DWELLINGS – 24 (LOT 389) EVELYN STREET, GOSNELLS

Author: B FantelaReference: 204760Application No: 0506/2374Applicant: J Corp T/as ImpressionsOwner: Paul Corporation Pty LtdLocation: 24 (Lot 389) Evelyn Street, GosnellsZoning: MRS: Urban

TPS No. 6: Residential R30/40Review Rights: Yes. State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary

decision of Council.Area: 1,315m2

Previous Ref: OCM 26 September 2006 (Resolution 481) Appendix: Nil

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to reconsider an application for planning approval for five grouped dwellings at 24 (Lot 389) Evelyn Street, Gosnells in accordance with Resolution 481 of Council’s meeting on 26 September 2006.

BACKGROUND

Council, at its meeting on 26 September 2006, considered a development application for five grouped dwellings at 24 Evelyn Street, Gosnells and made the following resolution (Resolution 481):

“That Council refer back item 13.5.2 Development Application for Five Grouped Dwellings – 24 (Lot 389) Evelyn Street, Gosnells of the 26 September 2006 Ordinary Council Meeting to a future meeting of Council so that staff can discuss amendments to the submitted plans with the applicant, to have less overshadowing impact on the outdoor living area on the adjacent Lot 388.”

City Planning staff met with the applicant and landowner on 18 October 2006 to discuss possible amendments to the submitted plans.

The applicant has subsequently submitted an amended plan.

The amended plan shows only one variation from the plans previously considered by Council. The variation involves the proposed car accommodation for Unit 5, which instead of being shown as a garage with a parapet wall located on the side boundary with the adjoining Lot 388 is to be a carport setback 1m from this boundary.

The amended plan, including a revised shadow impact plan, is shown below.


140


141


142


143


144

When the originally submitted plan was advertised for public comment, the owners of Lot 388 and 390 Evelyn Street lodged objections. The amended plan was referred to the owners of Lots 388 and 390. The owner of Lot 388 has provided a letter of no objection. No response was received from the owner of Lot 390.

DISCUSSION

Proposal

It is proposed to construct five grouped dwellings at Lot 389 Evelyn Street, Gosnells. Vehicular access for four of the dwellings is to be provided by a central driveway and one dwelling will have direct access from Evelyn Street. The dwelling with the access from the street has tandem parking which includes one single garage. The remaining dwellings each have a double garage, except Unit 5 which, as described above, is to have a double carport setback 1m from the common boundary with Lot 388. There are walls proposed on both side boundaries (parapet walls), with the adjoining Lots 388 and 390. The proposal for walls on the side boundaries requires assessment under the Performance Criteria of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes), which is discussed later in this report.

Site Description

Lot 389 Evelyn Street is 1,315m2 in area and is flat and contains a single dwelling at the front and a shed at the rear. It is zoned “Residential R30/R40” under Town Planning Scheme No. 6 (TPS 6).


145

Lot 389 is also located within the Town Planning Scheme No. 20 (TPS 20) area, where landowners are required to contribute towards common infrastructure works upon subdivision or development. TPS 20 provides that lots greater than 1,250m2 in area and capable of being developed for at least two dwellings with a street frontage, may be developed to the R40 density code.

The adjacent Lot 390 contains a single residence and shed. The adjacent Lot 388 contains an existing dwelling and a shed towards the rear of the lot and two dwellings at the front which are under construction.

An identical application for five grouped dwellings within the TPS 20 area on a similarly dimensioned lot was submitted by Impressions and recently approved by staff under delegated authority from Council.

Town Planning Scheme No. 6

Under TPS 6, grouped dwellings are a discretionary use on Residential zoned land.

An assessment of the proposed development against relevant provisions of TPS 6 is provided in the table below:

TPS Clause Requirements Assessment/Comment1. Clause 11.2 - In considering an application for

planning approval, Council should have regard to various matters, including:

(i) the compatibility of a use or development with its setting;

The subject land sits in an area where TPS 6 makes provision for medium density development. A transition is presently occurring in the area where the previous prevailing low density form of development is making way for higher forms of density.

Whilst the proposed grouped dwellings incorporate a number of parapet walls, it is not considered that the development will be incompatible with the residential setting.

(n) the preservation of the amenity of the locality;

It is considered that the use of multiple parapet walls has a site-specific impact and will not have any bearing on the prevailing amenity of the locality. It is not considered that walls will cause any detrimental impacts beyond those that could reasonably be expected within a medium density residential zone.

(o) the relationship of the proposal to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the proposal;

The assessment of the likely effects of the height, bulk, scale and orientation of this aspect of the proposal is best assessed against the relevant provisions of the R Codes. Refer to the R Codes assessment table later in this report – clause 3.2.2.

(y) any relevant submissions received on the application;

When the originally submitted plan was advertised for public comment, the owners of Lot 388 and 390 Evelyn Street lodged objections. The amended plan was referred to the owners of Lots 388 and 390. The owner of Lot 388 has provided a letter of no objection. No response was received from the owner of Lot 390.


146


The R-Codes include Acceptable Development Criteria and a related set of Performance Criteria. Applications not complying with the Acceptable Development Criteria can be assessed against relevant Performance Criteria.

The proposal complies with all Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes, with the exception of those relating to buildings on boundaries. Assessment against the related Performance Criteria is guided by Policy 6.2.1.1 and detailed in the table below.

Policy – Residential Development Policy 6.2.1.1

Policy 6.2.1.1 prescribes:

Standards used to determine whether certain Performance Criteria of the R-Codes are met (column B); and

Standards of development that the City considers to be unacceptable (column C).

Proposals that fall outside column B standards but do not meet the standards listed in column C, as is the case with the subject proposal, require advertising.

R-Codes/Policy 6.2.1.1 Assessment Table

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment1. 3.3.2 Buildings on Boundary

Acceptable Development A2 (iii)

In areas coded R30 and higher walls no higher than 3.5m with an average of 3m for 2/3 the length of the balance of the boundary behind the front setback, to one side boundary.

The proposed parapet walls are to be 2.6m in height, which is only 0.8m higher than a standard dividing fence, but on two side boundaries. The proposal therefore does not comply with Acceptable Development provision 3.3.2.

Along the side boundary with Lot 388, the walls will occupy a total of 51% of the length of this boundary behind the street setback line (the originally submitted plans had parapet walls for 61% of the boundary).

Along the side boundary with Lot 390, the walls will occupy a total of 37% of the length of this boundary behind the street setback line.

The proportion of the side boundary occupied by parapet walls would otherwise comply with Acceptable Development provisions if the parapet walls were proposed only on one of the side boundaries.

Performance Criteria P2Buildings built up to boundaries other than the street boundary where it is desirable to do so in order to:

Make effective use of space; or

Assessment of this aspect of the proposal under the Performance Criteria is detailed against the Policy provisions below.

Enhance privacy; or

Otherwise enhance the amenity of the


147

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Commentdevelopment; and

Not have any significant adverse effect on the amenity of the adjoining property; and

Ensure that direct sun to major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of adjoining properties is not restricted.

Policy 6.2.1.1Clause 3.3.2 Column BBuildings built up to boundaries, other than the street boundary, providing that:

i) A letter of no objection from the affected landowner/s is provided with the application;

The proposal meets Column B standards as a letter of no objection was received from the owner of Lot 338 and no submission was received from the owner of Lot 390.

ii) The development complies with Acceptable Development provisions in sections 3.4, 3.7. 3.8 and 3.9 or variations permitted to these sections by other provisions of this Policy.

The proposal complies with Column B standards (that is, Acceptable Development provisions 3.4 – open space, 3.7 – building height, 3.8 – privacy and 3.9 - design for climate).

Clause 3.3.2 Column CDevelopment deemed to not comply with 3.3.2 Performance Criteria P2.

The proposed boundary walls do not meet any of the unacceptable development criteria in Column C, as they are considered to comply with the related Performance Criteria in terms of:

The effective use of space and enhancement of privacy; and

The enhancement of the streetscape and amenity of the development with the porches and windows overlooking the street and accessway, and limited occupation of the street frontage by garages (only a single garage is to front the street).

CONCLUSION

The proposal is supported as it complies with relevant provisions of TPS 6, TPS 20 and all but one of the Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes. Assessment against the related Performance Criteria for this one instance of non-compliance with Acceptable Development provisions complies with the requirements of Council’s Policy 6.2.1.1 – Residential Development.

The main point of concern when the proposal was first considered by Council was overshadowing on the adjacent Lot 388 which has now been addressed by the submission of amended plans and the receipt of a letter of no objection from the owner of the adjoining Lot 388.

It is therefore recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions as listed in the staff recommendation.


Nil.


148


650 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council approve the application for five grouped dwellings at 24 (Lot 389) Evelyn Street, Gosnells subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions

1. Development may only be carried out in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plan.

2. Before commencing any development authorised by this approval, an arrangement is to be made with the City to satisfy the requisite developer cost contribution applicable to the land under Town Planning Scheme No. 20.

3. Each dwelling is to be connected to the reticulated sewerage system.

4. Stormwater drainage from the proposed building and paved areas is to be disposed of on-site through interconnected soakwells, with an overflow connection to the City’s drainage system or to compensation/infiltration basins located within the confines of the site, in accordance with detailed plans. The system shall be designed to accommodate a 1 in 5 year frequency storm. Larger events may drain to the street. Plans should show gully and manhole locations, pipe sizes, locations and falls, subsoil drainage requirements, all invert levels, falls to paved.

5. Any easements necessary to facilitate maintenance access to the drainage installations being provided at the developer’s cost.

6. The external face of the parapet walls is to be finished to the satisfaction of the adjoining neighbour or, in the event of a dispute, to the satisfaction of the Manager City Planning.

7. The common property accessway being constructed and drained at the developer’s cost to the specifications and satisfaction of the City.

8. All crossovers are to be located and constructed to the City’s specifications.

9. A landscaping plan for the development site and the adjoining road verge is to be submitted in accordance with the City’s development landscaping policy and approved prior to the issue of a building licence.

10. Landscaping and reticulation of the development site and adjoining road verges is to be installed prior to occupying the


149

proposed development in accordance with the approved landscaping and maintained thereafter by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City.

11. The applicant is to lodge a development bond or bank guarantee with the City for the sum of $10,000 to cover the cost of installing landscaping/reticulation and construction of carparking areas/accessways, prior to the issue of a building licence.

12. Bin pads for the placement of mobile garbage bins are to be constructed in a location to the satisfaction of the City.

Advice Notes

1. This is a development approval issued under the Metropolitan Region Scheme and the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6. It is not an approval or consent to commence or carry out development under any other written law, act, statute, or agreement, whether administered by the City of Gosnells or not. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all relevant approvals are obtained prior to the commencement of any development covered by this approval.

2. With regard to Condition 4 above, this condition is required due to the small lot sizes involved and the lack of space available to provide adequate on-site drainage disposal capacity, where the water table is high or where the soils are such that soakwells will not function effectively.

3. Your attention is drawn to the following to minimise the impact of development works:

i) All development works must be carried out in accordance with Control of Noise Practices set out in section 6 of AS2436-1981. For further details please contact the Department of Environment and Conservation.

ii) Development work is only permitted between 0700 hours and 1900 hours on any day which is not a Sunday or public holiday, without the written approval of the City.

iii) Development work shall comply in all respects with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.


AGAINST: Nil.

13.5.9 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION – SINGLE DWELLING – 27 (STRATA LOT 2 OF LOT 211) OMAN PASS, CANNING VALE


150

Author: P WrightReference: 239341Application No: DA06/02538Applicant: Taurus HomesOwner: S & M SaundersLocation: 27 (Lot 211 Strata Lot 2) Oman Pass, Canning ValeZoning: MRS: Urban


decision of Council.Area: Strata Lot 2 - 265m²Previous Ref: OCM 14 February 2006 (Resolution 13) Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider an application for planning approval for a single dwelling at 27 (Strata Lot 2 of Lot 211) Oman Pass, Canning Vale, as the proposal is outside the authority delegated to staff.

BACKGROUND

Lot 211 is 507m2 in area and located within the Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) area. It is shown on the ODP as having a density coding of Residential R17.5 and lies within a 200m radius of an identified but yet to be developed mixed use centre at the intersection of Fraser Road North and Gateway Boulevard.

Lot 211 is the subject of a planning anomaly in that the ODP contains a principle that provides for a residential density greater than R17.5 to be applied to land within 200m of a mixed use centre, but the subject lot is not included within the “density circle” surrounding the Fraser Road/Gateway Boulevard centre.

Lot 211 was previously the subject of a proposal for two two-storey grouped dwellings which Council, at its meeting held on 14 February 2006 refused (Resolution 13) for the following reasons:

“1. The Council determines that the colouring shown on the ODP map shall prevail and therefore the proposal is in an area where the density shall be R17.5 or less, therefore the proposal does not comply.

2. The detrimental impact of the reduced side setbacks to both Oman Pass and Gateway Boulevard on the streetscape and its visual amenity.

3. The cumulative effect of the numerous variations to the Acceptable Development Criteria of the R-Codes and Council’s Residential Development Urban Design Guidelines policy.”


151

In relation to Council’s first reason for refusal above, it should be noted that as part of the Canning Vale ODP review report (refer to item 13.5.3 in this Agenda) Lots 211-214 and Lot 219 Oman Pass, Canning Vale have been designated on the Draft Revised Canning Vale ODP (contained at Appendix 13.5.3B) for higher density due to their location within approximately 200m of the designated Mixed Use Centre at the intersection of Gateway Boulevard and Fraser Road North.

Subsequent to Council’s meeting, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 6 April 2006 approved the subdivision of Lot 211 into two survey strata lots (WAPC reference 988-05).

As a consequence, Lot 211 is coded R17.5 but has been allowed to be subdivided at what is effectively an R40 density.

Proposal

It is proposed to construct a single-storey three bedroom dwelling on Strata Lot 2 of Lot 211 Oman Pass. Strata Lot 2 is flat, vacant and 265m2 in area. For reasons detailed in this report, the proposal does not meet with Acceptable Development provisions of the Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) for the R17.5 code.

Approval has already been granted for a single dwelling on Strata Lot 1 of Lot 211 under delegated authority as the proposal met the requirements of the Residential Design Codes for the R17.5 density and the related provisions of Council’s Residential Development Policy 6.2.1.1.


152


153


154

Consultation

The proposal for construction of a dwelling on Strata Lot 2 was referred to affected adjoining landowners for comment for 14 days in accordance with Policy 6.2.1.1 and TPS 6 requirements. During this time two submissions were received. A summary of these submissions and staff comments thereon are provided in the Schedule of Submissions included in this report.


1

Name and Postal Address:Haidar Al Kafaji78 Baxter CloseHuntingdale WA 6110

Affected Property:76 (Lot 210) Gateway BoulevardCanning Vale

Summary of Submission Staff CommentNo objection Noted

2

Name and Postal Address:D & D Finnie82 Chancery CrescentWilletton WA 6155

Affected Property:25 (Lot 212) Oman PassCanning Vale

Summary of Submission Staff CommentObjection to the proposal

2.1 The proposal does not comply with R17.5 density.

Noted. Notwithstanding that Lot 211 has been subdivided into two strata lots at effectively an R40 density, the proposal has been assessed at the R17.5 density given the manner in which the Canning Vale ODP “codes” the property. The R-Codes provide for variations to development requirements, for which Policy 6.2.1.1 provides interpretational guidance. The assessment against Policy 6.2.1.1 is detailed in the Assessment Table later in this report.

2.2 The reduced setback is detrimental to the streetscape.

It is noted that the proposed setback (average 4m) does not comply with the Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes for the R17.5 code which requires an average of 6m. However, the reduced street setback is not expected to have a detrimental impact on the objector’s property or the streetscape.

The reduced street setback is considered acceptable for the reasons detailed in the Assessment Table below.

2.3 The proposal is not unreasonable at a higher density

Noted, however the application has been assessed at the coding of R17.5. Refer to response to submission 2.1.


155

DISCUSSION

The proposal has been assessed against and complies with all relevant provisions of TPS 6, the R-Codes (at the R17.5 density coding) and City Policies, with the exception of those discussed in this section.


The R-Codes include Acceptable Development Criteria (prefixed by “A”) and Performance Criteria (prefixed by “P”). Applications not complying with the Acceptable Development Criteria can be assessed against relevant Performance Criteria.

The proposal complies with all Acceptable Development provisions of the R-Codes for the R17.5 density coding except for those relating to the Street Setback, Open Space Provision, Outdoor Living Area and Essential Facilities. Assessment against the related Performance Criteria for these matters is guided by Council’s Residential Development Policy 6.2.1.1 and detailed in the table below.

Residential Development Policy 6.2.1.1

Policy 6.2.1.1 prescribes:

Standards used to determine whether certain Performance Criteria are met (column B)

Standards of development that the City considers to be unacceptable (column C)


156

Proposals that fall outside column B standards but do not meet the standards listed in column C, as is the case with the subject proposal, require advertising.

Assessment Table

The Performance Criteria assessment applicable to this application and the provisions of Policy 6.2.1.1, is summarised in the following table:

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment1. R-Codes 3.2.1 Set Back of Buildings

GenerallyA1 Buildings other than carports and

garages set back from the primary street in accordance with Table 1.

For land coded R17.5, Table 1 of the R-Codes requires an average front setback distance of 6m with a minimum of 3m. The application has an average front set back of 4m, with a minimum set back of 2.68m. The dwelling is 0.32m closer to the front boundary than the minimum 3m required for the R17.5 density. The application therefore does not comply with Acceptable Development criteria A1.

P1 Buildings set back an appropriate distance to ensure they:

Contribute to the desired streetscape;

Provide adequate privacy and open space for dwellings; and

Allow safety clearances for easements for essential service corridors.

The reduced setback is seen as contributing to the streetscape through increased surveillance opportunities with two bedrooms and the front door/portico facing the street. The design of the dwelling is complementary to the site and does not impose on the streetscape. The variance of 0.32m in the minimum street setback is unlikely to be apparent when viewed with the naked eye and is therefore not expected to adversely impact on the streetscape.

Lots on each side of the dwelling (Lot 210 and Strata Lot 1) are vacant, with the owners providing no objection to the development.

Increasing the street setback would negatively impact on the provision of private open space, inequitably restrict development potential of the lot and force the dwelling and outdoor living area to be located closer to Lot 212.

Had the property not been subdivided, the frontage to Gateway Boulevard may have been developed as the secondary street with a 1.5m setback and solid side boundary fence. The proposal is considered a preferable alternative.

It is considered the application complies with Performance Criteria P1.

Policy 6.2.1.1Col B - Buildings, other than carports and

garages, set back from street boundaries such that:

i) The front entry to the dwelling is readily identifiable;

ii) At least one window from a habitable room is capable of providing surveillance of the street;

The subject proposal complies with Column B standards and is therefore considered to comply with the related Performance Criteria.

iii) Sightlines between the property and the street and pedestrian and vehicular safety are not compromised;


157

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Commentiv) No fencing is proposed on or within

the front boundary that inappropriately limits identification of the front entry to the dwelling, passive surveillance of the street or vehicle sightlines; and

v) Safety clearances for service easements are not compromised.

Col C - Development which does not comply with standards set out in Column B.

Column C is not applicable because the application complies with Column B.

2. 3.4.1 Open Space ProvisionA1 Open space provided in accordance

with Table 1 and Elements 2 and 3.Table 1 states that for land coded R17.5 a minimum 50% of the site is to be set aside for open space. The application proposes 44% open space and therefore does not meet Acceptable Development Criteria A1.

P1 Sufficient open space around buildings:

To complement the building;

To allow attractive streetscapes;

To suit the future needs of residents, having regard to the type and density of the dwelling.

The application proposes circulation (minimum 1m setback) around all but one side of the dwelling, a courtyard and sufficient space for a small front garden. Given the size of the lot and style of house the open space is considered sufficient for the future needs of the residents. Therefore it is considered that Performance Criteria P1 has been met.

Policy 6.2.1.1Col B - Open space provided around a building

on a lot zoned Residential R5 to R17.5 that;

i) Is at least 90% of the area required by Table 1 of the R-Codes;

ii) Includes an outdoor living area of the area required by Table 1 of the R-Codes and directly accessible from a living or dining areas; and

iii) Positively contributes to an attractive streetscape.

The application does not meet the criteria of Column B as:

i) 90% of the area required by Table 1 is the equivalent of 45% open space whereas the application proposes only 44% open space (a difference of 2.65m2).

ii) The outdoor living area is proposed to be 21m². Table 1 requires 36m² for R17.5 sites.

The proposed dwelling is however considered to contribute to attractive streetscape.

Col C - Development which does not comply with Acceptable Development provisions 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and the cumulative effects of these variations to these provisions is considered to represent overdevelopment.

The circumstances of the proposal are unique as the strata lot of 265m2 has been allowed to be created, notwithstanding the R17.5 coding. The proposal would comply with R40 provisions, which is in effect the density to which the lot has been created. It is considered that some flexibility should be exercised in this case and that the cumulative effects of the variations to the R-Codes do not represent overdevelopment of the property.

3. 3.4.2 Outdoor Living AreasA2 An Outdoor Living Area to be provided:

In accordance with Table 1;

Behind the street setback area;

Directly accessible from a habitable room of a dwelling;

Table 1 states the outdoor living area is to be a minimum of 36m² whereas the proposed outdoor living area is 21m². In all other respects the Outdoor Living Area complies with the Acceptable Development Criteria A2.


158

R-Code Clause/Requirement Assessment/Comment With a minimum length and width

dimension of 4m; and

To have at least 2/3 of the required area without permanent roof cover.

P2 An outdoor area capable of use in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling, and if possible, open to winter sun.

A westerly facing courtyard is provided off the family room and is open to winter sun. This courtyard is considered adequate for the future needs of the residents. Therefore Performance Criteria P2 is considered to have been met.

Col B - Same as 3.4.1 above. The proposal does not comply with Column B standards.

Col C - Development provisions of 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4 and the cumulative effects of variations to these provisions is considered to represent overdevelopment.

Refer to comment in respect to R-Code clause 3.4.1 above (Policy 6.2.1.1, Col C)..

4. 3.10.3 Essential FacilitiesA3.1 An enclosed, lockable storage area,

constructed in a design and material matching the dwelling, accessible from outside the dwelling, with a minimum dimension of 1.5m with an internal area of at least 4m²

The application proposes a storage area of 3m², with a minimum dimension of 0.8m and therefore does not comply with Acceptable Development A3.1

P3 Provision made for external storage, rubbish collection/storage areas, and clothes-drying areas that is:

Adequate for the needs of residents; and

Without detriment to the amenity of the locality.

The application proposes a storeroom within the garage which is suitable for storing garden tools and other domestic items. It is considered the storeroom will meet the needs of the residents and have no impact on the amenity of the surrounding area. Therefore it is considered the Performance Criteria P3 has been met.

Col B - For a Grouped Dwelling:

i) Provision of at least a 3m² storage space within a lockable garage that is in addition to the dimensions required by Acceptable Development provision 3.5.3.A3.2 to accommodate vehicles; or

ii) Where an outdoor living area is provided for exclusive use of the dwelling that is 6m² greater than that required by Acceptable Development provision 3.4.2 A2 and a storeroom is considered able to be erected in future without compromising the integrity of the streetscape or the amenity of neighbours in which case a storeroom need not be provided; and

iii) Provision for rubbish bins that meet Acceptable Development provision 3.10.3 A3.2

The subject proposal complies with Column B standards and is therefore considered to comply with the related Performance Criteria.

Col C - Development deemed to not comply with 3.10.3 Performance Criteria or the related standards set out in Column B

Column C is not applicable, because the application complies with Column B


159

CONCLUSION

Taking into account the fact that Lot 211 has been subdivided into two strata lots, the zoning anomaly with the Canning Vale ODP, and the provisions of Policy 6.2.1.1, the proposed dwelling represents a reasonable development at the R17.5 density coding and is therefore supported by staff. The proposal complies with relevant acceptable development provisions and performance criteria of the R-Codes as guided by Policy 6.2.1.1 and is not expected to adversely impact on the amenity or streetscape of the surrounding area.

It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to appropriate conditions.


Nil.



That Council approve the application for a single dwelling at 27 (Strata Lot 2 of Lot 211) Oman Pass, Canning Vale, subject to the following conditions and advice notes:

Conditions

1. Development may only be carried out in accordance with the terms of the application as approved herein and any approved plans.

2. The site is to be connected to a reticulated sewerage system.

3. Stormwater is to be disposed of on-site through interconnected soakwells, with an overflow connection to the district drainage system. The system shall be designed to accommodate a 1 in 5 year frequency storm. Larger events shall drain to the street.

4. All cut and fill to be retained within the property boundaries by structural engineer designed retaining walls of masonry or similar approved material, and are required to provide support to the boundary and any structure reliant on its integrity.

Advice Notes

1. You are advised of the need to apply for a Building License from the City’s Building Services Branch prior to the commencement of work. Your attention is drawn to the requirements of the Building Code of Australia in this regard.

2. Footing and slab details and a site report from a structural engineer are required to be submitted with the building license application.


160

3. With regard to Condition 3, this condition is required due to the small lot sizes involved and the lack of space available to provide adequate on-site drainage disposal capacity, where the water table is high or where the soils are such that soakwells will not function effectively.

4. With regard to Condition 4, details are to be submitted to the City as part of a Building License application, for approval by the Manager Building Services.

5. This is a development approval issued under the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6. It is not an approval or consent to commence or carry out development under any other written law, act, statute, or agreement, whether administered by the City or not. It is the applicant’s responsibility to ensure all relevant approvals are obtained prior to the commencement of any development covered by this approval.

CARRIED 7/3FOR: Cr P Wainwright, Cr R Mitchell, Cr J Henderson, Cr C Matison, Cr S Iwanyk, Cr J Brown and Cr PM Morris.

AGAINST: Cr O Searle, Cr R Hoffman and Cr W Barrett.


161

13.5.10 POLICY FINALISATION - LOCAL PLANNING POLICY – PLANNING IMPLEMENTATION FRAMEWORK FOR LOCAL HOUSING STRATEGY AND LARGE LOT OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN (ODP) AREAS

Author: H MiragliottaPrevious Ref: OCM 11 July 2006 (Resolution 343)

OCM 11 October 2005 (Resolutions 447-450)Appendices: 13.5.10A Proposed Local Planning Policy – Planning Implementation

Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas

13.5.10B Tracked changes to Local Planning Policy - Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas

13.5.10C Revised Local Planning Policy - Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider final adoption of the draft Local Planning Policy for the Planning Implementation Framework for the Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan Areas.

BACKGROUND

Council at its meeting on 11 July 2006 resolved (Resolution 343) to advertise for public comment a draft Policy for a planning implementation framework for the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas. A copy of the draft Policy (as advertised) is contained in Appendix 13.5.10A.

The first part of the draft Policy outlines the approach to be taken in implementing the density increases as recommended by the LHS.

The second part of the draft Policy provides guidance on the preparation of ODPs for the Large Lot ODP Areas where Council has previously resolved that an ODP is required to coordinate subdivision and development within these areas. This part of the policy also guides the consideration of proposals for subdivision and development lodged prior to ODPs being adopted.

DISCUSSION

In accordance with Council’s resolution from 11 July 2006 the draft Policy was advertised for public comment from 26 July to 16 August 2006 in the following manner:

Advertisements in the Examiner newspaper

Display on the City’s website


162

Consultation

While a large number of enquiries were made in respect to the draft Policy, only three submissions were received during the advertising period. Four additional submissions were received after the close of the advertising period. A summary of submissions received and staff comments thereon are provided in the Schedule of Submissions below.


1

Name and Postal Address:BI and KD Ballentyne20 Bertram StreetMaddington WA 6109

Summary of Submission Staff Comment1.1 Requests that Lot 11 (No. 20) Bertram Street,

Maddington be incorporated into the adjoining R30 area of higher density or more specifically Sub-Precinct B.

Noted. The subject land may well be appropriate for inclusion in the R30 zone, however, variations to the boundaries of the areas of higher density within the Housing Precincts of the Strategy through the incorporation of additional lots into these areas cannot be facilitated through the draft Policy. One of the key objectives of the draft Policy is to provide a framework for implementation of LHS recommendations. It would be open to the landowner to either make a submission on a recoding proposal for sub-precinct B to expand the amendment area when it is advertised for public comment, or to prepare a recoding proposal at their own cost in accordance with the draft Policy principles.

1.2 Provides the following justification as to why the subject property should be included in the adjoining area of higher density:

The landholding is 9,358m2 making it one of the larger undeveloped parcels in the Central Maddington Precinct.

Noted, however a submission containing this justification would need to be lodged and considered by Council during the advertising period of an amendment to change the coding of Sub-Precinct B from R17.5 to R30 or as a separate recoding proposal as referenced in response to submission 1.1 above.

Proposed Sub-Precinct B is immediately adjacent to the subject property.

The adjoining property, No. 16 Bertram Street which is included in Sub-Precinct B, is owned by Mrs Ballentyne’s parents. The total area of this property and the subject property is 1.4422ha. The properties upon being combined represent a substantial land holding for future redevelopment. The sites, upon being amalgamated, would have multiple accesses and if redeveloped would result in the emergence of a high quality development.

The subject site is in close walking distance (approximately 4 minutes) of the local shopping centre, primary school, medical practice, community centre and skate park.


163

Summary of Submission Staff Comment In a recent conversation with a Planning

Officer from the City they recognised the merit of including the subject lot in the same higher density coding as Sub-Precinct B.

2

Name and Postal Address:Koltasz SmithPO Box 127Burswood WA 6100

Summary of Submission Staff Comment

2.1 Koltasz Smith expects to submit a recoding application for the Priority 1 Area north-west of the Village Centre (Brookman Avenue/Foxwood Way) within the Langford Housing Precinct.

Noted.

2.2 Their primary interests are in the Langford Housing Precinct and that:

The Precinct is straightforward in Planning terms

Noted.

The Precinct comprises of landowners who are predominantly supportive of the LHS (this is evidenced by LHS advertising)

The Precinct generally comprises of low income (original) landowners who cannot afford to initiate applications to the City or engage consultants

2.3 Koltasz Smith are acting on behalf of one landowner but expect to be able to confirm the engagement of several others. Many landowners in Langford are more likely to remain supportive without being able to contribute to the cost of recoding the area.

Noted.

2.4 Is concerned over the size of Sub-Precincts within the Langford Housing Precinct areas of high density. Suggests the use of smaller Sub-Precincts comprising of 10 to 15 lots for the following reasons:

Council could support progressive recodings more readily

It is recommended that Sub-Precinct A be further divided into two sub-precincts separated by Langford Avenue which forms a logical geographical separation.

Sub-Precincts comprising of 10 to 15 lots will not be possible for the reasons listed below (refer to response to submission 2.5).

Smaller recoding areas would allow consultants to keep costs to a minimum for landowners

Smaller recoding areas would be a relatively simple processing matter for the City

2.5 Acknowledges that smaller Sub-Precincts will increase the potential number of Scheme Amendments however reporting would still be the same and therefore not burden the City or Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

This is incorrect. Substantially smaller sub-precincts will result in a high number of Scheme Amendments being initiated for the Langford Housing Precinct and this will have a significant impact on staff workloads, which would delay implementation of LHS recommendations, and may also result in the planning for the area being too fragmented.


164


2.6 The coordination of the Strategy will not be hindered if the smaller Sub-Precincts are consistent with the priorities already allocated to each proposed Sub Precinct.

Agreed. The priorities for City initiated recodings would remain the same upon the creation of smaller precincts.

3

Name and Postal Address:Dykstra Planning6/2954 Albany HighwayKelmscott WA 6111


3.1 Submission prepared by Dykstra Planning on behalf of the landowners of Lots 5 and 21 Albany Highway, Maddington. The subject lots fall within the Central Maddington Housing Precinct (proposed Sub-Precinct E) of the Strategy.

Noted.

3.2 Council at its meeting on 8 August 2006 resolved to adopt Scheme Amendment 62 to amend the residential coding over Sub-Precinct E from R17.5 to R30. This proposal is consistent with the recommendations of the Strategy.

Noted. The proposed Scheme Amendment complies with the Local Housing Strategy and Council’s draft Policy.

3.3 Supports the Policy intent but believes that detailed aspects of the Policy require clarification. The report to Council in relation to the draft policy stipulates that the identified Sub-Precincts contained within the Policy Table are the smallest geographical areas that will be considered for recoding. However the policy does not explicitly state that this is also intended to apply to areas for which an ODP is required.

Noted. The report to Council and the draft Policy do not specify a minimum area for ODPs.

Refer to Modification 8 in the Schedule of Modifications later in this report.

3.4 Objects to the Sub-Precincts being the smallest geographical areas for ODPs on the grounds that the determination of an appropriate area to be included within an ODP should be based on a detailed assessment of the critical landowner and land use coordination considerations relevant to a particular area.

Noted. Refer to Modification 8 in the Schedule of Modifications later in this report.

3.5 Also suggests that an appropriate ODP area should not impose unreasonable limitations on landowners where resolution of such matters is beyond the control of landowners in a particular area.


3.6 Points raised in Submissions 3.4 and 3.5 are consistent with Part 7 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 which makes provision for the staged implementation of ODPs and for ODPs to relate to only part of an area for which an ODP is required.

Noted and acknowledged that:

Clause 7.3.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 states that an ODP may, with the agreement of Council, be prepared and implemented in stages

Clause 7.3.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 states that an ODP may relate to only part of an ODP area.


165

Summary of Submission Staff Comment3.7 Requests that the discretion to consider ODPs

prepared in relation to a sub-set of the specified Sub-Precincts be clearly identified within the Policy text. Advises that this will enable the Policy to facilitate rather than limit the redevelopment of residential areas.


4

Name and Postal Address: Late SubmissionWater CorporationPO Box 100Leederville WA 6902

Summary of Submission Staff CommentProvides the following comments in regard to the draft Policy:

4.1 Water - A supply of reticulated water is available by extension or amplification of mains if required at the developer’s cost. Hydraulic analysis of the existing planning system is required to determine the extent of upgrades to the scheme. Upgrades to this service proposal will be at the developer’s cost.

Noted. This does not warrant a change to the Policy.

4.2 Sewerage – Wastewater planning exists for the areas identified for increased density. The implementation of Water Corporation planning for the provision of the infrastructure to service the area is dependent on development and may require prefunding by the developer for headworks or the provision of temporary works funded by the developer. Upgrades to the existing system will be required at the developer’s cost.


4.3 Drainage – Drainage planning exists for the areas identified for higher densities. The proposed development may impact upon the Water Corporation’s existing and proposed drainage infrastructure. The proposed increases in density may require additional compensation of flows. This may result in upgrades to the existing infrastructure.


4.4 The developers of the areas identified for higher densities are advised to liaise with the Water Corporation to determine the Corporation’s drainage requirements before submitting a proposed subdivision, development plan or building plan for this area.


4.5 Outline Development Plans – Those areas over which ODPs are required should incorporate the requirements of the State Water Strategy, and Department of Water requirements in regard to Water Sensitive urban design.

This can be addressed at the time that individual ODPs are considered, and does not warrant a change to the Policy.


166

Summary of Submission Staff Comment4.6 The principle followed by the Water

Corporation for the funding of subdivision or development is one of user pays. The developer is expected to provide all water and sewerage reticulation and to contribute to headworks. In addition the developer may be required to fund new works or the upgrading of existing works to provide for the increased demand resulting from the increases in density and subsequent development.

Noted. The lack of services may be a constraint to subdivision and development in areas of fragmented land ownership. The Water Corporation should consider the establishment of cost sharing arrangements for the provision of services to ensure timely provision and equitable distribution of costs. If it is not prepared to do so, the City may need to accept this responsibility if it wishes to see LHS and ODP recommendations implemented. This can be addressed at the time that individual ODPs are considered, and does not warrant a change to the Policy.

5

Name and Postal Address: Late SubmissionJ and N Webb442 Railway ParadeBeckenham WA 6107


5.1 Expresses dismay over Council’s review of Large Residential Lots Requiring Outline Development Plans (ODPs) and advises that the sale of the subject property has fallen through as the buyer believed that Council’s “inconsistency” and “obstructionism” would hinder the development of the property.

By adopting the Draft Planning Policy Council has attempted to introduce certainty and consistency into the planning process, for landowners and developers alike, by clearly identifying those areas that require coordinated planning in the form of an ODP and by providing an opportunity for landowners to either wait for the City to prepare an ODP, or to prepare an ODP themselves.

5.2 Raises the following points:

(i) Ten years ago, the house was considered to be a reasonable investment given the size of the lot (4,098m2).

Noted.

(ii) It is no longer affordable to develop the property and it is currently too dangerous for children.

Noted.

(iii) The house is 400m to the Beckenham Primary School, 700m to the Beckenham Railway Station and 200m to the Beckenham Community Centre.

Noted.

(iv) In October 2005, Council resolved that an ODP would be required prior to the development of any property within the Railway Parade Precinct.

At its meeting on 11 October 2005 Council determined that ODPs were required to coordinate the subdivision and development of land within 13 precincts throughout the City, due to those properties being relatively large in size and already suitable for further subdivision and development. Without an ODP in place the subdivision and development of one property could compromise the opportunity to subdivide or develop another property, or could result in unacceptable development that results in poor design outcomes for the community.

(v) Council staff have estimated the cost of an ODP to be between $60,000 to $100,000.

Council staff cannot accurately estimate the cost of preparing an ODP for the Railway Parade Precinct as the true costs will not be known until planning of the area commences and formal quotes have been obtained from suitably qualified planning consultants.


167


(vi) The level of consultation over the decision to require an ODP prior to any further subdivision or development occurring is considered to have been woefully inadequate. Given the option, the landowners would have never consented to the requirement for an ODP over the subject Precinct.

Clause 7.1(b) of the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 specifies an ODP may be required in any zone where the Council identifies the need for a framework to coordinate subdivision, development and use of land due to fragmented land ownership or other matters that have an impact upon the orderly and proper planning of an area.

(vii) The landowners are now faced with the problem of living in a rapidly disintegrating house nearing the end of its life and are forced to waste money on its upkeep when it should be demolished.

Noted.

5.3 The completion of an ODP is an onerous task for a single family to undertake.

The preparation of an ODP for the entire Railway Parade Precinct is not a task that needs to be borne by a single landowner. Given that the precinct covers some 30 privately owned properties it would be in the best interests of all landowners to jointly prepare an ODP for the overall Precinct, or to separately prepare smaller ODPs for different parts of the Precinct, if it can be demonstrated that this will produce a satisfactory planning outcome.

5.4 Makes the following requests of Council:

(i) That Council either revoke the requirement for an ODP over the Railway Parade Precinct or prepare and finalise an ODP within six months at its expense.

It would not be in the best interests of the City or affected landowners in the Railway Parade Precinct to revoke the requirement for an ODP over the Precinct given that an ODP over the precinct will contribute to the orderly and proper planning of the Precinct. On the other hand, it would be virtually impossible to prepare and complete an ODP for the entire precinct within a six month timeframe.

(ii) That Council review its policies to ensure that adequate consultation with rate payers who are affected by additional Council Policies occurs.

The rationale behind the decision to require ODPs over various precincts within the City was detailed in a letter from the City to all affected landowners dated 22 December 2005.

(iii) That a flowchart outlining the procedure to be followed by developers when developing properties within the Railway Parade Precinct be devised and made available.

City Planning staff are in the process of preparing a template to guide the structure and form of ODPs, as one does not currently exist. The City’s Town Planning Scheme does however outline all the information that needs to be addressed.

(iv) That Council provide a letter signed by each Councillor stating that Council will approve any reasonable development proposal in the Railway Parade Precinct.

A letter signed by all Councillors stating that Council will approve any reasonable development proposal in the Railway Precinct will not be sought by staff. Clause 2.5 of the Draft Policy already states that Council may support subdivision or development in the Large Lot ODP Precincts without the need for an ODP, subject to certain criteria being met. Additionally, although Council must have regard for the Policy when dealing with development applications, it is not bound by the Policy.

(v) That training be provided for the staff of the Planning Department to ensure greater consistency when information is being provided to the public.

Staff are already experienced in this field.


168

6

Name and Postal Address: Late SubmissionS Giles450 Railway ParadeBeckenham WA 6107


6.1 Expresses dismay over Council’s review of Large Residential Lots Requiring Outline Development Plans (ODPs) and advises that the sale of the subject property has fallen through as the buyer believed that Council’s “inconsistency” and “obstructionism” would hinder the development of the property.

By adopting the Draft Planning Policy Council has attempted to introduce certainty and consistency into the planning process, for landowners and developers alike, by clearly identifying those areas that require coordinated planning in the form of an ODP and by providing an opportunity for landowners to either wait for the City to prepare an ODP, or to prepare an ODP themselves.

6.2 Raises the following points:

(i) Initially considered the house to be a reasonable investment given the size of the lot (2,020m2).

Noted.

(ii) It is no longer affordable to develop the property.

Noted.

(iii) The house is 425m to the Beckenham Primary School, 725m to the Beckenham Railway Station and 225m to the Beckenham Community Centre.

Noted.

(iv) In October 2005, Council resolved that an ODP would be required prior to the development of any property within the Railway Parade Precinct.

At its meeting on 11 October 2005 Council determined that ODPs were required to coordinate the subdivision and development of land within 13 precincts throughout the City, due to those properties being relatively large in size and already suitable for further subdivision and development. Without an ODP in place the subdivision and development of one property could compromise the opportunity to subdivide or develop another property, or could result in unacceptable development that results in poor design outcomes for the community.

(v) Council staff have estimated the cost of an ODP to be between $60,000 to $100,000.

Council staff cannot accurately estimate the cost of preparing an ODP for the Railway Parade Precinct as the true costs will not be known until planning of the area commences and formal quotes have been obtained from suitably qualified planning consultants.

(vi) The level of consultation over the decision to require an ODP prior to any further subdivision or development occurring is considered to have been woefully inadequate. Given the option, the landowner would have never consented to the requirement for an ODP over the subject Precinct.

Clause 7.1(b) of the City of Gosnells Town Planning Scheme No. 6 specifies an ODP may be required in any zone where the Council identifies the need for a framework to coordinate subdivision, development and use of land due to fragmented land ownership or other matters that have an impact upon the orderly and proper planning of an area.

(vii) The landowner is now faced with the problem of living in a rapidly disintegrating house nearing the end of its life and is forced to waste money on its upkeep when it should be demolished.

Noted.


169


6.3 The completion of an ODP is an onerous task for a single rate payer to undertake.

The preparation of an ODP for the entire Railway Parade Precinct is not a task that needs to be borne by a single landowner. Given that the precinct covers some 30 privately owned properties it would be in the best interests of all landowners to jointly prepare an ODP for the overall Precinct, or to separately prepare smaller ODPs for different parts of the Precinct, if it can be demonstrated that this will produce a satisfactory planning outcome.

6.4 Makes the following requests of Council:

(i) That Council either revoke the requirement for an ODP over the Railway Parade Precinct or prepare and finalise an ODP within six months at its expense.

It would not be in the best interests of the City or affected landowners in the Railway Parade Precinct to revoke the requirement for an ODP over the Precinct given that an ODP over the precinct will contribute to the orderly and proper planning of the Precinct. On the other hand, it would be virtually impossible to prepare and complete an ODP for the entire precinct within a six month timeframe.

(ii) That Council review its policies to ensure that adequate consultation with rate payers who are affected by additional Council Policies occurs.

The rationale behind the decision to require ODPs over various precincts within the City was detailed in a letter from the City to all affected landowners dated 22 December 2005.

(iii) That a flowchart outlining the procedure to be followed by developers when developing properties within the Railway Parade Precinct be devised and made available.

City Planning staff are in the process of preparing a template to guide the structure and form of ODPs, as one does not currently exist. The City’s Town Planning Scheme does however outline all the information that needs to be addressed.

(iv) That Council provide a letter signed by each Councillor stating that Council will approve any reasonable development proposal in the Railway Parade Precinct.

A letter signed by all Councillors stating that Council will approve any reasonable development proposal in the Railway Precinct will not be sought by staff. Clause 2.5 of the Draft Policy already states that Council may support subdivision or development in the Large Lot ODP Precincts without the need for an ODP, subject to certain criteria being met. Additionally, although Council must have regard for the Policy when dealing with development applications, it is not bound by the Policy.

(v) That training is provided for the staff of the Planning Department to ensure greater consistency when information is being provided to the public.

Staff are already experienced in this field.

7

Name and Postal Address: Late SubmissionMr J SheridanPerth Property Net20 Howard StreetPERTH WA 6000


7.1 Perth Property Net are acting on behalf of the Rehoboth Christian School.

Noted.

7.2 The school has strategic and operational goals to combine its two primary schools located in Kenwick and Wilson as feeders for a yet to be constructed secondary school in the City of Gosnells.

Noted.


170


7.3 The proposed secondary school was to be constructed on Pt Lot 107 Kenwick Road, Kenwick which has an area of 5.9716ha and is currently zoned Residential R17.5.

Noted.

7.4 The western portion of the land (approximately 3.0ha) is a designated Conservation Category Wetland (highest priority wetland) which has resulted in the balance of the land being too small to cater for secondary school requirements.

Noted.

7.5 The Rehoboth School have entered into discussions with the City regarding the possibility of the City providing alternative suitable land on Gosnells Road West.

Noted, however the preliminary discussions between the City and the Rehoboth Christian School are a separate issue and have only been entered into by staff on a “without prejudice” basis.

7.6 Has become aware that the subject land falls into the Kenwick Housing Precinct under Council’s Local Housing Strategy. The subject land abuts a proposed R30 area of higher density (Sub-Precinct F).

Noted.

7.7 It has been noted that the land surrounding the Rehoboth School has attracted a Priority 2 rating.

The area of high density abutting the subject site has been divided up into 5 sub-precincts (Kenwick Sub-Precincts E-I). Sub-Precincts I and F are the closest sub-precincts to the subject site and under the advertised draft Policy, they were allocated priority ratings of 2 and 4 respectively. These priorities have both been revised to a rating of 3 for each of these sub-precincts since then.

7.8 The subject site falls within 400 metres (a 5 minute walk) radius from Kenwick Village.

Noted.

7.9 Council staff have indicated that the subject land would more than likely have been included in the adjoining area of high density had it not been for the existing use as a school.

Noted.

7.10 The City has shown an interest in supporting the Rehoboth School by providing land at Gosnells Road West and therefore a priority 1 rating may be justified for timely pursuit of this potential agreement. It is therefore requested that the subject land be included in the adjoining area of high density.

Firstly, City staff have entered into preliminary discussions with the School to simply identify what (if any) community value would arise from development of a new secondary school on City owned land in Gosnells Road West. Secondly, the inclusion of the school site into an adjoining area of high density is beyond the scope of the Policy. This issue could be considered by Council during the advertising period of an amendment to change the coding of Sub-Precinct F from R17.5 to R30 or alternatively a separate amendment to Town Planning Scheme No. 6 to change the zoning of the subject lot from R17.5 to R30 could be initiated by the landowners and considered by Council at any stage.

Issues Arising from Submissions and Staff Review

An assessment of the submissions received during and after the advertising period as well as a review of the draft policy by Council staff has resulted in certain modifications being recommended to the draft Policy to improve its operation.


171

The following table details the revisions made to the draft Policy, including explanations on why they are considered necessary. The modifications are reflected in the draft revised Policy contained in Appendix 13.5.10C. For the convenience of Council changes between the advertised draft Policy and the draft revised Policy are shown tracked in Appendix 13.5.10B with a strikethrough identifying words to be deleted, proposed new wording is shown in bold and italics, changes to the column headed “Cost Contributions/Infrastructure Upgrades” in Table 1 are shown italic and shaded, and an addition to the map showing Langford Housing Precinct also indicated.

Schedule of Modifications to Draft Policy

Mod No. Policy Provision Modifications Detail Reason1. Policy Application

SectionDelete the first sentence of the first paragraph and replace with the following sentences:

“Under the LHS the residential areas of the City of Gosnells (with the exception of Canning Vale, Southern River, West Martin, North Maddington and South Huntingdale) have been divided up into eleven Housing Precincts. Each Housing Precinct contains one or more areas which have been identified for an increase in density. For purpose of defining a minimum area over which an amendment to a higher density should cover, the areas of higher density have been divided into sub-precincts.”

To introduce terminology which is consistent with that used in the LHS document and to briefly introduce the Housing Precincts of the LHS and describe how the areas of higher density and sub-precincts relate to the Housing Precincts.

2. Policy Application Section

Modify two portions of the first sentence of the second paragraph so that it reads:

“Throughout the City there are thirteen precincts which comprise large underdeveloped residential lots in fragmented ownership for which Council has previously resolved that an ODP is required to be prepared to coordinate subdivision and development within these precincts.”

To briefly introduce the Large Lot Precincts and provide a summary of their general characteristics.

3. Clause 1.1 Delete the words “LHS precinct” and replace with “Housing Precinct”.

To enable the wording of the Policy to be consistent with that of the LHS document.

4. Clause 1.5(i) Delete the words “LHS precinct” and replace with “Housing Precinct”.


5. Clause 1.5(ii) Delete the words “LHS precinct” and replace with “Housing Precinct”.


6. Clause 1.7 In the first paragraph after the word “land” include the words “within a sub-precinct”.

To be more specific and to enable the Clause to be more specific and less generic.

7. Clause 1.8 and 1.8 i).

Delete the words “LHS precinct” and replace with “Housing Precinct”.



172

Mod No. Policy Provision Modifications Detail Reason8. Introduce a new

Clause 1.9Add the following words:

“1.9 Council Determination (ODPs)Council will not consider adopting an ODP, where one is required, for any area geographically smaller than the sub-precinct shown on the relevant plan in Appendix 1 of this Policy, unless Council is satisfied that a smaller ODP area reflects a self contained development cell and progression of the ODP will not prejudice the orderly and proper planning of any other area in the sub-precinct.”

To ensure that an ODP addresses requirements for the precinct or, where acceptable, part of the precinct.

9. Introduce a new Clause 1.10

Add the following words:

“1.10 Subdivision and Development of LandWhere a proposal for subdivision or development is lodged for land included in an area identified for higher density as detailed on the plans in Appendix 1 to this policy, Council may support the proposal without the need for an adopted ODP being in place where in Council’s opinion that subdivision or development would:

i) Not prejudice the future planning and development of the surrounding area

ii) Create regular shaped lots

iii) Not be of a lesser or higher density than the current density coding and enable further subdivision or development in accordance with that density coding

iv) Create lots or dwellings with direct road frontage

v) Be of a density that is consistent with the density of development on existing adjoining lots

vi) Accommodate the continuation, construction or connection (as the case may be) of existing, future or unfinished roads, infrastructure or open space.

10. Policy Table An additional row has been inserted under the Langford C Sub-Precinct to accommodate the new Sub-Precinct of Langford D. The relevant columns for Langford D have been filled out accordingly.

To incorporate new Sub-Precinct Langford D into the Policy Table.

11. Appendix 1 Sub-Precinct A in Langford as depicted on the Local Housing Strategy Implementation Plan for the Housing Precinct has been split into two Sub-Precincts to incorporate new Sub-Precinct D.

To make Sub-Precinct A smaller.


173

Additional Modifications to Draft Policy

The priorities for implementation for several of the sub-precincts as shown in the Priority for Implementation column on the Policy Table of the draft Policy have been modified for the following reasons:

Implementation Priorities – The Policy Table has been amended to correct inconsistencies between the priorities for implementation

Drainage Review – A more detailed review of drainage requirements within each Housing Precinct has resulted in some modifications being made to the “Cost Contributions/Infrastructure Upgrades” column of the Policy Table and Implementation Scoring Table. More specifically, the majority of sub-precincts with the exception of Thornlie West D, South Thornlie B, South Gosnells A and B and North Huntingdale A and B will require cost contributions or infrastructure upgrades to facilitate development.

The modifications to the “Priority for Implementation” column are shown in the revised Policy Table which is part of the finalised policy at Appendix 13.5.10C.

A separate report is to be presented to Council in the near future to consider the implementation of a drainage strategy for the City.

Need for Additional Advertising

Despite the changes recommended to its content, readvertising of the draft revised Policy is not considered necessary as those changes respond to submissions received and do not alter the intent of the Policy, but will improve its operation.

CONCLUSION

It is recommended that Council:

Adopt the revised draft Planning Implementation Framework for the Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas as contained in Appendix 13.5.10C, in accordance with Clause 2.4.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

Publish notice of the adopted Policy once in each of the local newspapers as required by Clause 2.4.3(a) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6.

Inform those persons who made a submission of Council’s decision to adopt the revised draft Policy and provide a copy of the Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.


The cost of advertising notice of the adoption of the Policy can be met from the City Planning operational budget.


174


Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council:

1. Note the submissions received in respect of the draft Local Planning Policy - Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas and endorse the responses to those submissions prepared by Council staff.

2. Pursuant to clause 2.4.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 adopt the draft Local Planning Policy – Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas contained in Appendix 13.5.10C.

3. Pursuant to Clause 2.4.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 publish notice of its adoption of the Policy in both newspapers circulating the district, inform those persons who made submissions of Council’s decision and provide a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Notation

Following compilation and distribution of the agenda, the Director Planning and Sustainability identified an omission in this agenda report resulting in the following memorandum and additional information being distributed to the Mayor and Councillors on 19 December 2006:

“It has come to my attention that an additional submission was received during advertising of the draft Local Housing Strategy Implementation Policy but was not included in the Schedule of Submissions appearing on pages 143-151 of the Agenda for tonight’s Council meeting.

A summary of this additional submission together with staff comments thereon is attached for your consideration at tonight’s meeting and will be included in the Minutes of the meeting. This additional submission does not alter the staff recommendation on this matter.

Additionally, I have noticed that the revised draft Policy included as Appendix 13.5.10C of tonight’s Agenda does not reflect the following resolution (Resolution 366) from the Council meeting held on 8 August 2006:

“That Council note the planning requirements specified for Central Maddington sub-precinct E in the draft Local Housing Strategy Implementation Policy will need to be expanded to include the full range of planning requirements set out in the Policy Table, and further that the proponent be advised that these requirements will need to be addressed prior to subdivision or development being supported or approved to the R30 density coding.”


175

In order to reflect this resolution in the final Policy adopted by Council, a dot will need to appear in all of the “Planning Requirements” columns for the “Central Maddington E” sub precinct appearing on page 7 of 8 of the revised draft Policy contained at Appendix 13.5.10C (page 245) of tonight’s Council Agenda. I will prepare an Amendment to the Motion to reflect this change, for distribution at tonight’s Pre-OCM meeting.

8

Name and Postal Address:D and A Lacy25 Stretton WayKenwick WA 6107

Summary of Submission Staff Comment8.1 Strongly believe that Lot 111 (No. 25)

Stretton Way should be included in the R30 medium density zone, for a number of reasons as outlined further below.

Noted, however the Policy simply reflects the higher densities recommended by the Local Housing Strategy (LHS) and in this instance the submitter’s property was not recommended for higher density under the LHS. The submitter’s lot may well be appropriate for inclusion in the R30 zone; however this will need to be justified through lodgment of a formal Scheme Amendment proposal (at the submitter’s own cost) or by the landowner making a submission during the future advertising period for recoding land within the adjacent “Kenwick I” sub precinct, to expand the amendment area to include the subject lot.

8.2 Zoning boundaries should run along clearly defined geographical features, such as road, reserves and rivers. The Housing Strategy proposes different zonings for adjoining properties. It would make more sense to include the entire block of housing bounded by Stretton Way, Park Road, Lalor Road and Belmont Road in the R30 zoning

A number of factors were considered by Council when preparing the LHS, including proximity to a range of commercial and community facilities, public transport and public open space, in addition to the age of housing stock, and public comments received during the advertising of the LHS precincts.

A full explanation of the factors considered in compilation of the LHS can be found in Section 1 of the LHS documentation, which can be accessed on the City’s website.

While there may be valid planning merit to recoding the subject lot to a higher density, consideration of such proposal would need to occur in accordance with the two options set out in the staff response to submission 8.1 above.

8.3 The R30 zone is based on proximity to the Kenwick Shopping Centre, with medium density housing best sited close to community facilities such as shopping centres and public transport hubs. It is unclear why the property at 25 Stretton Way (a mere 90 metre walk from the shopping centre) has been excluded from the R30 zoning, while a large number of properties that are considerably further away from the centre have been included. It is estimated that 40% of the properties in the R30 zoning are further away from the shopping centre than this property. A request is hereby lodged to correct this town planning anomaly.

Refer to staff comment in response to submission 8.2 above.


176

Summary of Submission Staff Comment8.4 The properties in Stretton Way that have

been excluded form the R30 zone are of an age and condition that makes them suitable for medium density redevelopment in the near future. They are on relatively large blocks of land which would make urban consolidation most feasible. The landowner is willing to nominate their property as a suitable site and ask the Council to include it in the proposed medium density zone.

Refer to staff comment in response to submission 8.2 above.

Amendment

In light of this additional advice the Mayor read aloud the following amendment to the staff recommendation which Cr R Hoffman moved and Cr W Barrett seconded:

“That the staff recommendation be amended by including the following text at the end of item 2:

“, subject to a ‘dot’ being inserted in all four of the “Planning Requirements” columns for the “Central Maddington E” sub precinct in the table appearing on page 7 of 8 of the Policy.”

The following written reason for the proposed amendment was provided:

“To reflect Resolution 366 from the Council meeting held on 8 August 2006, which recognised that the “Planning Requirements” specified for the “Central Maddington E” sub precinct in the draft Local Housing Strategy Implementation Policy, would need to be expanded to include the full range of planning requirements set out in the Policy Table.”

At the conclusion of debate the Mayor put Cr Hoffman’s proposed amendment, which reads:

”


177

Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr W Barrett

That the staff recommendation be amended by including the following text at the end of item 2:

“, subject to a ‘dot’ being inserted in all four of the “Planning Requirements” columns for the “Central Maddington E” sub precinct in the table appearing on page 7 of 8 of the Policy.”

with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council:


2. Pursuant to clause 2.4.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 adopt the draft Local Planning Policy – Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas contained in Appendix 13.5.10C, subject to a ‘dot’ being inserted in all four of the “Planning Requirements” columns for the “Central Maddington E” sub precinct in the table appearing on page 7 of 8 of the Policy.

3. Pursuant to Clause 2.4.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 publish notice of its adoption of the Policy in both newspapers circulating the district, inform those persons who made submissions of Council’s decision and provide a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.”


AGAINST: Nil.



178

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

652 Moved Cr R Hoffman Seconded Cr W Barrett

That Council:


2. Pursuant to clause 2.4.2(b) of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 adopt the draft Local Planning Policy – Planning Implementation Framework for Local Housing Strategy and Large Lot Outline Development Plan (ODP) Areas contained in Appendix 13.5.10C, subject to a ‘dot’ being inserted in all four of the “Planning Requirements” columns for the “Central Maddington E” sub precinct in the table appearing on page 7 of 8 of the Policy.

3. Pursuant to Clause 2.4.3 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 publish notice of its adoption of the Policy in both newspapers circulating the district, inform those persons who made submissions of Council’s decision and provide a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.


AGAINST: Nil.


179

13.5.11 PROPOSED DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO ADVERTISE AN AMENDMENT TO THE WEST CANNING VALE OUTLINE DEVELOPMENT PLAN

Author: L Kosova Reference: West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP)Application No: ODP – PF06/00013Applicant: Roberts Day Town Planning and DesignOwner: Pt Lot 281 and Pt Lot 3 – Glenariff Holdings Pty Ltd

Lot 282 – Uniting Church of AustraliaLot 283 – Chew and Tan

Location: Lot 282, Pt Lot 281 and Lot 283 Campbell Road and Pt Lot 3 Ranford Road, Canning Vale

Zoning: MRS: UrbanTPS No. 6: Residential Development

Review Rights: State Administrative Tribunal against any discretionary decision of Council

Area: 4.7075 haPrevious Ref: OCM 9 August 2005 (Resolutions 346-347)Appendix: 13.5.11A Adopted West Canning Vale Outline Development

Plan (including subsequent amendments)

PURPOSE OF REPORT

For Council to consider delegating authority to the Chief Executive Officer (which in turn can be on-delegated to the Director Planning and Sustainability) to make a determination under Clause 7.4.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 as to whether a proposed amendment to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) is satisfactory for advertising, and if so to advertise that amendment in accordance with Clauses 7.4.5 and 7.4.6 of the Scheme.


180

DISCUSSION

The proposed amendment to the ODP is still the subject of discussion between Council staff and the applicant, but will primarily involve:

amending the ODP to permit the uses Shop and Fast Food Outlet in the area designated on the West Canning Vale ODP as “Subject to Detailed Area Plan (DAP Required to facilitate “Mixed Use”)” which covers Pt Lot 281 and portion of Pt Lot 13 Ranford Road. Currently the ODP prohibits these uses on the subject lots

relocating a subdivisional road, currently shown on the ODP wholly within Lot 282 Campbell Road, to be shared across the common lot boundary between Lots 282 and 283 Campbell Road

If Council ultimately adopts the proposed ODP amendment, a Detailed Area Plan (DAP) will need to be approved prior to any subdivision or development occurring on Pt Lot 281 and portion of Pt Lot 13 Ranford Road, which are covered by the ODP designation – “Subject to Detailed Area Plan (DAP Required to facilitate “Mixed Use”)”. The DAP will need to set commercial floor space limits, setbacks, parking provisions, development interface between different land uses and other detailed design standards determined by Council.

Under Clause 12.3.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 Council may (by absolute majority) delegate the exercise of any of its powers or the discharge of any of its duties under the Scheme (except the power of delegation) to the Chief Executive Officer, who may in turn on-delegate the powers so delegated to him, to any employee of the local government.

Council staff have been liaising with the proponent for several months now to finalise the proposed ODP amendment to a point where it is considered satisfactory for the purpose of public advertising. Staff consider this can be achieved before the end of December 2006. Given this timeframe, the proposed amendment would typically be presented to the first Council meeting in 2007 (on 13 February 2007) to determine if it is satisfactory for advertising, and if so, would be advertised for 21 days (for example until around mid-March 2007). Following the advertising period staff would prepare a report to Council to consider any submissions received and to consider whether to adopt the proposed ODP amendment. This is not likely to occur until the first meeting in May 2007.

To expedite the proposed amendment to the ODP it is recommended that Council delegate authority to the CEO to assess and, if satisfactory, advertise the proposed amendment during the January 2007 Council recess. This will enable staff to submit a report to Council in February or March 2007 for consideration of any submissions received and adoption of the proposed amendment to the ODP, thereby potentially saving two months (if such delegation were not granted).

This proposed delegation is considered reasonable because:

the delegation will not compel staff to advertise the proposed ODP amendment, but rather will provide the authority to do so if the amendment is considered satisfactory, having regard to all relevant Scheme and Policy provisions


181

advertising of the proposed ODP amendment will in no way prejudice Council’s decision to adopt, or refuse to adopt, the ODP after considering submissions received during advertising of the proposal

advertising of the proposed amendment will not prejudice Council’s consideration in future of any Detailed Area Plan, subdivision or development application for the land, as that would be subject of a separate approval processes

If advertised, staff will ensure the proposed amendment to the ODP is referred to Councillors for information


Nil.



That Council pursuant to Clause 12.3.1 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 delegate authority to the Chief Executive Officer to determine in accordance with Clause 7.4.2 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6 whether a proposed amendment to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) relating to Pt Lots 13 and 281 Ranford Road and Lots 282 and 283 Campbell Road, Canning Vale is satisfactory for advertising, and if so to advertise that amendment in accordance with Clauses 7.4.5 and 7.4.6 of the Scheme, including referral to Councillors for information.


AGAINST: Nil.



That Council note the Chief Executive Officer may on-delegate to the Director, Planning and Sustainability, the power to determine whether an amendment to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) relating to Pt Lots 13 and 281 Ranford Road and Lots 282 and 283 Campbell Road, Canning Vale is satisfactory for advertising, and if so to advertise that amendment.


AGAINST: Nil.

RevokedVide

Resolution54

26 February2008OCM


182



That Council advise the applicant that delegating authority to Council staff to determine whether an amendment to the West Canning Vale Outline Development Plan (ODP) relating to Pt Lots 13 and 281 Ranford Road and Lots 282 and 283 Campbell Road, Canning Vale is satisfactory for advertising:

1. does not compel staff to advertise the proposed ODP amendment and, if advertised, will in no way prejudice Council’s future decision on the proposed amendment under clause 7.4.7 of Town Planning Scheme No. 6

2. will in no way prejudice Council’s future recommendation or decision on any Detailed Area Plan or subdivision or development application relating to the land affected by the proposed ODP amendment.


AGAINST: Nil.


183

13.6 GOVERNANCE

13.6.1 CORPORATE GOVERNANCE IN THE PUBLIC SECTOR CONFERENCE - CANBERRA 13 - 15 MARCH 2007

Author: T PerkinsPrevious Ref: NilAppendix: 13.6.1A Conference Programme

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To seek the approval of Council for an Elected Member and the Director Governance to attend the Corporate Governance in the Public Sector 2007 conference to be held in Canberra from 13 - 15 March 2007.

BACKGROUND

The theme of this conference is aligning performance, accountability and transparency across Federal, State and Local Government departments, agencies, statutory authorities and Government Trading Enterprises.

Public sector governance is facing rapid transition; tightening regulatory frameworks have highlighted public scrutiny and questioned the long-term feasibility of existing governance models. The Australian Government is reported to be implementing considerable reforms to public sector accountability frameworks.

DISCUSSION

This, the tenth Annual Corporate Governance in the Public Sector conference proposes to review, analyse and assess challenges and issues of public sector governance.

The conference addresses a range of issues relating to governance and risk management in the three spheres of government. It looks at the establishment of accountability frameworks, governance models, change management, cultures, ethics and probity as well as cost shifting and financial pressure for local government.

On the third day two workshops are planned, these being titled “Applying sound governance in the workplace: strategies and frameworks” and “Board effectiveness and accountability”. These workshops will provide the opportunity to interact with delegates from a range of agencies in reviewing governance practices.

A copy of the conference programme is attached as Appendix 13.6.1A.


The estimated cost per person is as follows:

Conference Registration (includes two workshops: $3,395Return airfare $1,300Accommodation (4 nights) $1,062Out of Pocket Expenses $ 285Total $6,042


184

Funds are available in Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conferences, and Account GL 40-1413-3034 Governance Directorate Training and Conferences for attendance by an Elected Member and the Director Governance respectively.


Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr P Wainwright

That Council authorise Councillor _____________ and the Director Governance to attend the Corporate Governance in the Public Sector 2007 Conference to be held in Canberra from 13 – 15 March 2007 at an estimated cost of $6,042 per person, with funds being met from Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conference, and Account GL 40-1413-3034 Governance Directorate Training and Conferences.

No Nomination

In light of there being no nomination for a Councillor to attend the Corporate Governance in the Public Sector 2007 Conference, Cr J Brown moved the following amendment to the staff recommendation, which was seconded by Cr R Mitchell:

Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the words “Councillor _______________ and” where they appear after the word “authorise” in the first line, deleting the words “per person” where they appear after the figure “$6,042” in the fourth line, and deleting the words and numerals “Account JL 94-94001-3034-000 Elected Members Training and Conference, and” where they appear after the word “from” where it appears in the fourth line, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council authorise the Director Governance to attend the Corporate Governance in the Public Sector 2007 Conference to be held in Canberra from 13 – 15 March 2007 at an estimated cost of $6,042, with funds being met from Account GL 40-1413-3034 Governance Directorate Training and Conferences.”


AGAINST: Nil.



185

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

656 Moved Cr J Brown Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council authorise the Director Governance to attend the Corporate Governance in the Public Sector 2007 Conference to be held in Canberra from 13 – 15 March 2007 at an estimated cost of $6,042, with funds being met from Account GL 40-1413-3034 Governance Directorate Training and Conferences.


AGAINST: Nil.


186

The Mayor advised the meeting that she, Cr C Matison, Cr J Henderson and Cr R Hoffman, due to being members of the Centennial Celebrations Working Group had disclosed an Impartiality Interest in the following item in accordance with Regulation 34C of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996.

13.6.2 CENTENARY CELEBRATIONS - LAUNCH OF THE CENTENNIAL YEAR 2007 AND HISTORICAL DISPLAY IN THE ORANGE ROOM

Author: T PerkinsPrevious Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To inform Council of matters discussed by the Centennial Celebrations Working Group and recommend an event for adoption by Council to formally launch the City’s 100 years in local government.

BACKGROUND

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 12 September 2006, Council resolved to approve a range of functions and events throughout 2007 to celebrate the centenary year.

The Centennial Celebrations Working Group (Group) has for some time been discussing the opportunity to conduct a photographic display depicting historical photographs of structures and locations within the district.

The City’s Heritage Coordinator has successfully negotiated the loan of an extensive photographic collection to complement those held by the City and it is proposed these be displayed in the Orange Room at the Knowledge Centre.

This display could also include historic maps of the district and materials that depict the transition from Roads Board, Shire, and Town to the current status of City.

DISCUSSION

At the meeting of the Group on 6 December 2006 a proposal was put forward, and unanimously supported, that a formal function be held to jointly launch the photographic display and centennial year. The function could be conducted in the Lyal Richardson Hall of The Agonis, which would enable invited guests to view the photographic display at their leisure.


Preliminary enquiries for this event, allowing up to 100 guests, would suggest an estimated cost of $6,000, funding for which is available in the current budget in Account 40-0420-3383 being for the Centennial Celebrations.


187


657 Moved Cr O Searle Seconded Cr R Hoffman

That Council approve the conduct of a function to officially launch the centennial year of the local government district and the historical display in the Orange Room at the Knowledge Centre, with the estimated cost of $6,000 being met from Account 40-0420-3383.


AGAINST: Nil.


188

13.6.3 WALGA SOUTH EAST METROPOLITAN ZONE – DELEGATESAuthor: B Figg Previous Ref: Nil.Appendix: Nil.

PURPOSE OF REPORT

To inform Council of correspondence received from the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) advising of the reduction of the number of Council delegates to the South East Metropolitan Zone and the need to appoint a revised number of delegates.

BACKGROUND

At the Special Council Meeting of 9 May 2005 Council appointed Cr P Morris, Cr J Brown, Cr R Hoffman and Cr R Mitchell, being the Mayor and one (1) Councillor from each Ward to the WALGA South East Metropolitan Zone.

A letter was received from WALGA on 8 December 2006 which stated in part:

“…delegates considered the outcomes stemming from the Strategic Directions Workshop and in particular in relation to the principle of equality in representation of Member Councils to Zones.

The following resolution was carried:

- The principle of equitable representation between Member Councils to the South East Metropolitan Zone is endorsed.

- Member Councils should be entitled to two (2) delegates to the Zone Meeting.

Accordingly, it is now necessary to equalise the number of voting delegates from each Member Council to the South East Metropolitan Zone.”

DISCUSSION

Council has made several representations to WALGA to retain the existing level of membership, namely, four (4) representatives from this City. Nevertheless, as a result of the letter from WALGA it will be necessary for Council to reduce the number of delegates to the South East Metropolitan Zone from four (4) to two (2) delegates.


There are no additional costs arising from this report.



That Council receive the letter from the Western Australian Local Government Association advising of the need to reduce the number of delegates to the South East Metropolitan Zone.


189



That Council appoint Councillor___________ and Councillor_________ as delegates to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone for the period up until the 2007 local government elections.

Nominations

Cr R Mitchell nominated Cr PM Morris for appointment to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone, which Cr O Searle seconded.

Cr C Matison nominated Cr J Brown for appointment to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone, which Cr R Hoffman seconded.

The two nominations resulted in the following amendment to the staff recommendation:

Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr C Matison

That the staff recommendation be amended by deleting the lines “_______________” where they appear in the first line after the word “Councillor” and substituting them with the names “PM Morris” and “J Brown”, with the amended recommendation to read:

“That Council appoint Councillor PM Morris and Councillor J Brown as delegates to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone for the period up until the 2007 local government elections.”


AGAINST: Nil.

Additional Motion

During debate Cr J Brown moved the following additional motion to the staff recommendations:

“That Council appoint a Councillor as an additional deputy delegate to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone for the period up until the 2007 local government elections.”

Cr Brown provided the following reason for the motion:

“A delegate or deputy delegate can be on Leave of Absence or unavailable therefore leaving less voting delegates.”


190

Rewording of Additional Motion

Following advice from the Director Governance Cr Brown agreed that a Councillor be nominated as Council’s second deputy delegate and her proposed additional motion be reworded accordingly.

“That Council appoint Councillor ______________ as Council’s second deputy delegate to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone for the period up until the 2007 local government elections.”

Cr W Barrett seconded Cr Brown’s proposed additional motion.

Nomination for Additional Motion

Cr R Mitchell subsequently nominated Cr R Hoffman as second deputy delegate to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone, which Cr O Searle seconded.

The Mayor then put the proposed additional motion including the nomination which reads:

Additional Motion:

COUNCIL RESOLUTION


That Council appoint Councillor R Hoffman as Council’s second deputy delegate to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone for the period up until the 2007 local government elections.


AGAINST: Nil.

The Mayor then put staff recommendation (1 of 2) and amended staff recommendation (2 of 2) including nominations, which read:


659 Moved Cr P Wainwright Seconded Cr R Mitchell

That Council receive the letter from the Western Australian Local Government Association advising of the need to reduce the number of delegates to the South East Metropolitan Zone.


AGAINST: Nil.


191

Amended staff recommendation (2 of 2):

COUNCIL RESOLUTION

660 Moved Cr R Mitchell Seconded Cr C Matison

That Council appoint Councillor PM Morris and Councillor J Brown as delegates to the Western Australian Local Government Association South East Metropolitan Zone for the period up until the 2007 local government elections.


AGAINST: Nil.

14. MOTIONS OF WHICH PREVIOUS NOTICE HAS BEEN GIVEN

Nil.


192

15. NOTICES OF MOTION FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE FOLLOWING MEETING

15.1 CONSTRUCTION AND EXTENSIONS TO ADMINISTRATION BUILDING – WORKSHOP REQUEST

Cr C Matison proposed the following motion for inclusion in “Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given” of the 13 February 2007 Ordinary Council Meeting agenda.

PROPOSED MOTION FOR 13 FEBRUARY 2007 AGENDA

That a workshop be convened in February 2007 to examine the relevant financial issues, title of the new extensions and other matters related to the construction of the extensions to the current Administration building to prepare a Business Plan in preparation for the calling of tenders.

COUNCILLOR COMMENT

Cr Matison provided the following written comment in relation to the proposed motion:

“To assist Councillors to gain an up-to-date knowledge of the progress of the project and to provide a venue for comment if so desired.”


193

16. URGENT BUSINESS(by permission of Council)

Nil.

17. CONFIDENTIAL MATTERS

Nil.

18. CLOSURE

Prior to closure of the meeting the Mayor commented on the huge agenda and complimented all Councillors on the manner in which they dealt with it this evening extending thanks to the CEO, Directors and staff for their efforts in preparing and compiling the agenda.

The Mayor then read aloud the following statement:

“To the CEO, Directors and through them to every staff member this has been an exceptional year never before seen in this Council.

The pressure on all staff from the CEO, Directors and every staff member has been extreme. The quality and output of work has been exemplary and of the highest quality to ensure all agendas, briefing and workshops provide Councillors with every example and recommendation to ensure quality decision making continue to ensure our Council maintains its status of a local government of excellence and well deserving of our fine reputation.

To my fellow Councillors may I recognise your continued dedication to our community, in a year of extraordinary growth, diverse in our communities of interest and the commitment to provide civic leadership across our City whilst maintaining a high consistency of quality decision making.

May I wish each an every one of you the best wishes for the festive season. Enjoy a great break, because we all believe and know that next year will be the same as this, so may I say thank you for your contribution.

Ladies and gentlemen in the public gallery, including Councillors partners, may I extend to you the season’s best and good health in 2007. You have our word that we will be working as hard as we can for the community in 2007.”

The Mayor declared the meeting closed at 9.07pm.

Date post:	10-Aug-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

ORDINARY COUNCIL MEETING 19 DECEMBER 2006 TABLE OF ... · Development Organisation, received an...

Documents