AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

4 April 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the City of Vincent (City) for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  The City disclaims any liability for any loss however caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council Briefing or Council Meeting does so at their own risk.

In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning or development application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by an Elected Member or Employee of the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the City.  The City advises that anyone who has any application lodged with the City must obtain and should only rely on WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Council in respect of the application.

Copyright

Any plans or documents contained within this Agenda may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction.  It should be noted that Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright.  A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.


PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME

The City of Vincent Local Law Relating to Standing Orders prescribes the procedure for persons to ask questions or make public statements relating to a matter affecting the City, either verbally or in writing, at a Council meeting.

Questions or statements made at an Ordinary Council meeting can relate to matters that affect the City.  Questions or statements made at a Special Meeting of the Council must only relate to the purpose for which the meeting has been called.

1.    Shortly after the commencement of the meeting, the Presiding Member will ask members of the public to come forward to address the Council and to give their name, address and Agenda Item number (if known).

2.    Public speaking time will be strictly limited to three (3) minutes per member of the public.

3.    Members of the public are encouraged to keep their questions/statements brief to enable everyone who desires to ask a question or make a statement to have the opportunity to do so.

4.    Public speaking time is declared closed when there are no further members of the public who wish to speak.

5.    Questions/statements are to be directed to the Presiding Member and are to be made politely in good faith and are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely or be defamatory on a Council Member or City Employee.

6.    Where the Presiding Member is of the opinion that a member of the public is making a statement at a Council meeting, that does not affect the City, he may ask the person speaking to promptly cease.

7.    Questions/statements and any responses will be summarised and included in the Minutes of the Council meeting.

8.    Where practicable, responses to questions will be provided at the meeting.  Where the information is not available or the question cannot be answered, it will be “taken on notice” and a written response will be sent by the Chief Executive Officer to the person asking the question.  A copy of the reply will be included in the Agenda of the next Ordinary meeting of the Council.

9.    It is not intended that public speaking time should be used as a means to obtain information that would not be made available if it was sought from the City’s records under Section 5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 or the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1992. The CEO will advise the member of the public that the information may be sought in accordance with the FOI Act 1992.

 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

·         All Ordinary and Special Council Meetings are electronically recorded except when the Council resolves to go behind closed doors;

·         All recordings are retained as part of the City's records in accordance with the General Disposal Authority for Local Government Records produced by the Public Records Office;

·         A copy of the recorded proceedings and/or a transcript of a particular section or all of a Council meeting is available in accordance with Policy No. 4.2.4 – Council Meetings – Recording and Web Streaming.

·         Ordinary Meetings of Council and Council Briefings are streamed live on the internet in accordance with the City’s Policy – 4.2.4 - Council Meetings Recording and Web Streaming. It is another way the City is striving for transparency and accountability in what we do.

·         The live stream can be accessed from http://webcast.vincent.wa.gov.au/video.php

·         Images of the public gallery are not included in the webcast, however the voices of people in attendance may be captured and streamed.

·         If you have any issues or concerns with the live streaming of meetings, please contact the City’s Manager Governance and Risk on 08 9273 6538.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice. 7

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 7

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 7

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 7

8          Declarations of Interest 7

9          Development Services. 8

9.1             No. 209 (Lot: 213; D/P: 33158) Vincent Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings  8

9.2             No. 5 (Lot: 30; D/P: 1879) Turner Street, Highgate - Change of Use from Single House and Bed and Breakfast to Single House, Bed and Breakfast and Eating House. 31

9.3             No. 14 (Lot: 1; SP: 12592) Orange Avenue, Perth - Second Storey Addition to Single House. 44

9.4             No. 39a (Lot: 2; D/P: 63474) Knebworth Avenue, Perth - Proposed Extension to the Period of Approval: Proposed Construction of a Three-Storey Grouped Dwelling. 62

9.5             No. 131 (Lot 282; D/P: 2503) Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Carport and Awning Addition to Single House. 93

9.6             North Perth Town Centre Parking - Six Month Review of Parking Restrictions. 107

10        Engineering. 126

Nil

11        Corporate Services. 127

11.1           Lease of Leederville Oval by East Perth Football Club Inc & Subiaco Football Club Inc - request for waiver and write-off of fees and variation of leases. 127

11.2           Investment Report as at 28 February 2018. 136

11.3           Review of Corporate Services Policies [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 146

11.4           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 2 February 2018 to  28 February 2018. 200

11.5           Financial Statements as at 28 February 2018. 224

12        Community Engagement 313

12.1           Reallocation of Loftus Recreation Centre reserve funds [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 313

12.2           Petition to Exclude Brisbane Terrace, Perth from New Parking Zone 7 - Parking Permits Policy No. 3.9.3. 317

13        Chief Executive Officer 325

13.1           Information Bulletin. 325

14        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 347

14.1           Notice of Motion - Cr Loden - Action on Climate Change. 347

15        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 351

Nil

16        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 351

17        Urgent Business. 351

Nil

18        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 352

18.1           CONFIDENTIAL LATE REPORT: Proposed Amendment to Chief Executive Officers Employment Contract 352

19        Closure. 353

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

“The City of Vincent would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging”.

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

3            (A)         Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

 (B)          Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

4.1         Mayor cole requested a leave of absence from 13 April 2018 to 22 April 2018.

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 6 March 2018

Special Meeting - 27 March 2018

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

9            Development Services

9.1          No. 209 (Lot: 213; D/P: 33158) Vincent Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D18/29443

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   5 – Cleaver

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Applicants Response to Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1, APPROVES the development application for Four Grouped Dwellings at No. 209 (Lot: 213; D/P: 33158) Vincent Street, West Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5 and FORWARDS the application to the Western Australian Planning Commission for determination under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, as the recommendation provided by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage to not approve the access from Vincent Street is not supported for the reasons set out in this report:

1.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) wall in a good and clean condition prior to occupation or use of the development. The finish of the walls are to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

2.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning units, piping, ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and shall be screened from view from the street, and surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

4.       Clothes Drying Facilities

All external clothes drying areas shall be adequately screened in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes prior to the use or occupation of the development and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City;

5.       Car Parking and Access

5.1       The car parking and access areas shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans and are to comply with the requirements of AS2890.1 prior to the occupation or use of the development;

5.2       Vehicle and pedestrian access points are required to match into existing footpath levels; and

5.3       All new crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications; and

5.4       The area shown for manoeuvring in front of the proposed Units 1 and 2 shall remain unobstructed at all times.

6.                  Right of Way Widening

6.1       A 1.0 metre right of way setback area shall be maintained free of any buildings and structures for the length of the property that adjoins the right of way at all times to enable future right of way widening;

6.2       The 1.0 metre right of way setback area shall be sealed drained and graded to match into the level of the existing Right of Way; and

6.3       The 1.0 metre right of way setback area referred to in condition 6.1 above, shall be ceded free of cost to the City on subdivision or amalgamation of the land, including Built Strata subdivision;

6.       Acoustic Report

An Acoustic Report in accordance with the City's Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation is to form part of the application for a Building Permit and shall be approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. All recommended measures in the report shall be undertaken in accordance with the report to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the occupation or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

7.       Landscaping

8.1       A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge to the City’s satisfaction is be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

8.1.1     The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

8.1.2     Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

8.1.3     The provision of eight percent Deep Soil Zone and at least 30 percent Canopy Coverage, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

8.2       All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 8.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

8.       Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to commencement of development a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule prior to the use or occupation of the development; and

9.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for Four Grouped Dwellings at No. 209 Vincent Street, West Perth

Background:

Landowner:

Kenwin Projects Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Averna Pty Ltd T/A Averna Homes

Date of Application:

21 November 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

643m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Florence Place to southern side of lot (3 metres wide)

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Vincent Street to the north and a ROW, being Florence Place, to the south. The site is currently vacant with the demolition of the original house occurring earlier this year. The site adjoins two storey grouped dwellings to the east and a single storey residential dwelling to the west. On the opposite side of Vincent Street is Beatty Park. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The subject site and the immediate adjoining properties are zoned Residential with a density code of R80 and this is not contemplated to change under draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2). The site has been identified as a Residential Built Form Area subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

The City received a development application seeking approval for the construction of four two storey grouped dwellings at the subject site on 23 November 2017.  The application proposes two dwellings fronting Vincent Street and two dwellings fronting Florence Place, with common property located adjacent to Vincent Street to allow for vehicular access to Units 1 and 4 from a single crossover on Vincent Street. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping

 

ü

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

 

ü

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

 

ü

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Setback to Right of Way

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the element that requires the discretion of Council is as follows:

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.2

 

Average of five adjoining properties: 4.92m

 

 

4.6m

Lot Boundary Setbacks / Boundary Wall

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Residential Design Codes (R-Codes) Clause 5.1.3

 

Eastern Lot Boundary

 

Unit 1 Upper Floor setback of 2.1m

 

Unit 2 Upper Floor setback of 2.1m

 

 

 

 

 

Unit 1 Upper Floor setback of 1.2m

 

Unit 2 Upper Floor setback of 1.2m

Western Lot Boundary

 

Unit 3 Upper Floor setback of 2.1m

 

Unit 4 Upper Floor setback of 1.9m

 

 

 

Unit 3 Upper Floor setback of 1.2m

 

Unit 4 Upper Floor setback of 1.2m

Built Form Policy Clause 5.3

 

Boundary walls permitted to a maximum height of 3.5m and an average height of 3.0m

 

 

Eastern Boundary

Unit 1 average boundary wall height of 3.2m

 

Unit 2 maximum and average boundary wall heights of 3.8m

 

Western Boundary

Unit 3 average boundary wall height of 3.35m

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.6

 

Two storeys with a maximum concealed roof height of 7.0m

 

 

Unit 1 and Unit 2 concealed roof height of 7.1m

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.1

 

Minimum dimension of 4.0m

 

 

Minimum dimension of 3.8m to all four units

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.2

 

Maximum 50% hard surface in front setback area

 

 

15% of landscaping  85% of hard stand within the front setback area

 

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.5

 

Vehicle access from ROW

 

 

Vehicle access for Units 1 and 4 from primary street

Site Works / Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.7 and Clause 5.3.8

 

Fill and retaining walls up to 0.5m above natural ground level

 

 

Fill and retaining walls up to 0.6m above natural ground level on the eastern boundary

Setback to ROW

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.31

 

1.0m setback from ROW widening

 

 

0.3m setback from widening area to nib wall

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 7 February 2018 and concluding on 20 February 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners within a 75 metre radius of the site, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, eight submissions were received by the City comprising of four letters of objections, two in support and two raising concerns.

 

The main issues raised as part of the consultation relate to:

 

·       Reduced setbacks blocking access to natural light;

·       Potential loss of privacy from the upper floor windows;

·       The safety of vehicles due to access from Vincent Street and the proximity to the Charles and Vincent Street intersections, and also the access from Florence Place as it is narrow laneway;

·       The landscaping proposed within the front setback being minimal; and

·       The materials proposed should consider the surrounding developments.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments are included as Attachment 3. The applicant has also provided responses to the submissions, which is contained in Attachment 4.

Referral Authority responsible for Vincent Street - Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage:

In accordance with the WAPC’s delegation to local governments for decisions under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) as the subject lot abuts Vincent Street which is a Category 2 Other Regional Road the application required referral to the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage (the Department) prior to determination. The City referred the application to the Department who advised that while they do not object to the development in principle they do not support the proposed access from Vincent Street as it does not minimise the number of crossovers to the Other Regional Road, does not rationalise existing access arrangements and is close to the Vincent Street and Charles Street intersection.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause 76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for review of Council’s determination.

 

It is noted that the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy requires the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) and as a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to these provisions.

 

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (Draft TPS2)

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS2) was to be modified before final approval was to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department. The Department also advised that the modifications to TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard TPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application. Generally the modified version of TPS2 does not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the proposal is for development classified ‘Category 2’ as the development incorporates four grouped dwellings.

 

As the subject lot abuts Vincent Street, which is a Category 2 Other Regional Road, the City only has delegation to determine the application under the MRS if it accepts the recommendations of the Department prior to determination. If the City does not accept the recommendations of the Department the City is required to forward the application to the WAPC for determination under the MRS along with the reasons why the recommendation is not acceptable to the City.

 

It should be noted that the City is still the responsible authority for determining the application under its local planning scheme, in this case TPS1, even if it does not accept the recommendations of the Department.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

 

The application proposes a primary street setback of 4.6 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard set by the Built Form Policy of 4.92 metres, being the average of the five properties either side of the development. The subject site is located near the corner of Vincent and Charles Street and is alongside properties that have a lesser setback to the primary street, with the adjoining property to the east setback 2 metres from the front boundary and the property to the west having a carport structure at 1 metre from the front lot boundary. The development is adjacent to Vincent Street which is four lanes wide, with Beatty Park directly opposite. Given the adjoining setbacks and the surrounding locality, the development is not considered to have an adverse impact in terms of building bulk as viewed from the street.

 

The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes including red face brick and elements of render. The incorporation of the face brick element considers the existing developments along the streetscape and the proposed render is considered to add an element of contemporary architecture which is also seen in the existing dwellings to the east of the subject site. The applicant proposes to plant Jacaranda Trees and Chinese Tallow trees within the front setback area which at maturity will screen the development and reduce potential visual impact caused by the setback. Given this, the proposal is considered to be appropriate to the site context.

 

Parking and Access

 

The vehicle access to the subject site is from the primary street for Units 1 and 4 in lieu of the ROW, with vehicle access to Units 2 and 3 from the ROW. The primary street (Vincent Street) is a district distributor road and as such requires all vehicles to exit in forward gear. Access to Vincent Street has been designed to achieve this, with a common property paved access area incorporated into the front setback so that each dwelling can use this space to manoeuvre into forward gear when existing.

 

Vincent Street is a Category 2 Other Regional Road and as such required referral for comment by The Department. The Department did not support the access to Vincent Street as it does not align with the Department’s internal Policy, Development Control Policy 5.1- Regional Road (Vehicular Access) (DC Policy 5.1), which seeks to minimise the number of crossovers to regional roads and rationalise existing access arrangements. The Department also cited the proximity of the proposed crossover from the Vincent Street and Charles Street intersection as another reason for not supporting the access.

 

DC Policy 5.1 outlines the following provisions to be considered in determining developments proposing access from regional roads:

 

·       The effects of the development on traffic flow and safety, the character and function of the road, the volume and speed of traffic, the width of the carriageway and visibility; and

·       The volume and type of traffic generated by the development.

 

DC Policy 5.1 identifies regional roads as principally being for traffic movement and having no vehicle access to or from abutting properties, however also notes that the traffic from residential properties attracts less volumes of traffic than commercial uses which are common along regional roads. DC Policy 5.1 recognises the continued growth of traffic in the metropolitan region and that the provision of access is not compatible with the requirement for vehicle movement, as traffic causes conflict and junctions and driveways contribute to delay and congestion as turning vehicles will slow and interrupt the free flow of traffic, in particular commercial developments which generate more turning traffic then residential developments.

 

Whilst DC Policy 5.1 intends to minimise and rationalise the number of crossovers to regional roads, the proposed crossover seeks to replace an existing crossover to be more centralised to allow both units to have access to the street, and does not propose any additional crossovers at the subject site. Whilst the crossover is 5.0 metres wide, the access has been designed to ensure that vehicles entering and exiting the site will be able to do so in a safe manner and have minimal impact on the safety of both vehicles on Vincent Street and that of pedestrians, particularly as vehicles are able to exit the subject site in forward gear.

 

The existing developments to the west of the subject site have vehicle crossovers to Vincent Street, with both having developed to the rear, which restricts any future access from the ROW for the developments fronting Vincent Street. As such these properties will continue to access Vincent Street in perpetuity and the proposed relocation of the crossover at the subject site to service only two grouped dwellings is not considered to have any significant impact on traffic flow, safety or the character of the road given this context.

 

The subject site is setback 45 metres from the Vincent Street and Charles Street intersection, and is adjacent to a median island which will restrict vehicles entering and exiting Vincent Street to left in left out. The restriction of a left in and left out to the subject site will ensure safety for vehicles travelling west along Vincent Street and the vehicles entering the street. The signal controlled intersection of Vincent Street and Charles Street will assist in providing clear visibility and will allow for vehicles to enter the street safely and have minimal impact on the oncoming traffic. The subject site contains two on site car bays, with adequate room for stopping and manoeuvring for vehicles to exit in forward gear. The number of cars proposed is not considered to be detrimental to the traffic flow of Vincent Street, nor significantly increase the volume of traffic.

 

Administration does not accept the recommendation of the Department to refuse the proposed access to Vincent Street and considers that the retention of one crossover in a consolidated arrangement is acceptable and will provide safe vehicle access to the site. As the City does not accept the Department’s recommendations, it is recommended that the Council forward the application to the WAPC for determination under the MRS for the reasons set out above.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks/ Boundary Walls

 

Eastern Boundary

The first floor of Units 1 and 2 propose a 1.2 metre setback to the eastern lot boundary in lieu of the required 2.1 metres. The reduced setback adjoins three two storey grouped dwellings to the east, which present boundary walls, side setback and outdoor living areas to this boundary. The proposed development does not include any major openings and therefore will not result in any overlooking into the adjoining properties. The proposal incorporates a range of finishes which is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk to the adjoining landowners. The orientation of the site ensures that the shadow cast on 21 June 2017 falls within the subject site and to the ROW and is consistent with the deemed-to-comply requirements.

 

The proposed boundary wall to Unit 1 on the eastern elevation of the subject site exceeds the average permitted height by 0.2 metres, and the boundary wall to Unit 2 on the eastern elevation exceeds the maximum height by 0.5 metres and the average by 0.8 metres. The proposed boundary walls abut adjoining boundary walls, side setback areas of the adjoining grouped dwellings to the east, as well as the length of the outdoor living area of the rear grouped dwelling to the east. The development provides contrasting materials and finishes to the external walls of the dwellings which will assist in mitigating the impact of building bulk to the adjoining properties. The proposed boundary walls will not result in significant overshadowing onto the adjoining properties as the orientation of the subject site will allow for the shadow to mainly be cast into the subject site and the ROW. The design allows the habitable areas of the dwelling, including the open space and the designated outdoor living area, to be open to direct sun and ventilation.

 

Given the above, the setbacks to the eastern boundary are considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes.

 

Western Boundary

 

The first floor of Units 3 and 4 propose a 1.2 metre setback to the eastern lot boundary in lieu of the required 2.1 metres for Unit 3, and 1.9 metres to Unit 4. This elevation does not include any major openings and therefore does not result in any overlooking into the adjoining properties. The proposal incorporates a range of finishes which is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk to the adjoining landowners. The orientation of the site ensures that the shadow cast on 21 June 2017 falls within the subject site and to the ROW.

 

The proposed boundary wall to Unit 3 on the western elevation of the subject site exceeds the average deemed-to-comply height by 0.35 metres. The boundary wall does not abut any major openings or active outdoor spaces of the adjoining property and is therefore considered to have minimal impact in terms of bulk. The proposed wall does not result in overshadowing onto the adjoining properties as the orientation of the subject site will allow for the shadow to be cast within the subject site and towards the ROW. The design allows the habitable areas of the dwelling, including the open space and the designated outdoor living area, to be fully open to direct sun and ventilation.

 

Given the above the setbacks to the western boundary are considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes.

 

Building Height and Site Works

 

Units 1 and 2 propose a maximum concealed roof height of 7.1 metres in lieu of the maximum 7.0 metres set as a deemed-to-comply standard under the City’s Built Form Policy. The area above the deemed-to-comply height for Unit 1 is on the eastern portion of wall facing Vincent Street and is a result in the natural ground level of the site which gradually falls from the western to the eastern boundary. As viewed from the street, Unit 1 will be level with Unit 4 which is a maximum height of 7.0 metres, and as such is not considered to compromise overall streetscape. The portion of wall exceeding 7.0 metres in height for Unit 2 is located towards the middle of the property and will front the proposed dwellings on site and therefore will have little impact on the streetscape. Furthermore, Unit 2 is located behind Unit 1 and setback from the Vincent Street frontage.

 

The proposal does not result in any overlooking into the adjacent properties. The favourable orientation of the site ensures that the shadow cast from the properties fall within the subject site itself and onto the ROW.

 

The proposed development has incorporated a range of materials that includes brickwork and render. The materials and finishes of the development are considered to appropriately address the character of the site context and is complimentary to the existing developments. The increased height is also considered to be consistent with the established streetscapes in terms of height, with the development adjacent to two storey dwellings to the east of the site.

 

The development proposes fill and associated retaining to a maximum height of 0.6 metres in lieu of 0.5 metres, which results from a proportion of cut and fill works for a section of the site to account for the current slope on the property. The proposed site works and retaining are considered to be minor in nature and to not have a detrimental impact on the adjoining dwellings.

 

Landscaping

 

The application proposed 32.6 percent of the front setback area as hard stand in lieu of the maximum 50 percent set as a deemed-to-comply standard under the R-Codes. This is due to the significant portion of the front setback area that is required to be paved for vehicle manoeuvring purposes so that vehicles can exit the site in forward gear.

 

The application has also been assessed against the proposed landscaping deemed-to-comply standards in the City’s Built Form Policy. The development proposes eight (8) percent of the site as deep soil zone in lieu of the 15 percent set as a deemed-to-comply standard in the Built Form Policy. The applicant has not provided a landscaping plan designed by a landscape architect and so has not proposed a canopy coverage percentage. However, the deep soil zones proposed are strategically located to maximise the potential for mature trees and canopy coverage on site, including four separate deep soil zones in the front setback area, one deep soil zone in each of the central courtyards and two deep soil zones at the rear fronting the laneway. The applicant has advised that they are proposing two Jacaranda trees and four Chinese Tallow trees in the front setback area, six Chinese Tallows in the central courtyards, and two more Chinese Tallows at the rear fronting the ROW. The City has assessed the canopy coverage of this landscaping configuration and considers that the canopy coverage created would be well over 40 percent.

 

The area of landscaping that is proposed is considered to positively contribute to the streetscape and the appearance of the development to the residents, particularly as the trees proposed will allow for a significant canopy cover and as the landscaping is not concentrated in one location. The landscaping on the front lot boundary will not hinder the security and safety of the residents. The intent of the City’s Built Form Policy is also considered to be met, with well over 40 percent canopy coverage being achieved by the proposal. The proposed landscaping is considered to be appropriate as the areas have been located to allow for greater coverage within the subject site which is reflected in the canopy coverage.

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

The reduced dimension of 3.8 metres to the outdoor living areas of each of the proposed dwellings does not restrict the overall use of the area. The outdoor living areas are located centrally together, which increases the availability of light and sense of space for these areas. As there is no covered area, the outdoor living areas will have sufficient access to norther sun and open to winter sun and ventilation. The outdoor living areas also adjoin habitable rooms of the dwellings, which open onto these areas and allow the size of these spaces to be extended.

 

Setback to ROW

 

The rear nib wall of the development is setback of 0.3 metres in lieu of 1.0 metres to the ROW widening area. The portion of dwelling setback at 0.3 metres is the central parapet walls of the dwelling which act as a feature wall, with the overall upper floor setback 0.5 metres from the widening area. The reduced setbacks to the ROW are considered to provide an area that is welcoming and safe for residents and visitors.

 

The proposal does not propose pedestrian access from the ROW (Florence Place) to the primary street (Vincent Street). There is sufficient space fronting the ROW for service areas, including waste management and as such access is not required to the primary street.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed development. For the reasons outlined in the body of the report, the departures from the deemed-to-comply standards of the City’s Built Form Policy and the R Codes are considered to address the Local Housing Objectives and Design Principles respectively. The proposal has incorporated a range of materials and finishes which are considered to be consistent with the existing immediate streetscape and the significant landscaping proposed is considered to mitigate the perception of building bulk for adjoining residents and passers-by. The proposed access from Vincent Street is considered to address the design principles for the R-Codes and not impact on the character or functionality of the road given the ongoing single dwelling access that will continue to the provided to dwellings along the street.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved under the City’s TPS1 only, subject to conditions. Given the Department did not support the access to Vincent Street, it is recommended that the MRS application be forwarded to the WAPC for determination for the reasons set out in this report.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

9.2          No. 5 (Lot: 30; D/P: 1879) Turner Street, Highgate - Change of Use from Single House and Bed and Breakfast to Single House, Bed and Breakfast and Eating House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/37882

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   14 – Forrest

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Change of Use from Single House and Bed and Breakfast to Single House, Bed and Breakfast and Eating House at No. 5 (Lot: 30; D/P: 1879) Turner Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes contained in Attachment 4:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1       This approval relates to the Eating House including alterations and additions as shown on the plans dated 12 January 2018 and 14 March 2018 only. No other development is subject of this approval;

1.2       The use of the premises shall conform to the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 definition of Eating House;

1.3       A maximum of four ‘dine-in’ patrons who are consuming food and beverage on the site of the Eating House are permitted on-site at any one time;

1.4       A maximum of two staff of the Eating House are permitted on-site at any one time;

1.5       Deliveries for the Eating House are not permitted outside of the hours of 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday to Friday; and

1.6       The hours of operation for the Eating House shall be limited to 6:00am to 9:00pm, Monday to Sunday;

2.       Parking

2.1       A Parking Management Plan to the satisfaction of the City shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the use or occupation of the development detailing how resident, Bed and Breakfast guests and Eating House staff parking will be managed on site such that parking does not impact on the surrounding residential area. In the event that the operator proposes to utilise delivery services, the Parking Management Plan shall be amended to incorporate the parking and access requirements for these delivery services to the satisfaction of the City such that parking does not impact on the surrounding residential area, prior to these delivery services being utilised. Parking and delivery services associated with the development shall be managed in accordance with the approved Parking Management Plan; and

2.2       A minimum of one lockable bicycle space and access to end of trip facilities shall be provided on-site for the use of staff; and

3.       Stormwater

Prior to occupation or use of the development, all stormwater collected on the subject land shall be retained on-site by suitable means to the satisfaction of the City.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Single House and Bed and Breakfast to Single House, Bed and Breakfast and Eating House at No. 5 Turner Street, Highgate.

Background:

Landowner:

K Sealey & L Tarulli

Applicant:

K Sealey

Date of Application:

9 January 2018

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:   Zone: Residential         R-Code: R80

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Residential

Proposed Use Class:

Eating House – “SA”

Lot Area:

673m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not applicable

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Turner Street, Highgate. The site is adjoined by Jack Mark’s Reserve to the west and residential properties to the north, south and east of the site. The subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R80 under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), and the proposed density is not contemplated to change under draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2). The surrounding locality is zoned Residential, with the exception of the area classified as a Reserve, known as Jack Marks Park, immediately to the west of the subject site. The site currently has an approval for use as a Single House and a Bed and Breakfast. The subject site is single storey, with the surrounding developments also mainly single storey, with a few two storey developments in the area. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

On 12 January 2018, the City received an application for an Eating House on the subject site. The application proposes the continuation of the approved uses of a single house and Bed and Breakfast, and seeks an additional use to operate a kiosk from the subject site. The kiosk use falls within the definition of ‘Eating House’ in TPS1.

 

The proposed Eating House is located to the western boundary of the subject site on part of the existing pergola and will operate independently to the bed and breakfast and residential dwelling. The proposed kiosk is 8.044 square metres in size and will accommodate a maximum of two staff. Eating House patrons are proposed to be accommodated in a paved seating area adjacent to Jack Marks Park, with a maximum of four seats. The proposal will require minor alterations and additions to the existing development on site. The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council are as follows:

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Town Planning Scheme No. 1

 

“P” Use

 

 

Eating House – “SA” Use

Bicycle Bays

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

 

1 class one or two bicycle bay

2 class three bicycle bays

 

 

0 bicycle bays

 

The above elements of the proposal does not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and is discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community Consultation was undertaken for a period of 21 days from 20 February 2018 until 13 March 2018. The method of consultation included a sign on site, a notice in a local newspaper, and 16 letters being mailed out to all owners and occupiers adjacent to the site as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of 59 submissions were received by the City with one objection and 58 in support of the proposal.

 

The key issues raised through the submissions were:

 

·       Parking and traffic from the development will create more overcrowded parking and may pose a safety risk;

·       Noise concerns that the proposed opening hours of the café will increase the existing noise issues that stem from the adjacent reserve;

·       Health and safety concerns regarding the nature of an eating house use and the lack of toilet facilities;

·       Entry to the site through the reserve; and

·       The proposed eating house does not fit within the suburban harmony of the area.

 

A full schedule of submissions including Administration’s response is provided as Attachment 3.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1);

·       State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes)

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Town Planning Scheme No 2 (TPS2) was to be modified before final approval would be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard TPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application.

 

Generally the modified version of TPS2 does not impact on the subject property as the zoning will not alter and the land use will be considered a restaurant/café in TPS2. In accordance with Table 1- Zoning table of TPS2, restaurant/café within the Residential zone will become an ‘A’ use, which is a use that requires advertising before Council can exercise its discretion in determining the application. As the application was advertised for community consultation, all of the requirements for TPS2 have been met as part of the processing of this application.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This application is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal contemplates an ‘SA’ land use and as one or more written objections were received during the community submission period, the application is required to be determined by Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register 2017 - 2018.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

An Eating House is a ‘SA’ use within the Residential zone under TPS1. A ‘SA’ use is permitted subject to Council exercising its discretion. The proposal’s scale, location and impact are the key factors to consider when assessing the appropriateness of the use within the Residential zone.

 

The surrounding context of the site compromises of single houses, grouped dwellings and a local reserve, being Jack Marks Park. The site is bound by the park to the west and residential dwellings to the north, south and east. The proposed Eating House use is located on the western side of the lot, adjacent to Jack Marks Park and away from the surrounding residential dwellings. Customer access to the kiosk will also be through the park.

 

As the proposal seeks to retain the existing single house and bed and breakfast uses, which will continue to front Turner Street, there will be no impact on the character of the existing streetscape as a result of the proposed use. The additions proposed to accommodate the proposed kiosk include increasing the wall length of the existing dwelling by 3.286 metres under the existing patio roof, and will be setback 3.5 metres from the western lot boundary. The façade fronting the western boundary will include a service window which will assist in mitigating the perception of bulking bulk. The addition is 8.04 square metres in size and is considered minor in nature and given its location and design, will not adversely impact the streetscape or the amenity of the adjacent dwellings or reserve.

 

The proposed hours of operation being 6:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Sunday are considered appropriate. Given the orientation of the Eating House towards the reserve and away from the residential developments, it is not considered that these hours will have any impact on the surrounding residential properties and will increase the activation and passive surveillance of Jack Marks Park.

 

Additionally, the proposal incorporates a maximum of four patrons, with the seating area located to face Jack Mark’s Reserve at the rear of the dwelling. This area is setback 28 metres from Turner Street and is separated from the eastern and southern residential area by the existing dwelling and studio on site. This limited number of on-site patrons, is considered to be of a low scale that is compatible with the Residential zone, while providing activation, surveillance and services for the users of Jack Marks Park.

 

Car Parking

 

The application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s current Policy No. 7.7.1 Parking and Access and results in the requirement for the Eating House and Bed and Breakfast to provide 0.92 car parking bays. In addition the existing Single House is required to provide one car parking bay under the R‑Codes. As a result, this proposal requires the subject site to provide a total of 1.92 bays, with two bays located on property. At its meeting of 6 March 2018, Council adopted an amendment to its Policy No. 7.7.1 - Parking and Access, which is scheduled to be published and become operational in mid-April. The amendments adopted by Council increased the parking requirements for the proposed Eating House use to one bay. No parking standard was included for the Bed and Breakfast use in the amended Policy, given Bed and Breakfast is an unlisted use under TPS2. Instead the amended Policy requires a parking management plan for Bed and Breakfast proposals.

 

One submission was received raising concerns regarding the impact the development may have on car parking in the area as there are no additional car bays proposed. The subject site is adjacent to Jack Marks Park which is frequented by many residents and dog owners in the surrounding area. The proposed kiosk fronts the park and is of a relatively low scale, such that it will likely only service existing visitors to the park and general area. Given this, it is not considered that the customers of the proposed kiosk will generate any significant additional parking demand or add to traffic issues in the area. The development complies with the City’s current Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and the two bays provided on site are considered adequate to accommodate the parking for the uses on site. However, it is considered necessary for the resident, Bed and Breakfast guests and Eating House staff to be managed to ensure only there is only demand for two car parking bays at any one time. On this basis it is recommended that a condition be included on any plan requiring a parking management plan to set out how car parking will be managed to ensure the development has no impact on the surrounding residential area.

 

Bicycle Parking

 

Bicycle parking has been assessed in accordance with the City’s current Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access, which based on the large size of the publically accessible paved seating area, requires the development to provide one Class 1 or 2 bicycle facilities and two Class 3 bicycle facility, with the proposal providing no bicycle facilities. The amended Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access, adopted by Council on 6 March 2018, which is scheduled to be published and become operational in mid-April, bases the bicycle parking requirements on the number of persons proposed to be accommodated in the Eating House. Given only four persons are proposed, there is no requirement for bicycle parking under the amended policy.

 

Given the minimal number of patrons proposed to use the site at any one time and the nature of the business to run as a small kiosk dependent on the business of existing park users, provision of bicycle bays for visitors is not considered necessary, consistent with the City’s intent for the provision bicycle parking. This is particularly the case given access to the development will be through the adjacent reserve which does not provide any footpaths suitable for bicycle access to the kiosk.

 

However, the development does propose a maximum of two staff for the Eating House, with limited on-site car parking available. Given the requirement for one Class 1 or 2 bicycle facility under the current Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access, it is considered reasonable to require space for lockable bicycle storage and end of trip facilities on-site for staff in order to encourage alternative means of transport to the subject site, and to mitigate parking issues both on site and within the surrounding area.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposed Eating House is considered appropriate within the locality given the proposal is situated so as to orientate towards the reserve and is located away from the surrounding residential properties. The proposal does not significantly alter the existing development with all work contained at the rear of the dwelling and will therefore have no impact on the existing character of the area and streetscape.

 

The proposal is compliant with the car parking requirements of the City’s current Policy 7.7.1 – Parking and Access and it is considered that parking for the site can be appropriately managed given the alternative forms of transport available, provided bicycle storage is available for staff and a parking management plan is put in place to ensure the demand for parking from the residence, Bed and Breakfast guests and Eating House staff does not exceed the two bays on site. This will ensure there is no impact on the surrounding Residential area.

 

In light of the above, it is recommended that the development be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

9.3          No. 14 (Lot: 1; SP: 12592) Orange Avenue, Perth - Second Storey Addition to Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/24816

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   12 – Hyde Park

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Applicant's Response Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for a Second Storey Addition to Single House at No. 14 (Lot: 1; SP: 12592) Orange Avenue, Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

1.       Extent of Approval

This approval only relates to the ‘PROPOSED ADDITION’ and ‘PROPOSED UPPER FLOOR’ to Single House shown on the approved plans dated 13 March 2018 and does not relate to the ‘PROPOSED SPA’, ‘TIMBER DECK’, ‘EXTG STUDIO/SHED’ or any other development on the lot, and does not relate to the use of the site for anything other than a Single House;

2.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning units, piping, ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any visual and noise impact on surrounding landowners, and shall be screened from view from the street, and surrounding properties to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

4.       Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the commencement of development a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials and colour schemes and details) to the satisfaction of the City shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The development shall be finished in accordance with the approved schedule to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development;

5.       Visual Privacy

The four windows on the eastern and western elevations of the upper floor bedroom and study shall be screened or modified to comply with the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.4.1 Visual Privacy of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development; and

6.       General

Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required time frame, the obligation to comply with the requirements of the condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a Second Storey Addition to a Single House at No. 14 Orange Street, Perth (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Derek Bower

Applicant:

Derek Bower

Date of Application:

11 December 2017

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Grouped Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

362m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 3m wide, drained and sealed

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 14 Orange Avenue, Perth, as shown in the location plan included as Attachment 1. The site is bound by Orange Avenue to the west, a ROW to the east and residential properties to the north and south. The subject site comprises of a single storey dwelling, which shares a common wall and roof with No. 16 Orange Avenue.

 

The locality has been developed with predominantly ‘terrace style’ single storey single houses and grouped dwellings, although there are two storey developments, multiple dwellings and commercial developments within the area. There are a number of Heritage Listed dwellings that front Lake Street, which is located on the adjacent side of the ROW.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential with a density code of R50 and this is not contemplated to change under draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2). Subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the site has been identified in the Residential Area and has been assessed against the applicable standards and requirements of the policy.

 

The proposal seeks approval for a second storey addition to the existing dwelling on the subject site. A copy of the applicant’s development plans is included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No: 7.6.1 - Heritage Management - Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R-Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping

ü

 

Privacy

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Impact on Adjacent Heritage Listed Buildings

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council are as follows:

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.1.3 of R‑Codes

 

Southern Boundary

Ground Level – Setback 4.8m

 

 

Northern Boundary

Level One – Setback 1.7m

 

 

Southern Boundary

Ground level – Setback 1.7m (shower) and 3.63m (building)

 

Northern Boundary

Level One – Setback 0.9m

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of Built Form Policy

 

Max. height to top of external wall (concealed roof) – 7m

 

 

Max. height to top of external wall (concealed roof) – 7.2m

Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.4.1 of R-Codes

 

Southern Boundary

Cone of vision for Major Openings to Bedrooms setback 4.5m from lot boundary

 

Northern Boundary

Cone of vision for Major Openings to Bedrooms setback 4.5m from lot boundary

 

 

Southern Boundary

Cone of vision for Major Openings to Bedrooms setback 3.9m from lot boundary

 

Northern Boundary

Cone of vision for Major Openings to Bedrooms setback 3.8m from lot boundary

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified Deemed-to-Comply standards and are discussed in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 1 February 2018 and concluding on 14 February 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as show in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, seven submissions were received in objection.

 

The main issues raised as part of the consultation relate to the:

 

·       Impact of the development on the streetscape;

·       Impact of the development on the adjoining properties in terms of bulk and scale;

·       Potential use of the development as a short-term rental;

·       Unfinished works on the subject site; and

·       Potential loss of privacy.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments on each issue raised is included as Attachment 3, with the applicant’s response to the submissions provided in Attachment 4.

 

Following the advertising period the applicant amended the development application plans to incorporate colours and materials that are considered more consistent with the retained portion of the dwelling.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·       Policy No: 7.6.1 – Heritage Management - Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft TPS2 was to be modified before final approval would be granted. The Schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Land and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to the TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the TPS2 should be given due regard as part of the determination of this application. Proposed TPS2 and the modifications required do not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal received a total of seven objections during the community consultation period and as a result the application is required to be determined by Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register 2017 – 2018.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

Northern Boundary

 

The proposal incorporates a 0.9 metre upper floor setback to the northern boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 1.7 metres. The subject site abuts a residential dwelling which incorporates a shared boundary wall with a maximum height of 5.5 metres. This is considered to screen the majority of the proposed northern wall, which is only 1.2m higher than the existing boundary wall. Furthermore, this wall has been proposed to incorporate cladding which is considered to reduce the perception of building bulk. The northern elevation does not incorporate any major openings and therefore, will not result in a loss of privacy.

 

Southern Boundary

 

The proposal incorporates a 1.7 metre and 3.63 metre ground floor setback to the southern boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 4.8 metres. The ground floor development only proposes to modify the layout of the existing building altering the internal layout at the rear of the building, slightly reducing the building foot print and altering the external façade to incorporate major openings. As a result the works are within the existing section of the building the setback of the development is not proposed to change from the existing building line. The proposed alterations incorporates major openings and under the R-Codes this results in an increased deemed-to-comply setback requirement from what is presently required.

 

The overall building length is slightly reduced, which reduces the bulk of the building on the ground floor. It is not considered that the alteration to the layout and introduction of major openings impacts on the perceived building bulk as previously solid sections of wall are now being amended to incorporate major openings. The existing section of wall comprises rendered material, the proposed works incorporates introduction of horizontal cladding to the rear area which will further reduce the bulk of the ground floor.

 

Although the ground floor southern boundary elevation contains major openings, the finished floor level of the dwelling does not exceed 0.5 metres above natural ground level and therefore, the proposal complies with the visual privacy requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R-Codes. The development will not result in unacceptable overlooking on the adjoining property as a result of the reduced setback. The proposal is also compliant with the overshadowing requirements of Clause 5.4.2 of the R-Codes.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the design principles and local housing objectives of Clause 5.1.3 and Clause 5.3 of the R-Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy respectively.

 

Building Height

 

The proposal exceeds the deemed-to-comply height of 7.0 metres for a concealed roof by 0.2 metres. The existing dwelling on subject site has a wall height of 3.7 metres and ceiling height of 3.1 metres, which restricts the ability to reduce the overall building height of the development and maintain compliant ceiling heights on the upper level. However, the upper level of the development has been setback 10.2 metres from the street, which is considered to reduce the visibility of the development and the impact of the additional building height from the street.

 

In response to the submissions received during advertising, the applicant has amended the development plans to use a similar colour in the cladding and render which are considered to be similar to the materials of the existing dwelling. It is considered that this will further assist in reducing impact of the addition on the streetscape. The existing dwelling and the façade are not proposed to be altered and therefore, the rear addition and the second storey addition is considered to be adequately screened from the primary street. It is considered that this reduces the perception of building bulk and maintains the existing character of the street.

 

The subject site includes an existing 3.63 metre access leg located along the southern boundary of the property. The access leg is considered to provide adequate separation between the development and the adjoining property to the south. The southern façade also provides contrasting material and finishes to assist in mitigating the impact of bulk on the adjoining property. On the northern boundary, the subject shares a common boundary wall with the adjoining property. The length of the boundary wall varies in height, with a maximum height being 5.5 metres. The proposed second storey addition will protrude an additional 1.2 metres above the existing boundary wall, which is not considered to impact on the adjoining property. Given the context of the subject site, it is considered that the additional height is negligible and will not adversely impact on the adjoining landowners.

 

The proposal complies with the overshadowing requirements the R-Codes and will allow for direct sun and ventilation to the buildings and open spaces on the subject site and the adjoining properties.

 

It is considered that the height proposed satisfies the design principles and local housing objectives Clause 5.6 of the R-Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy respectively.

 

Privacy

 

The development as proposed will result in overlooking from the first floor bedroom into the southern and northern adjoining properties. The adjoining property on the north incorporates a courtyard which will be impacted by the overlooking. The overlooking to the south will fall primarily onto the roof of the adjoining property, however, there is the potential for overlooking to occur into major openings of the southern property. This is not considered to be consistent with the Design Principles, as such it is considered appropriate to impose a condition to ensure the windows of the first floor bedroom are either modified or screened so that they do not overlook these properties and comply with the relevant deemed-to-comply standards of the R-Codes.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the building height, lot boundary setbacks and visual privacy.  Given the context of the subject site, the proposed building heights and lot boundary setbacks are considered to have a negligible impact on the surrounding properties. It is considered that the concerns relating to overlooking can be mitigated through appropriate conditions on development approval. Therefore, it is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

9.4          No. 39a (Lot: 2; D/P: 63474) Knebworth Avenue, Perth - Proposed Extension to the Period of Approval: Proposed Construction of a Three-Storey Grouped Dwelling

TRIM Ref:                  D18/19745

Author:                     Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   12 – Hyde Park

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plan

2.       Attachment 2 - Previous Development Approval Notice and Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Applicants Submission and Response to Schedule of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to extend the period within which the development must be substantially commenced at No. 39a (Lot: 2; D/P: 63474) Knebworth Avenue, Perth, for planning approval 5.2014.354.1 granted by Council on 10 February 2015 for Proposed Construction of a Three-Storey Grouped Dwelling subject to the following condition:

1.       All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on the development approval 5.2014.354.1 granted on 10 February 2014 continue to apply to this approval except as follows:

(a)        A new condition 6.1 is added to the planning approval as follows:

“6.1      Landscape and Reticulation Plan

A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge shall be prepared to the City’s satisfaction and be lodged with and approved by the City prior to commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

6.1.1     The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants;

6.1.2     The provision of 8 per cent additional deep soil zone and 19 per cent canopy cover mature tree planting within the outdoor living area of the dwelling to the satisfaction of the City;

6.1.3     Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

All works shown in the approved landscape and reticulation plan shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City;”; and

(c)        Condition 5 of the planning approval is deleted and replaced with the following condition:

“5.       Revised Plans

Prior to commencement of development revised plans to the City’s satisfaction shall be submitted to and approved by the City showing the first floor boundary wall of the bathroom being reduced to a maximum length of 4.32 metres and screening to the major openings of the Kitchen, Lounge and Deck (Upper floor) that satisfies the deemed-to-comply standards of State Planning policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes. The boundary wall and screening shall be installed in accordance with the approved revised plans to the City’s satisfaction prior to the occupation or use of the development.”

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to extend the period within which the development must be substantially commence for planning approval 5.2014.354.1 granted by Council on 10 February 2015 for proposed construction of a three-storey grouped dwelling at No. 39A Knebworth Street, Perth (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Grant Johnson

Applicant:

Grant Johnson

Date of Application:

18 December 2017

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Grouped Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

188m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Northern, 3 metres wide, Privately owned with access rights for subject site

Heritage List:

No. Adjoins a Category B Heritage Listed Dwelling

 

The subject site forms part of a two lot subdivision and fronts onto a ROW to the north. The ROW facilitates access to a number of properties which front onto Lincoln Street. There are currently no existing developments which directly front onto the ROW. The site abuts No. 39 Knebworth Avenue to the east which is heritage listed under the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and is classified as a Category B – Conservation Recommended. To the west of the subject site is a strata complex which comprises of seven grouped dwellings fronting onto William Street. To the south is a site containing two grouped dwellings. A location plan in included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and the surrounding lots are zoned Residential and have a density of R50 pursuant to the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1). This is not contemplated to change under the City’s Draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2).

 

At its Ordinary Council Meeting held on 10 February 2015, Council approved subject to conditions the development of a three storey grouped dwelling at the subject site. A copy of the approval notice and the approved plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant had two years to substantially commence this development however, the development has not been commenced. The applicant has advised that the inability to substantially commence the development was a result of financial difficulties and not obtaining finance. Upon contracting a company to pursue the development approval and obtain a building permit it was noted that a time extension for the development approval would first be required prior to the application for a building permit. The current application seeks a two year extension to the approval period to enable the commencement of the previously approved development. The application does not seek to amend the plans or any other part of the planning approval. The applicant’s justification for the proposed extension is included as Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). It notes in each instance where Council previously approved a planning element that required the discretionary of Council as well as each instance where further discretion is proposed. Those elements that were previously approved by Council but which now require discretion under Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form (Built Form Policy) are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Discretion previously applied by Council

Requires discretion under Built Form Policy

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

 

Street Setback

 

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

ü

Open Space

ü

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

ü

 

Landscaping

ü

 

 

Privacy

 

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

 

Solar Access

ü

 

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

 

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that were previously approved by Council but which now require the additional discretion of Council under Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form (Built Form Policy) is as follows:

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

Maximum Height - 2 storeys

Max. height to top of external wall (roof above) – 6m

Max. height to top of pitch – 9m

 

 

Maximum Height - 3 Storeys

Max. height to top of external wall (roof above) – 6.3m

Max. height to top of pitch – 9.3m

Boundary Setback - Development to Right of Way (ROW)

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.31 of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

1.0m setback to all developments from ROW

 

 

0.7m setback to ROW

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 8 February 2018 to 21 February 2018. The method of advertising included 22 letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers within close proximity of the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. At the conclusion of the advertising period three submissions were received all of which objected to the proposal. The key concerns raised in the objections related to:

 

·           Impact of the proposal on the amenity of the area; and

·           The need for the development to be assessed against the Built Form Policy; and

·           The need for the development to be fully reassessed given the changes to the surrounding development context.

(a)         

The applicant’s response to the submissions is included in Attachment 3. A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comment on each issue raised is included as Attachment 4.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes (R-Codes);

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·       Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties. 

 

The application to amend an approval can be considered in accordance with Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 77(1)(a) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Clause 77(4) provides the local government the ability to approve the application with or without conditions or refuse the application.

 

The applicant will have the right to have Council’s decision reviewed by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

The Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 enables the period within which a development approved must be substantially commenced to be extended. However, no guidance is provided as to how discretion can be exercised in this regard. The State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) has published several decisions that relate to extensions of time to commence development, which provide relevant considerations in the exercise of discretion in this application. Notably in the decision of Claymont Westcapital Pty Ltd and East Perth Redevelopment Authority WASAT 77 – 2008, SAT identified three key considerations, namely whether the:

 

·       planning framework has changed substantially since the development approval was granted;

·       development would likely receive approval now; and

·       holder of the development approval has actively and relatively conscientiously pursued the implementation of the development approval.

 

Each relevant matter is to be considered on balance in the exercise of discretion.

 

Draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2

 

On 8 December 2017, the Acting Minister for Planning announced that the City’s draft Town Planning Scheme No. 2 (TPS2) was to be modified before final approval would to be granted. The schedule of modifications was confirmed in writing by officers at the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (the Department). The Department also advised that the modifications to TPS2 would be required before the Acting Minister would finally grant approval to the Scheme. In this regard the modified version of TPS2 should be given due regard as a seriously entertained planning proposal when determining this application. Generally the modified version of TPS2 does not impact on the subject property.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal incorporates three storeys and is classified as a ‘Category 1’ application.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Changes in the Planning Framework

 

The initial application for the subject site was assessed in accordance with the local planning framework that applied to the site at the time. This planning framework was made up primarily of Town Planning Scheme No. 1, with the City’s local planning policies providing guidance on the assessment of application under this scheme. Town Planning Scheme No. 1 has not changed since the initial application was determined in 2015. The City’s proposed Town Planning Scheme No. 2 also does not impact on the subject site, with both the Residential zone and the applicable R50 density not set to change.

 

The local planning policies applicable to the site have changed since the application was determined, with the Council formally revoking a number of these local planning policies and adopting the Built Form Policy as a replacement on 13 December 2016. The original proposal incorporated some departures to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the City’s previous local planning policies and the R-Codes. These departures were considered to satisfy the relevant design principles at the time. The current application does not seek to alter any part of the development and the application has been re-assessed using the City’s current Built Form Policy, taking into consideration any changes to the context of the subject site into account. The application requires discretion to be applied in relation to the outdoor living areas, open space, boundary setbacks, privacy, ROW setbacks and building height. The Built Form Policy and changes to the site context did not affect the previous assessment undertaken for the outdoor living areas, open space, boundary setbacks or privacy components of the development. The applicable provisions for these elements did not change as a result of the Built Form Policy and the site context has not altered the assessment. However, elements relating to building height and setback to the right of way, although the provisions are generally aligned with the previous planning framework, are still departures under the current Built Form Policy and warrant further consideration given the changes to the site context. These are discussed in more detail below.

 

Building Height and Amenity

 

The City’s Built Form Policy sets a maximum ‘deemed-to-comply’ height for the area of two storeys, with this development incorporating three storeys. The development is proposed to be located on a subdivided lot behind No. 39 Knebworth and cannot be readily seen from the primary street. The proposed development will front and have access from a ROW, which is also the primary frontage for a number of other dwellings.

 

The proposal has been developed with a range of materials and finishes which are considered to be sympathetic to the locality. The proposal incorporates timber, render and cladding which are materials that are apparent in the area and the design incorporates multiple articulations in order to minimise the built of the development. It is considered that the design of the proposed dwelling minimises the impact of building bulk and scale on the locality. The development addresses the ROW and includes a number of articulations which are considered to enhance the visual character of the streetscape. Given the development will not be readily visible from the surrounding streets, and the presentation to the ROW, it is considered that the proposal will not adversely impact on the amenity of the locality.

 

It should be noted that the development includes timber slats to the first floor major openings, which combined with an appropriate condition that ensures these act as screening devises, will ensure there is no overlooking into the adjoining properties. Furthermore, the proposal is complaint with the overshadowing requirements of the R-Codes.

 

Setback to the ROW

 

The proposed development is the first property within the immediate locality facing the right of way. The surrounding dwellings fronting Lincoln Street, Knebworth Avenue and William Street use the right of way to access their parking areas. The properties fronting both Knebworth Avenue and William Street have their side boundaries built up to the boundary of the right of way. Whereas the garages and carports of the properties fronting Lincoln Street are setback between 1.0 metres and 4.0 metres from the right of way to allow access and ensure manoeuvrability, the proposed 1.5 metre front setback for this development maintains the average setback of the surrounding properties, whilst creating a unique streetscape appearance along the ROW.

 

Landscaping

 

The City’s Built Form Policy sets out a deemed-to-comply standard of 15 per cent deep soil zone and 30 per cent canopy coverage at maturity for the development. The application proposes one per cent of the site as deep soil zone, and one per cent canopy coverage. There is an opportunity to increase the deep soil zones and canopy within the outdoor living area and as a result a condition is recommended accordingly.

 

Modifications to Conditions

 

A review of the conditions outlined on the previous approval identified a number of improvements that should be made to the wording to ensure they can be applied as intended. This includes the condition relating to visual privacy to ensure that the visual screening which has been noted on the development plans complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R-Codes and is installed in accordance with the approved plans.

 

Conclusion

 

The applicant to seek an amendment to a development approval to extend the period of time within which they can substantially commence the development. It is considered that the applicant has actively pursued the development by attempting to gain finance and contracting a company to obtain a building permit. The planning framework applicable to the subject has not changed substantially since the planning approval was issued, given the zoning and density applicable to the subject site remains the same. The proposal has been assessed against the current planning framework and it is considered that the development would likely receive approval under the new policy framework. Given the above, and that the proposal has not been changed since it was previously considered by Council, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

9.5          No. 131 (Lot 282; D/P: 2503) Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Carport and Awning Addition to Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/38606

Author:                     Alice Harford, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   10 – Norfolk

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Proposed Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Determination Advice Notes

4.       Attachment 4 - Previously Considered Plans  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme:

 

1.       APPROVES the application for a proposed carport and awning addition to a single house at No. 131 (Lot: 282; D/P: 2503) Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with the plans included as Attachment 2 subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 3:

1.1       This approval is for the proposed Carport Addition to Single House only, as shown on the plans dated 19 March 2018. No other development forms part of this approval;

1.2       The proposed bullnose awning does not form part of this development approval;

1.3       No verge trees shall be removed without the prior written approval of the City. The verge trees shall be retained and protected from any damage including unauthorised pruning, to the full satisfaction of the City;

1.4       All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City; and

1.5       The carport door/gate shall not exceed 1.2 metres in height and shall be a minimum of 50 percent visually permeable in accordance with Clause 5.2.1 of the Residential Design Codes; and

2.       REFUSES the proposed awning addition to a single house at No. 131 (Lot: 282; D/P: 2503) Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn for the following reason:

2.1       The proposed awning does not meet Design Principles P2.1 and P2.2 of Clause 5.1.2 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes for the following reasons:

2.1.1     The bullnose awning will result in the removal of the existing tiled awning located on the northern side of the dwelling. This is considered to be a significant design element of the existing dwelling which contributes to the character of the established streetscape;

2.1.2     The materials used for the bullnose awning are not consistent with the materials of the existing dwelling or the dwellings of a similar type and character within the surrounding streetscape. As such, the bullnose awning is considered to detract from the character of both the dwelling and established streetscape; and

2.1.3     The street setback of the proposed awning is not consistent with the setback of dwellings along the existing streetscape.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a carport and awning addition to a single house at No. 131 Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

Background:

Landowner:

Arondina Van Der Feltz

Applicant:

Ric Van Der Feltz

Date of Application:

10 January 2018

Zoning:

MRS: Urban

TPS1:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30

TPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

488m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the western side of Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn, between Ellesmere Street and Woodstock Street. The location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1. The site and adjoining properties are zoned Residential and are serviced by a right-of-way to the rear.

 

The application proposes a single vehicle carport located within the street setback area and setback 1.2 metres from the southern lot boundary, as well as the addition of a 2.5 metre deep bullnose awning located on the northern side of the dwelling that will replace the existing tile awning in this location. The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

 

The site currently has vehicle access to the existing single house from the right of way to the western boundary. There is no existing crossover that provides access to the site from Coogee Street.

 

The property has an 11.3 metre frontage to Coogee Street. A significant verge tree is located within the adjoining verge and the trunk of this tree trunk sits approximately four metres from the northern boundary and seven metres from the southern boundary. The verge tree is a mature Weeping Peppermint, estimated to be around 60 years old.

 

The City has previously considered applications on the subject lot as follows:

 

1.         On 18 October 2016, Council resolved to refuse an application for a carport within the front setback area and located 0.5m from the northern lot boundary (ref: 5.2016.124.1). The reasons for refusal were as follows:

 

a.         Due to the proposed location of the carport, the development is not capable of providing a crossover with a minimum width of 3 metres (Australian Standards AS2890.1); and

 

b.         Due to the proposed location of the crossover, the development is likely to impact the long-term health of the existing well established mature “Weeping Peppermint Tree”, and potentially resulting in the tree having to be removed.

 

Following refusal of this development application by Council, the applicant sought review of Council’s decision by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). On 2 March 2017, the SAT made a determination to affirm the City’s refusal of the development approval on the basis of the following:

 

a.         The proposed carport would not reduce the impact of access points on the streetscape or minimise crossovers to the primary street;

b.         The carport would intrude on sightlines along the street and partially obstruct views of the dwelling from the street and with the removal of the awning over the window of the front room involves a removal of a design element which makes some contribution to the streetscape; and

c.         The width of the crossover is likely to have an adverse impact on the health of the existing tree.

 

On 23 March 2017, the applicant lodged a development application (5.2017.100.1) for the same development as previously refused by Council and SAT. On 26 May 2017, the City refused this application under delegated authority.

 

Following refusal of this development application by the City, the applicant again sought review of the decision by the SAT. On 3 November 2017, the SAT decided to dismiss the application for review as an abuse of process.

 

See Attachment 4 for the development plans previously considered by Council and the SAT.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Policy No. 7.1.1) and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R-Codes). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

ü

Street Setbacks

 

ü

Setbacks of Garages and Carports

 

ü

Vehicular Access

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

The deemed-to-comply assessment of the elements that require the discretion of Council are as follows:

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Residential Design Codes – Clause 5.1.3

 

Carport required to be setback 1.5m from the southern lot boundary.

 

 

Carport setback 1.2m from the southern lot boundary.

Street Setbacks and Setbacks of Garages and Carports

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form – Clause 5.7

Residential Design Codes – Clause 5.2.1

 

Carport street setback is to be the average of the five properties adjoining the development.

·       Average = 6.8m

 

Carport setback can be reduced by up to 50% (minimum of 3.4m) provided that the area of the building intruding in to the street setback area is compensated for by at least an equal area of open space between the setback line and a line drawn parallel to it at twice the setback distance.

 

 

 

Carport setback 1m from the primary street boundary.

Vehicular Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Residential Design Codes – Clause 5.3.5

 

Access to on-site car parking spaces is to be provided from a right of way where available.

 

 

Access to carport is proposed to be provided from Coogee Street.

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form – Clause 5.2

Residential Design Codes – Clause 5.1.2

 

Awnings street setback – 5.8m

 

Awning maximum width – 2.2m

 

 

 

Bullnose awning street setback – 5m

 

Bullnose Awning maximum width – 4.1m

 

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and are discussed in the comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days in accordance with the Planning and development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, from 9 February 2018 to 22 February 2018. The method of advertising included advertising the proposal on the City’s website and 11 letters being mailed to owners and occupiers within close proximity to the subject site as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

During the advertising period there was one submission of support received.

Design Advisory Committee (DAC):

Referred to DAC:                                             No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

·       Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

·       City of Vincent Town Planning Scheme No. 1;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant will have the right to apply to the SAT for a review of Council’s determination.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the application for a carport addition at the subject property is a matter that has previously been considered and refused by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

It is Administration’s view that there are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a planning application.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1       Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The proposal seeks approval for a 1.2 metre setback to the southern lot boundary in lieu of the 1.5 metres set under the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes.

 

The setback of 1.2 metres is considered acceptable and meets the design principles of Clause 5.1.3 of the R-Codes and Clause 5.3 of Policy No. 7.1.1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The carport is a single storey open structure and on this basis will not create impacts of building bulk on the adjoining property. This is confirmed by the R-Codes Explanatory Guidelines which indicates single storey buildings are usually not problematic in terms of impact on adjoining properties.  The City did not receive any objections from the adjoining property to the setback proposed;

·       As the carport is an open structure, it will not impact on the ability for the adjoining property to gain access to direct sun and ventilation to the building and open spaces; and

·       The carport is not a habitable space and as such will not create any issues with regard to visual privacy or overlooking.

 

Setbacks of Garages and Carports

 

The proposal seeks approval for a 1 metre setback to the Coogee Street boundary in lieu of the minimum 3.4 metres required under the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.2.1 of the R-Codes and Clause 5.7 of Policy No. 7.1.1.

 

The street setback of the proposed carport is considered to meet the corresponding design principles of the R-Codes and Policy No. 7.1.1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The carport is fully open on the southern and northern boundary sides and open above 1.2 metres in height fronting the street. On this basis, clear sightlines will be maintained along the street;

·       The door/gate to the carport is open above 1.2 metres in height and indicated to be 50 percent visually permeable. On this basis, the proposed carport will not obstruct views of the dwelling from the street or views of the street from the dwelling. A condition of approval is also recommended in order to ensure that the carport door is constructed no higher than he existing picket fence and to be a minimum of 50 percent visually permeable; and

·       The carport is considered to preserve and enhance the visual character of the streetscape for the following reasons:

o   The carport is proposed to be constructed in materials which match those of the existing dwelling on the site;

o   Within the existing streetscape in close proximity to the subject site (consists of 33 dwellings) there are currently two carports and two garages located within the street setback area and one carport which is located behind the street setback area. The two carports located within the street setback area are the two adjoining properties to the north of the subject site. It is considered that on the basis of the existing carports and garages in close proximity to the subject, the addition of the proposed carport would not be inconsistent or detract from the existing streetscape; and

o   The existing street trees and vegetation within Coogee Street, are the dominating features of the streetscape and act as screening to parts of the development on properties along the street. The existing street tree located in the verge adjoining the subject site has a large, healthy leaf canopy and branch structure which will act as an element of screening of the proposed carport and remain the dominant feature of the property when viewing it from the street.

 

Vehicular Access

 

The proposal seeks access from Coogee Street in lieu of the rear right of way set as a deemed-to-comply standard under Clause 5.3.5 of the R-Codes.

 

The vehicular access from Coogee Street is considered to meet the corresponding design principles of the R-Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The location of the driveway, setback of the carport and proposed visually permeable carport door provides that there are adequate sightlines for cars exiting the property to ensure safety for pedestrians and vehicles;

·       There are currently 11 dwellings of the 33 within immediate proximity to the subject site which gain access to their dwellings via a crossover on Coogee Street. It is considered that the addition of one more crossover with the minimum width of 3 metres where it meets the kerb will not create an increased impact on crossovers to the street; and

·       As noted within the discussion for the Setbacks of Garages and Carports above, the existing street trees and vegetation within the street act as the dominating feature of the street and reduce the dominance of the crossovers and carports/garages on the streetscape.

 

Bullnose Awning

 

In addition to the proposed carport, the application is proposing the removal of an existing awning (approximately 0.5 metres deep and 3 metres wide) with a bullnose awning of 2.5 metres deep and 4.1 metres wide. The applicant has noted the reasons for removal of the existing awning and replacement with the bullnose awning as follows

 

·       The existing awning is in a poor condition;

·       The bullnose awning will match the house; and

·       The bullnose awning will keep the weather off the existing lead light window and reduce the early morning sun penetrating through to the bedroom.

 

Policy No. 7.1.1 and the R-Codes permit the awning to project no more than 1 metre in to the street setback area provided that the total width of the projection does not exceed more than 20 percent of the frontage of the lot. On this basis, the awning is permitted to be setback a minimum of 5.8 metres from the street boundary provided it has a width of no more than 2.2 metres. The proposed awning is setback 5 metres from the street boundary with a width of 4.1 metres and as such does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.1.2 of the R-Codes and Clause 5.2 of Policy No. 7.1.1. On this basis, the proposed setback of the bullnose awning is required to be considered against the corresponding design principles.

 

The proposed awning is not considered to meet the design principles of the R-Codes and Policy No. 7.1.1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed carport and bullnose awning will result in the removal of the existing tiled verandah roof and tiled awning located on the southern and northern side of the dwelling. These are considered to be significant design elements of the existing dwelling which contribute to the character of the established streetscape.  In the SAT decision on the previous carport application for this site, the SAT noted that the removal of the existing awning over the window of the front room involves a removal of a design element which makes some contribution to the streetscape and cited this as one of the reasons for refusal;

·       The materials used for the bullnose awning are not consistent with the materials of the existing dwelling or the dwellings of a similar type and character within the surrounding streetscape. As such, the bullnose awning is considered to detract from the character of both the dwelling and established streetscape; and

·       The addition of both the bullnose awning and the proposed carport bring the street setbacks of the buildings to 1 metre and 5 metres in lieu of the 6.8 metre average that is maintained by the adjoining five dwellings. This creates an area of intrusion into the required street setback area of 36 square metres which is considered excessive. Should the existing tiled awning remain on-site, it will create a significant area of open space and landscaping adjoining the proposed carport which will reduce the scale and bulk of the development on the subject site as well maintaining a consistent street setback of the northern portion of the dwelling with the surrounding properties.

 

Administration agrees that the awning located on the northern side of the dwelling is a design feature that makes some contribution to the street and the removal and replacement of this awning with a larger bullnose awning that is not consistent with the character of the dwelling and intrudes into the only open space area in the front setback is not supported.

 

Verge Tree

 

The refusal of the previous carport application was partly on the basis of the impact the proposed crossover would have on the health of the existing verge tree. The carport and crossover have been relocated as part of this application to the southern side of the lot. The crossover is now located 2.5 metres from the base of the existing verge tree. The City’s Policy No. 2.2.4 – Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification, requires a minimum clearance of 0.5 metre to any existing tree in the verge and where an existing tree will be within 1.5 metres of a proposed crossover, advice shall be obtained on the future size of tree and the advisability of it being retained. On the basis of the above, the clearance of 2.5 metres between the proposed crossover and the base of the existing verge tree is considered sufficient to ensure the health of the tree.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the lot boundary setbacks, setbacks of garages and carports and vehicular access with regard to the proposed carport addition, and street setbacks with regard to the proposed bullnose awning.

 

The proposed departures to the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes and Policy No. 7.1.1 in relation to the proposed carport are considered to provide minimal impact on the surrounding properties and streetscape and are considered to the meet the corresponding design principles of the R-Codes and Policy No. 7.1.1, as discussed within the report. On this basis, it is recommended the proposed carport be approved subject to conditions.

 

The proposed departure to the deemed to comply requirements of the R-Codes and Policy No. 7.1.1 in relation to the street setback of the proposed bullnose awning is not considered to meet the corresponding design principles and will not positively contribute to the existing streetscape as discussed within the report. On this basis, the proposed bullnose awning is not supported and it is recommended that it not be included within the development approval for the subject development application.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

9.6          North Perth Town Centre Parking - Six Month Review of Parking Restrictions

TRIM Ref:                  D18/4347

Author:                     Stephen Schreck, Strategic Planning Officer

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Map of Existing Parking Restrictions in the North Perth Town Centre

2.       Attachment 2 - North Perth Town Centre Parking Occupancy Survey Results

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Community Feedback

4.       Attachment 4 - Existing and Proposed Pansy Street Car Park & Pansy Street Parking Restrictions

5.       Attachment 5 - Existing and Proposed Vine Street Parking Restrictions  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ADVERTISES for the purpose of community consultation for a period of 21 days the following proposed parking restrictions:

1.1       2P 8:00am – 6:00pm Monday – Friday in the Pansy Street Car Park and on Pansy Street, North Perth, as shown in Attachment 4; and

1.2       2P 8:00am – 6:00pm Monday – Friday on Vine Street, North Perth, as shown in Attachment 5; and

2.       NOTES:

2.1       The results of the parking occupancy survey as shown in Attachment 2; and

2.2       The community feedback received since the implementation of the North Perth Town Centre Parking Restrictions and Administration’s comments on this feedback, as shown in Attachment 3.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the six month review of the parking restrictions in the North Perth Town Centre and to consider adopting modifications to existing parking restrictions within the original survey area as a result of the review and introduce new parking restrictions to streets outside the original survey area for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Background:

Council adopted a set of new parking restrictions for the North Perth Town Centre at its meeting on 7 March 2017 (Item 9.1.5). A map of the adopted parking restrictions that are currently in effect is included as Attachment 1. The parking restriction signage and line marking was installed during May and June 2017. The City observed a transition period for the parking restrictions in June 2017 and commenced enforcement of the parking restrictions on 1 July 2017.

 

As part of the approval of the parking restrictions, Council requested that the City undertake a review of the parking occupancy rates in the area within six months of the introduction of the changes and present a report back on the results of this review along with any recommended changes to the parking restrictions. The purpose of this review was to ensure that the parking restrictions are functioning correctly and to assist the City with any future decisions on parking restrictions within North Perth.

 

The City undertook parking occupancy surveys between 6 December and 9 December 2017 at 9:00am‑11:00am, 12:00pm-2:00pm, 3:00pm-5:00pm and 6:00pm-8:00pm, on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday. These survey times were chosen to replicate the initial parking occupancy survey conducted in February and March 2016 and ensure the City is using a consistent data set for comparison. An additional time period of 6:00pm-8:00pm was added to this round of surveys in the original town centre survey area in response to local business concerns that the night time economy was not represented in the 2016 surveys.

 

The City also received feedback from residents and businesses outside the original town centre survey area identifying issues with parking on Alma Road, Forrest Street, Norfolk Street, Pansy Street, Pansy Street Car Park and Wasley Street. The City conducted further surveys on these streets between 17 February and 23 February 2018 at 9:00am-11:00am, 12:00pm-2:00pm and 3:00pm-5:00pm on Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.

Details:

There were six key findings from the six month review, including from the results of the parking surveys and the feedback from residents, which are summarised below. A full copy of the survey results is included as Attachment 2 and a summary of the feedback from residents and Administration’s response is included as Attachment 3.

 

1.       Overall Result

 

The 2017 survey results show that since the implementation of the parking restrictions peak parking occupancy across the majority of streets in North Perth has decreased. This indicates that the new parking restrictions have been successful in managing parking throughout the North Perth town centre.

 

The surveys demonstrated that the number of streets recording a peak occupancy of greater than 85 percent reduced from eight to two. The peak occupancy in the View Street car park fell from 100 percent to 73 percent and the peak occupancy in the Wasley Street car park fell from 98 percent to 76 percent.

 

It is noted that Albert Street and Peach Street demonstrated a peak occupancy of 100 percent due to a once off local event at the North Perth Primary School on the Friday of the 2017 survey. All other streets and car parks in the 2017 survey area demonstrated peak occupancy within the acceptable rate between of 45 percent and 85 percent.

 

2.       Evening Parking

 

The 6:00pm-8:00pm survey period (only done in 2017) demonstrated that the average occupancy for all streets and car parks was 34 percent. Nine streets demonstrated peak occupancy at this time, however this peak occupancy was below 50 percent in all instances which is not high enough to warrant changes to the parking restrictions. The survey demonstrates that there is adequate available parking in the town centre after 6:00pm.

 

3.       Pansy Street

 

The City received feedback regarding the Pansy Street Car Park and Pansy Street on street parking, which is currently unrestricted. The feedback indicated that since North Perth parking restrictions were implemented parking on Pansy Street and in the Pansy Street Car Park has become fully occupied all day, limiting the use of the bays for surrounding residents and businesses. The feedback also expressed that there were a number of vehicles that use laneways to access Charles Street, which further increased the amount of traffic in Pansy Street.

 

The City’s parking surveys of the Pansy Street Car Park and Pansy Street on street parking showed that Pansy Street Car Park had an average occupancy of 54 percent and a peak occupancy of 100 percent. Pansy Street on street parking demonstrated an average occupancy of 60 percent and a peak occupancy of 100 percent. Both the Pansy Street Car Park and Pansy Street demonstrated peak occupancies on Friday 23 February 2018 at 9:00-11:00am and 12:00-2:00pm. Pansy Street also demonstrated a peak occupancy of 100 percent on Friday 23 February 2018 at 3:00-5:00pm.

 

The City’s Parking Category Matrix recommends that, where peak parking occupancy is greater than 85 percent and within a town centre environment, a mix of paid parking, 15 minute, 30 minute and one hour parking should be implemented. Pansy Street and Pansy Street Car Park are both located outside of the main core of the Town Centre and given the nearby restrictions the above options are considered too stringent in this context. It is proposed that Pansy Street and Pansy Street Car Park be advertised with a two hour parking restriction, between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday, as shown in Attachment 4.

 

4.       Vine Street

 

Vine Street between Albert Street and Angove Street was implemented as ‘No Parking’ on the western side and five hour parking on the eastern side. Since implementation of the parking restrictions, a number of comments have been received from residents on the street requesting the adopted parking restrictions be swapped so that ‘No Parking’ is on the eastern side and five hour parking is on the western side. The residents explained that several properties on the western side of the street do not have access to off street parking and rely on the on street parking outside their homes for their private vehicles. As a result the residents preferred the have parking permitted on this western side and for the ‘No Parking’ restrictions to be located on the eastern side of Vine Street. One resident was also concerned that parking on the north-western portion of the street was unsafe as cars access Angove Street or turn into Vine Street from Angove Street.

 

The City understands the issues raised in the feedback received as it may be appropriate to maintain available car parking for residents on the western side adjacent to their properties and may reduce the risk of conflicts with cars turning into Vine Street. It is proposed that Vine Street, between Albert Street and Angove Street, be advertised with a five hour parking restriction for the western side of the street and ‘No Parking’ for the eastern side of the street, between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday, as shown in Attachment 5.

 

5.       Alma Road, Forrest Street, Norfolk Street and Wasley Street

 

A submission was received from a resident of Alma Road between Norfolk Street and William Street explaining that the parking restrictions that had recently been implemented omitted the section between Norfolk Street and William Street. The submitter explained that, as this section is unrestricted, a number of vehicles have begun parking on Alma Road. The submitter has requested that parking restrictions be implemented on Alma Road between Norfolk Street and William Street. This section of Alma Road was located outside of the original 2016 survey area and, as a result, parking occupancy data was not recorded during this survey. Surveys undertaken by the City demonstrated that this section of Alma Road recorded an average occupancy of 13 percent and a peak occupancy of 20 percent.

 

The City received two comments regarding parking on Norfolk Street explaining that, since the implementation of the parking restrictions west of Norfolk Street, the number of vehicles parking on Norfolk Street had increased and were beginning to create issues relating to entering and exiting side streets. Both the comments requested that parking restrictions be introduced on Norfolk Street. Norfolk Street is located outside of the original 2016 survey area and, as a result, parking occupancy data was not recorded during this survey. Surveys undertaken by the City demonstrated that this section of Norfolk Street recorded an average occupancy of 13 percent and a peak occupancy of 20 percent.

 

The City also received feedback from a community member regarding parking on Wasley Street, east of Norfolk Street. The feedback explained that cars had been parking on both sides of the road which makes it difficult for traffic to travel through. A request was received to implement ‘No Parking’ on one side of the street to allow vehicles to pass each other safely. Surveys undertaken by the City demonstrated that this section of Wasley Street recorded an average occupancy of 16 percent and a peak occupancy of 25 percent. Further analysis also identified that Wasley Street demonstrated a width of 8 metres with minimal crossovers in the northern section.

 

The City did not receive any feedback from the community regarding Forrest Street, however given its location in between Both Alma Road and Wasley Street it was seen as appropriate to survey Forrest Street to ensure there was not an anomaly occurring. The surveys demonstrated that all three streets were consistent, with Forrest Street demonstrating an average occupancy of 15 percent and a peak occupancy of 25 percent.

 

All four of the streets listed above demonstrated average occupancies of 15 percent or less and peak occupancies of 25 percent or less. The City’s Category Matrix demonstrates where peak parking occupancy is less than 60 percent no parking restrictions should be implemented. All of those street are considered to have currently low enough parking rates to support parking on both sides of the road. Given the above it is not recommended that parking restrictions be introduced on Alma Road, Forrest Street, Norfolk Street or Wasley Street at this stage.

 

6.       Local Employee Parking

 

The City received feedback from a local business owner explaining that the recently implemented parking restrictions were not providing parking suited to the needs of local businesses and their employees. The business owner recommended that free commercial parking permits should be provided to allow local businesses and employees to continue to work and operate within the North Perth Town Centre.

 

Council resolved to adopt five hour parking restrictions on streets located further from the town centre to allow for some limited employee parking while discouraging long stay employee and commuter parking for those seeking to access local bus routes to the CBD. The City also has commercial parking permits available for purchase in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits to allow employee parking to occur in appropriate locations. In conducting the six month review, the City considered the cost and availability of commercial parking permits to be appropriate to meet the needs of local businesses given the availability of alternative transport modes for local employees to access the North Perth Town Centre. On this basis it is not recommended that free commercial parking permits be provided to businesses.

Consultation/Advertising:

No formal consultation was undertaken during the six months since implementation, however the City received eight comments from the local community. A summary of these comments and the City’s response is included as Attachment 3.

Legal/Policy:

·       Local Government Act 1995;

·       City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007; and

·       Town of Vincent – Car Parking Strategy 2010.

Risk Management Implications:

Nil.

Strategic Implications:

The City of Vincent Corporate Business Plan 2016/2017 – 2019/2020 states:

 

“8.        Creating Liveable Neighbourhoods

 

8.4        Prepare a Transport Strategy and Implement the North Perth Parking Study.”

 

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013 – 2023 states:

 

“1.1.5    Take action to improve transport and parking in the City and mitigate the effects of traffic.”

 

The City’s Car Parking Strategy 2010 states:

 

“Objective 7

 

·       Ensure sufficient parking supply to support prosperous and vibrant commercial and high activity centres; and

·       Ensure parking space availability is managed according to the varying needs of businesses, customers and commuters.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011 – 2016 states:

 

“1.13     Employ a demand management approach to car parking within the City to encourage the use of alternative transport modes.”

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with advertising the proposed parking restrictions will be met by the City’s existing operational budget.

Comments:

The town centre parking occupancy surveys showed that the majority of streets demonstrated a reduction in the peak occupancy following the implementation of the parking restrictions. As a result, it is considered that the parking restrictions are successfully managing parking supply and demand in the town centre.

 

The City received comments from local businesses and residents regarding a number of streets within and outside of the study area. It is recommended that Council advertises proposed parking restrictions on Pansy Street and the Pansy Street Car Park and modified parking restrictions on a portion of Vine Street, as shown in Attachment 4 and Attachment 5 respectively, for the purpose of advertising for public comment.  Following advertising of the proposed parking restrictions the results of the public consultation will be presented back to Council for consideration.

 

It is acknowledged that parking use and demand continuously evolves over time, so the City must monitor parking occupancy to ensure that restrictions are working effectively. Administration will include a project for Council to consider as part of the 2018/19 – 2022/23 Corporate Business Plan and 2018/19 Budget to periodically survey car parking in North Perth and across the City.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

10          Engineering

Nil

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

11          Corporate Services

11.1        Lease of Leederville Oval by East Perth Football Club Inc & Subiaco Football Club Inc - request for waiver and write-off of fees and variation of leases

TRIM Ref:                  D18/23627

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Property Leasing Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Summary of write off of 2014-15 and 2015-16 turf maintenance costs & outstanding balance

2.       Summary of waiver of 2016-17 turf & VO costs & balance outstanding  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES a write-off of a portion of turf maintenance recoupments for both East Perth Football Club Inc and Subiaco Football Club Inc, as listed in Attachment 1, and being:

(a)  $2,178.18 (incl GST) for the period January to June 2015; and

(b)  $5,687.48 (incl GST) for the 2015/16 financial year;

for the reasons outlined in this report, SUBJECT TO immediate payment of the outstanding turf maintenance balance for the above periods by each club, being:

(i)   $19,398.20 for East Perth Football Club Inc: and

(ii)  $16,202.20 for Subiaco Football Club Inc.

2.       APPROVES a waiver of variable outgoings, turf maintenance and utility recoupments for both East Perth Football Club Inc and Subiaco Football Club Inc for the 2016/17 financial year totalling $29,839.87 (incl GST), as listed in Attachment 2, for the reasons outlined in this report, SUBJECT TO immediate payment of the outstanding balance for that period by each club, being $38,145.74 each.

3.       NOTES that East Perth Football Club Inc and Subiaco Football Club Inc have paid all variable outgoings, turf maintenance and utility costs as invoiced by the City for the 2017/18 financial year.

4.       APPROVES a variation of the lease with East Perth Football Club Inc (the Club) in respect to Leederville Oval, located at 244 Vincent Street, Leederville, to reflect the proposed future apportionment of turf maintenance costs as follows:

4.1.      Clauses 6.19(c)(ii) and (iii) to be deleted; and

4.2.      A new clause 6.19(c)(ii) to be inserted as follows:

The annual cost of the maintenance of the oval as referred to in clause 6.19(c)(i) will be shared equally between the City (formerly the Town), Subiaco Football Club Inc and the Club. The costs will be paid by Subiaco Football Club and the Club in the same manner as the variable outgoings, as set out in clause 3.3.”

5.       APPROVES a variation of the lease with Subiaco Football Club Inc (the Club) in respect to Leederville Oval, located at 244 Vincent Street, Leederville, to reflect the proposed future apportionment of turf maintenance costs as follows:

5.1.      Clauses 6.19(c)(ii) and (iii) to be deleted; and

5.2.      A new clause 6.19(c)(ii) is inserted as follows:

The annual cost of the maintenance of the oval as referred to in clause 6.19(c)(i) will be shared equally between the City (formerly the Town), East Perth Football Club Inc and the Club. The costs will be paid by East Perth Football Club and the Club in the same manner as the variable outgoings, as set out in clause 3.3.”

6.       Subject to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director Corporate Services to affix the common seal and execute the variation of leases as set out in 4. and 5. above.

 

Purpose of Report:

To detail activities, including the waiving and writing-off of a portion of turf maintenance and utility costs payable by East Perth Football Club Inc and Subiaco Football Club Inc, which will facilitate the transition towards full compliance with the lease terms, including as varied in respect to the turf maintenance apportionment, from 2017/18 onwards, and the payment of all remaining outstanding costs.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 October 2004 (Item 10.4.9) Council approved the long term use of Leederville Oval by East Perth Football Club Inc (EPFC) and Subiaco Football Club Inc (SFC) (collectively, the Clubs). Each Club’s lease is dated 18 February 2005 and is for a term of 21 years, commencing on 1 November 2004, and has a further 9 year option term commencing on 31 October 2025 (Leases). The Clubs also have the right to use a number of the car parking bays adjacent to Leederville Oval pursuant to the licence at Annexure B of each Lease. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the City and the Clubs is also annexed to the Lease as Annexure C and addresses issues associated with the shared use, management and maintenance of the stadium and turf at Leederville Oval.

 

The Lease provides the Clubs with exclusive use of their respective clubrooms and change rooms. The Lease also provides the Clubs with non-exclusive, but preferential use of the common areas (which are all parts of the land and building not leased by the Clubs, but does not include the first floor function / bar area). The Leases provide that the Clubs can use the function / bar area if approved by the City, and the Clubs will be granted priority use on training and match game days. The City may hire out the function / bar area and the income received will be offset against the costs incurred in respect to the building.   

 

In 2014/15 Administration became aware that the City had not administered the Leases strictly in accordance with the Lease provisions, since the Leases commenced in 2004. Subsequent to this discovery, Administration and the Clubs have been discussing and negotiating the future use of Leederville Oval and the payment of costs as set out in the Leases, with the intention of bringing the management of Leederville Oval back in line with the terms of the Leases, or if that is not possible, varying the Leases to reflect a new arrangement that satisfies both the Clubs and the City. Administration and the Clubs have now reached consensus in respect to the future payment of costs. In recognition of the increased cost implications this arrangement will have for the Clubs, Administration is proposing a arrangement to enable the Clubs to transition to full lease compliance. The proposed waiver and write-off described in this paper are key components of this transitional arrangement, and are subject to the Clubs immediately paying in full all outstanding balances and continuing to pay all 2017/18 costs.

 

Lease Obligations

 

The Lease obligations which are relevant to the proposed write-off and waiver are set out in 1. and 2. below:

 

1.         Variable Outgoings and Utilities:

 

The Leases provide that all costs and charges incurred by the City in relation to the land and the buildings located on the land (but not in relation to the premises), and excluding any cost, charges and expenses which are of a capital nature, are recoverable from the Clubs via the payment of variable outgoings (VOs).

 

Each Club’s proportion of the VOs is calculated as the total of:

 

(a)      One half of the Building Section Proportion of the VOs;

(b)      One half of the Oval Section Proportion of the VOs; and

(c)      One third of the Common Area Section Proportion (common areas excluding Oval area and Building area) of the VOs.

 

In addition, the VOs include the following costs and charges associated with the areas of the land and buildings which are not leased by the Clubs:

 

·       Insurance premiums (building insurance, contents insurance in respect to City’s fixtures and fittings);

·       Cleaning costs;

·       Pest inspection and treatment;

·       Utilities including electricity and gas for services;

·       Running and maintaining all services, including air conditioners;

·       Maintaining and monitoring all fire equipment;

·       Maintenance of gardens, oval, landscaped areas, bore and reticulation; and

·       General maintenance and upkeep of the buildings.

 

In calculating the Club’s proportion of the VOs the City first applies the annual revenue, less related expenses, earned by the City from Leederville Oval, to the respective calculations. The City currently receives nominal payments from the TAFE for use of Leederville Oval and this is credited towards the Oval Section Proportion of the VOs.  Any income the City receives through hiring out the function/ bar area would be credited towards the Building Section Proportion of the VOs.

 

Clause 3.6 of the Leases provides that the Clubs must also pay all charges for water consumption, gas, electricity, fuel, telephone and other services, utilities or facilities directly relating to the Premises or the use or occupation of the Premises. In calculating the proportion of these charges the Clubs must pay, the City will take into account any use of the land or buildings by groups other than the Clubs, and the City will pay for these costs. As the City has not used or hired out the function/ bar area all utility costs for the building should be apportioned equally between the Clubs.

 

Therefore the apportionment of the key costs (after deducting associated income derived) would be as follows:

 

 

SFC

EPFC

City

Building Insurance

50%

50%

0%

Emergency Services Levy

50%

50%

0%

Water

50%

50%

0%

Electricity

50%

50%

0%

Variable outgoings

50%

50%

0%

 

2.         Turf maintenance

 

The Leases provide that the City is responsible for organising the maintenance of the Oval and is required by clause 6.19(c) to call for tenders for the maintenance of the Oval to playing standard. Clause 6.19(c)(ii) of the Leases provides that the City must annually pay the first $15,000 (subject to annual CPI increase) of the cost of the maintenance of the Oval. The remaining cost for the maintenance of the Oval is to be paid equally by the Clubs.

 

Lease Administration

 

Administration notes that the City has not administered the Leases strictly in accordance with the Lease provisions since 2004.

 

In respect to turf maintenance, the cost has been equally shared between the City and the two Clubs, which is contrary to the terms of the Leases.

 

Prior to 2015/16, the City has historically recouped the following proportion of costs from the Clubs:

 

Costs to be recouped

SFC

EPFC

City

Building Insurance

35%

35%

30%

Emergency Services Levy

0%

0%

100%

Water

30%

30%

40%

Electricity

20% (approx.)

20% (approx.)

60% (approx.)

Turf Maintenance

33.3%

33.3%

33.3%

Variable Outgoings (general maintenance, upkeep of oval)

0%

0%

100%

 

Notably, prior to 2017/18, the City has not recouped any costs associated with a number of charges including:

 

·       General upkeep and maintenance of Leederville Oval;

·       Cleaning of eastern public toilets; and

·       Maintenance of oval surrounds.

 

Administration has communicated the above information to the Clubs with the intention of bringing the relationship back in line with the Leases and MoU and to negotiate any formal amendments to the Leases required to meet the Club’s future needs.

Details:

The Clubs and Administration have agreed that the lease obligations, as explained above, do not completely reflect the current use of Leederville Oval. Given that the Clubs are the sole users of the building it has been agreed that VOs and utility costs should be apportioned in accordance with the Lease, which is equally between the Clubs once any hire income is offset. In respect to the use of the oval, Administration is seeking broader community utilisation and therefore has agreed that turf maintenance should be apportioned one-third each, on the basis that Leederville Oval is available for use by the public when not required for games or training. This change will result in a cost increase for the Clubs, as shown by the table below, which compares the actual costs paid or agreed to be paid by each Club in 2015-16 and 2016-17, and the agreed costs to be paid this financial year (which are currently being paid by monthly instalments).

 

LEEDERVILLE OVAL COSTS FOR EACH CLUB (incl GST)

Item

2015/16

2016/17

Estimate for 2017/18

Turf maintenance

$31,300.52

$36,499.87

$36,785.00

Variable Outgoings

0

$1,883.50

$6,602.00

Building Insurance

$5,328.00

$5,685.20

$6,129.00

Emergency Services Levy

$3,315.50

$3,535.36

$3,719.00

Water

$6,903.08

$6,063.86

$13,799.00

Power

$17,160.81

$19,606.00

$42,878.00

 

 

 

 

TOTALS

$64,007.91

$73,273.79

$109,912.00

 

Given the cost increase between 2015/16 and 2017/18, it is proposed that a transitional arrangement is applied in 2016/17 to allow the Clubs to adjust to the cost increase. It is noted that the Clubs are paying the estimated cost for 2017/18 by monthly instalments, as provided for in the Leases, and are up to date with all payments.

 

1.         Proposed write-off

 

Administration adjusted turf maintenance costs in January 2015 to reflect the Lease terms (City paid $15,000 indexed for the financial year, and balance apportioned equally between the Clubs). As the Clubs and Administration have now agreed that turf maintenance is to be apportioned one-third each (as occurred since the Lease commenced in 2004, albeit the Lease provisions) it is necessary for Administration to write-off the difference between the amounts invoiced using the Lease apportionment and the amounts to be recouped in accordance with the one-third each apportionment, as set out in Attachment 1.

 

A summary of the write-off related to turf maintenance is below:

 

Jan 2015- June 2015

EPFC

SFC

Amount invoiced (Lease apportionment) (incl GST)

$16,398.42

$16,398.42

Amount payable (one-third apportionment) (incl GST)

$14,220.26

$14,220.26

Difference (amount to be written off) (incl GST)

$2,178.18

$2,178.18

 

July 2015 - June 2016

EPFC

SFC

Amount invoiced (Lease apportionment) (incl GST)

$36,987.96

$36,987.96

Amount payable (one-third apportionment) (incl GST)

$31,300.52

$31,300.52

Difference (amount to be written off) (incl GST)

$5,687.48

$5,687.48

 

2.         Proposed waiver – utilities and variable outgoings

 

In recognition of the increased cost of utilities and variable outgoings expenses that will result for the Clubs, Administration confirmed in a letter dated 16 March 2017 that a 50 per cent discount would be applied to any ‘new’ costs or apportionment of costs arising during the 2016-17 financial year, as part of a transition to lease compliance.

The ‘new’ costs are:

 

·       Variable Outgoings – have not been previously paid by Clubs;

·       Water – apportionment of charge has significantly changed; and

·       Power – apportionment of charge has significantly changed.

 

As these costs are yet to be invoiced, Administration is requesting Council approval of a waiver of 50 per cent of these ‘new’ costs as explained below and set out in Attachment 2.

 

A summary of the waiver is set out below:

 

Item

Total cost

Amount to be recouped from each Club  pursuant to Lease

Amount to be recouped from each Club  (* - 50% discount for 'new' costs)

Turf maintenance

$109,499.63

$38,786.39

$36,499.87

Variable outgoings (maintenance and statutory compliance costs)

$7,533.98

$3,766.99

$1,883.50*

Building Insurance

$11,370.40

$5,685.20

$5,685.20

Emergency Services Levy

$7,685.57

$3,535.36

$3,535.36

Water

$24,255.44

$12,127.72

$6,063.86*

Power

$78,424.01

$39,212.00

$19,606.00*

 

 

 

 

TOTALS

$238,769.03

$103,113.66

$73,273.79

Difference (requested waiver for each Club) (incl GST) =

$29,839.87

 

3.       Variation of Leases – turf maintenance

 

In order to formalise the one-third each apportionment of turf maintenance costs it is necessary for clauses 6.19(c)(ii) and (iii) of the Leases to be replaced, as shown below:

 

“(i)      The Town will call for tenders for the annual maintenance of the part of the Land which comprises the oval including keeping the playing surface in prime condition to a standard required for the Club’s and other similar professional sports bodies’ requirements.

 

(ii)      The Town will pay an amount of $15,000 per annum towards the maintenance costs referred to in paragraph 6.19(c)(i). The Town’s contribution will be increased each year on the anniversary of the Commencement Date by a factor equal to the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index between the Consumer Price Index published for the quarter ending immediately prior to the previous anniversary of the Commencement Date (or the Commencement Date in the case of the first anniversary of the Commencement Date) and the quarter ending immediately prior to the current anniversary of the Commencement Date.

 

(iii)     The Club will pay one half of the balance of the annual costs of the maintenance referred to in clause 6.19(c)(i) to the Town upon demand, and the Town will seek payment of the remaining half from EPFC.

 

(ii)      “The annual cost of the maintenance of the oval as referred to in clause 6.19(c)(i) will be shared equally between the City, Subiaco Football Club Inc and East Perth Football Club Inc. The costs will be paid by the Clubs in the same manner as the variable outgoings, as set out in clause 3.3.”

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration has met with the Clubs on a number of occasions to discuss the outstanding costs and lease provisions. The Clubs are in agreement with Administration’s proposal to bring the arrangement in line with the Leases, and have paid all VO instalments for the 2017/18 financial year to date. 

 

Legal/Policy:

Varying the apportionment of turf maintenance costs is a variation of the Leases and requires the preparation of a Deed of Variation of Lease, which must be signed and sealed by all parties. A Deed of Variation of Lease is categorised as a Category 1(a) document pursuant to the City’s Policy 4.1.10 – Execution of Documents. As a consequence, the approval of the Deed of Variation of Lease is a decision reserved for Council.

 

The City’s Delegated Authority Register 2017-18, which was adopted at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 27 June 2017, provides that the Chief Executive Officer can waive fees or write off money subject to the amount not exceeding $1,000. As the amounts proposed to be waived and written off exceed $1,000 it is necessary for Council to make this decision.    

Risk Management Implications:

Low / Med    Administration and the Clubs have reached agreement on the use and management of Leederville Oval moving forward, and the Clubs have to date paid all 2017/18 VO and turf maintenance costs as agreed. Waiving and writing off the fees as requested by the Clubs will assist in the transition towards lease compliance and on that basis it is deemed to have a medium risk for the City.

 

                   The proposed variation of the Leases will formalise the proposed one-third apportionment of turf maintenance costs and therefore it has a low risk for the City.

Strategic Implications:

The outcomes associated with this Report align with the following Objectives in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:

 

“2.1      Progress economic development with adequate financial resources.

           

            2.1.2         Develop and promote partnerships and alliances with key stakeholders.

2.1.3         Develop business strategies that reduce reliance on rates revenue.

 

3.1       Enhance and promote community development and wellbeing

 

3.1.6     Build capacity within the community to meet its needs.

 

4.1       Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management

 

4.1.2     Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner.

4.1.5     Focus on stakeholder needs, values, engagement and involvement.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Administration is requesting the following write-off and waiver of fees:

 

Write-off / Waiver

EPFC

SFC

TOTAL

Write-off Jan-June 2015 turf maintenance costs (incl GST)

$2,178.18

$2,178.18

$4,356.36

Write-off 2015/16 turf maintenance costs (incl GST)

$5,687.48

$5,687.48

$11,374.96

Waiver of 2016-17 utility and turf maintenance costs (incl GST)

$29,839.87

$29,839.87

$59,679.74

TOTAL

$37,705.53

$37,705.53

$75,411.06

 

The Clubs have agreed to immediately pay the outstanding turf maintenance and utility costs if the above write-off and waiver is approved by Council, as set out below:

 

Outstanding costs

SFC

EPFC

Jan-Jun 2015 & 2015-16 turf maintenance

$16,202.20

$19,398.14

2016-17 turf and utility costs

$38,145.74

$38,145.74

TOTAL

$54,347.94

$57,543.88

This will result in no further costs being outstanding for the 2015/16 and 2016/17 financial years. Administration also notes that the Clubs have paid all VO and turf maintenance instalments for 2017/18 as agreed with the City.

Comments:

Administration and the Clubs have been discussing and negotiating the future use of Leederville Oval and the payment of costs as set out in the Leases since 2014/15, with the intention of bringing the management of Leederville Oval back in line with the original terms of the Leases, or if that is not possible, varying the Leases to reflect a new arrangement that satisfies both the Clubs and the City.

 

The Clubs have agreed with the proposed resolution in this report and Administration considers that this is a reasonable outcome for the City and for the Clubs, and will allow facilitation to full lease compliance, as varied in respect to the turf maintenance apportionment, as soon as practical.

 

It is noted that in the spirit of working towards full compliance, the Clubs are up to date with the payment of all lease costs for the 2017/18 financial year. 

 

The Clubs have also confirmed that the outstanding turf maintenance balance ($19,398.20 for EPFC and $16,202.26 for SFC) and the outstanding balance of all other costs for 2016/17, which is $38,145.74 for each Club, will be paid in full immediately if the write-off and waiver is approved by Council.

 

Administration recommends that Council approves the proposed write-off and waiver as recommended in order to establish a strong and collaborative approach with the Clubs, bring the payment of all outstanding costs up to date, and enable both the City and Clubs to move forward in relation to the use of Leederville Oval.

 

Finally, Administration notes that the City is embarking on the Leederville Oval Master Plan in the 2018/19 financial year. This may result in further changes to the Clubs’ use of Leederville Oval, and potentially could require further variations to the Leases or a new lease / use arrangement. Administration will keep Council informed in respect to any changes.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

11.2        Investment Report as at 28 February 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/34570

Author:                     Sheryl Teoh, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Investment Report  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 28 February 2018 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the level of investment funds and operating funds available, the distribution of surplus funds in investments and the interest earned to date.

Background:

Surplus funds are invested in Bank Term Deposits for various terms, to maximise investment returns in compliance with good governance, legislative requirements and Council’s Investment Policy No 1.2.4.  Details are attached in Attachment 1.

 

The City’s investment portfolio is diversified across several financial Institutions in accordance with the Investment Policy.

Details:

Total funds held for the period ended 28 February 2018 including on call in the City’s operating account were $39,217,278; compared to $34,028,716 for the period ending 28 February 2017.

 

Total Investments for the period ended 28 February 2018 were $36,665,928 as compared to $36,147,499 for the prior month end; and $32,316,251 for the period ending 28 February 2017.

 

Investment comparison table:

 

Month

2016/17

2017/18

Ended

Total Funds Held

Total Investments

Total Funds Held

Total Investments

July

$19,683,412

$18,420,252

$23,433,728

$21,212,649

August

$26,167,645

$22,573,297

$30,161,860

$27,714,651

September

$36,754,571

$34,302,896

$40,305,364

$37,944,911

October

$37,581,885

$34,521,542

$41,087,462

$38,947,823

November

$37,034,885

$35,775,011

$41,716,473

$39,482,047

December

$33,692,431

$31,165,443

$38,768,084

$37,065,389

January

$34,645,041

$33,201,749

$39,498,741

$36,147,499

February

$34,028,716

$32,316,251

$39,217,278

$36,665,928

March

$32,070,200

$31,424,409

 

 

April

$30,661,122

$26,206,328

 

 

May

$27,412,051

$25,718,292

 

 

June

$24,670,461

$23,533,279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on Investments as at 28 February 2018:

 

 

Adopted Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$414,960

$306,590

$349,505

114.00%

Reserve

$258,420

$161,740

$159,310

98.50%

Sub-total

$673,380

$468,330

$508,815

108.64%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$93,656

0.00%

Total

$673,380

$468,330

$602,471

128.64%

 

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust were not included in the 2017/18 Budget as actual interest earned is held in Trust and restricted.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

The power to invest is governed by the Local Government Act 1995.

 

6.14.     Power to invest

 

(1)        Money held in the municipal fund or the trust fund of a local government that is not, for the time being, required by the local government for any other purpose may be invested as trust funds may be invested under the Trustees Act 1962 Part III.

(2A)      A local government is to comply with the regulations when investing money referred to in subsection (1).

(2)        Regulations in relation to investments by local governments may — 

(a)    make provision in respect of the investment of money referred to in subsection (1); and

[(b)   deleted]

(c)    prescribe circumstances in which a local government is required to invest money held by it; and

(d)    provide for the application of investment earnings; and

(e)    generally provide for the management of those investments.

 

Further controls are established through the following provisions in the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

 

19.       Investments, control procedures for

 

(1)        A local government is to establish and document internal control procedures to be followed by employees to ensure control over investments.

(2)        The control procedures are to enable the identification of —

(a)    the nature and location of all investments; and

(b)    the transactions related to each investment.

 

19C.     Investment of money, restrictions on (Act s. 6.14(2)(a))

 

(1)        In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

(a)    an authorised deposit‑taking institution as defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Commonwealth) section 5; or

(b)    the Western Australian Treasury Corporation established by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986;

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

 

(2)        When investing money under section 6.14(1), a local government may not do any of the following —

(a)    deposit with an institution except an authorised institution;

(b)    deposit for a fixed term of more than 3 years;

(c)    invest in bonds that are not guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, or a State or Territory government;

(d)    invest in bonds with a term to maturity of more than 3 years;

(e)    invest in a foreign currency.

 

To further guide the prudent and responsible investment of the City’s funds, Council has adopted the City’s Investment Policy No. 1.2.4, which delegates the authority to invest surplus funds to the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate.

 

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments, including the following ratings table:

 

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

Policy

Actual

A1+

30%

19.6%

30%

Nil

90%

44.7%

A1

25%

0.0%

30%

Nil

80%

0.0%

A2

20%

16.2%

n/a

Nil

60%

55.3%

 

*As per subtotals on Attachment 1

Risk Management Implications:

Moderate:      Funds are invested with various financial institutions with high Long Term and Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s or equivalent), obtaining more than three quotations for each investment. These investment funds are spread across various institutions and invested as Term Deposits from one to twelve months to reduce risk.

Strategic Implications:

In keeping with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

“4.1      Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

 

4.1.2         Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

 

(a)      Continue to adopt best practice to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The financial implications of this report are as noted in the details and comments section of the report.  Overall the conclusion can be drawn that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets and to ensure the accountability of management.

Comments:

The funds for investment have increased from the previous period due to excess funds available from receipt of rates revenue after creditors and other payments.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.55% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.63% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for February 2018 is 1.77%.

 

As at 28 February 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income exceed the year to date budget estimate by $40,485 (8.64%).

In response to the amendment to the City’s Investment Policy that provided preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”, Administration has actively sought investment offerings from relevant institutions.

 

It is of note that in September 2017, the City added Bank Australia Ltd to the list of non-fossil fuel lending institutions utilised and further funds were invested with them during this reporting period. As a result, 55.31% of the City’s investments were held in non-fossil fuel lending institutions as at 28 February 2018.

 

The investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

 

·       Investment Performance & Policy Compliance Charts;

·       Investment Portfolio;

·       Investment Interest Earnings; and

·       Current Investment Holding.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

11.3        Review of Corporate Services Policies

TRIM Ref:                  D18/854

Author:                     Tim Evans, Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Policies for re-adoption without amendments

2.       Policies for re-adoption with minor amendments

3.       Policies for rescission  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       READOPTS the following existing policies without amendment as shown in Attachment 1:

ITEM

POLICY NUMBER

POLICY

1.1

4.1.4

Freedom Of Information Requests

1.2

4.1.27

Disaster Appeals – Donations and Assistance

1.3

4.1.33

Third Party Mediation - Citizens Advice Bureau

1.4

4.2.1

Legal Representation for Council Members and Employees

1.5

4.2.10

Business Dealings with the City - Council Members and Employees

 

2.       READOPTS the following existing policies with minor amendments as shown in Attachment 2:

ITEM

POLICY NUMBER

POLICY

2.1

4.1.10

Execution of Documents

2.2

4.2.7

Council Members – Allowances, Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses

 

3.       RESCINDS the following policies as shown in Attachment 3:

ITEM

POLICY NUMBER

POLICY

3.1

4.1.8

Nuclear Free Zone

3.2

4.1.12

Newsletters

3.3

4.1.13

Official Photograph - Council, Mayor, Councillors and Senior Officers

3.4

4.1.14

Primary and Annual Returns

3.5

4.1.19

Community Facility - Use other than Primary Designated Purpose

3.6

4.1.34

Relationship Declaration Register

3.7

1.2.6

Plant and Vehicles – Sale of

3.8

1.2.7

Loan of City Items

3.9

1.2.11

Parent and Citizens’ Associations – Financial Assistance

3.10

4.2.11

Honorary Freeman of the City of Vincent

; and

4.       AMENDS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the Schedule of Fees and Charges 2017/2018, in accordance with Section 6.16(3)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995, to delete the following fees:

4.1     Application fee to make a Relationship Declaration;

4.2     Replacement of Declaration Certificate; and

4.3     Certified Copy of entry – Relationship Declaration Register.

 

Purpose of Report:

To review and adopt existing Council policies, which are due for periodic review.

Background:

Council adopts various policies which provide guidance to Administration on a range of issues and assist Council in its decision making. Policies are reviewed and/or amended from time to time as the need arises.  It is good practice to review policies at regular intervals and the City generally undertakes this every five years.

Details:

Administration has reviewed the "Corporate Services" suite of policies and has identified a number of policies that are due for review. These are listed below along with one of three proposed actions – either to readopt without amendment (READOPT), to rescind the policy (RESCIND) or to readopt with minor amendments (AMEND) along with a brief commentary on each policy:

 

Policy No

Policy Name

Action

Commentary

4.1.4

Freedom of Information (FOI) Requests

READOPT

This policy provides clear direction to Administration as to when an FOI application fee may be waived.

4.1.8

Nuclear Free Zone

RESCIND

 

Administration is not aware that this Policy has never been used in its 23 year existence and is therefore considered unnecessary.

Importantly, rescinding this policy does not change the fact that Council's position with respect to the City being nuclear free will survive in the form of the Council resolution of 24 July 1995 unless otherwise determined by Council. The City’s website will be updated to include reference to the City’ position on this issue to ensure that it remains current and discoverable.

4.1.10

Execution of Documents

AMEND

 

Clarification has been added to note that where the City is in control of Crown Land, any Development Applications relating to that Crown Land must be signed by the CEO.

4.1.12

Newsletters

RESCIND

 

The issuing of Newsletters is considered to be an operational matter that can be dealt by the CEO in liaison with the Mayor. It is not considered that a policy is necessary.

4.1.13

Official Photograph - Council, Mayor, Councillors and Senior Officers

RESCIND

 

Administration considers that this policy is unnecessary as the City moves away from a more formal shoot approach, and is working with Council to have photography done that matches their style/lifestyle/brand. Administration will continue, as part of general work practises, to have a formal portrait hung of the Mayor.

4.1.14

Primary and Annual Returns

RESCIND

 

This policy re-states the legislative requirement to complete Primary and Annual Returns and is not considered to be necessary.

4.1.19

Council Community Facility - Use other than Primary Designated Purpose

RESCIND

 

Administration does not consider it necessary for all applications for use other than primary designated purpose to come to Council and considers that this can be satisfactorily dealt with through the City's bookings and events team processes. Administration will still require community consultation to be carried out if a use may impact on residents and the Director Community Engagement and CEO will use their discretion to report any significant or controversial uses to Council.

 

4.1.27

Disaster Appeals - Donations and Assistance

READOPT

 

This policy sets out appropriate financial limits to financial and non-financial support for disaster appeals. While the policy is unchanged, the amounts stated have been updated to reflect CPI to July 2017. CPI changes to values in policies do not require Council approval, pursuant to clause 5 of Policy 4.1.1.

4.1.33

Third Party Mediation - Citizens Advice Bureau

READOPT

 

This policy sets out circumstances when residents should be referred to the Citizens Advise Bureau (CAB) by the City and also affirms a principle that the City will subsidise CAB services.

4.1.34

Relationship Declaration Register

RESCIND

 

This policy was adopted on 18 December 2012 in order to provide a means for couples to have their relationships recognised, regardless of sexual orientation. On 7 December 2017, the Federal Parliament legislated for marriage equality. As a consequence, the Relationship Declaration Register is no longer considered to be a necessary mechanism for the declaration of relationships. This is discussed further in the “Comments” section of this report.

4.2.1

Legal Representation for Council Members and Employees

READOPT

 

This policy sets out the circumstances under which the City will contribute to legal fees for employees and staff. While the policy is unchanged, the amounts stated have been updated to reflect CPI to July 2017.

4.2.7

Council Members – Allowances, Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses

AMEND

This policy requires minor amendment to delete section 1.4 – Acting Roles.

Administration is also proposing that attendance at Regional Councils meetings be explicitly added to the list of functions for which expenses can be reimbursed.

These minor amendments are discussed in the COMMENTS section of the report.

4.2.10

Business Dealings with the City - Council Members and Employees

READOPT

 

This policy sets out an appropriate methodology for treatment of business dealings with the City by Council Members and employees.

4.2.11

Honorary Freeman of the City of Vincent

RESCIND

 

Under the former Local Government Act (1960), a local government was able to confer upon any person the title of "Honorary Freeman of the Municipality", although title did not grant any right or privilege other than that of being so designated.

Since the Local Government Act 1995 was introduced, there has been no legislative basis for the title. The City only adopted its policy in February 2010 but the policy has not been used and the title has not been awarded in that time. This historic practice is now considered unnecessary.

1.2.6

Plant and Vehicles – Sale of

RESCIND

 

This policy is no longer required as s.3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 is clear on the process that is to occur in regards to the disposal of Plant and Vehicles.

1.2.7

Loan of City Items

RESCIND

 

This policy is no longer considered appropriate. It is recommended that any applications for in-kind support such as the loan of city items are made through the City's community funding program (see Policy 3.10.11), where all funding and in-kind support can be properly tracked and accounted for.

1.2.11

Parent and Citizens’ Associations – Financial Assistance

RESCIND

 

Policy no longer required, Where appropriate Capital requests should be made through the Community Budget Submission process and minor contributions through the Community Grants process.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation relating to policies is only required for new policies or where significant amendments are being proposed. This is not the case for the purposes of this report.

Legal/Policy:

Policies are not legally enforceable, however they provide guidance to the City's Administration and Council Members when considering various matters. The City's code of conduct requires that employees adhere to all City policies.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Failure to review Council policies will not result in any breach of legislation.  However, the routine review and re-adoption of policies will improve the relevancy of information available to Council, Administration and the community.

Strategic Implications:

This matter is in keeping with the Strategic Plan 2013-2017– Key Result Area “4: Leadership, Governance and Management: 4.1.2 – Manage the Organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Maintaining a current and up-to-date suite of policies serves to ensure that the City's practices are operating effectively and may enhance sustainability.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The report seeks to deal only with readopting / rescinding Corporate Services policies that are due for review and/or where Administration considers that the proposed action is relatively straightforward in nature. Policies that require more detailed consideration will be dealt with in more detail and will involve more detailed liaison and consultation with Council Members.

 

Administration considers that the policies listed for readoption without amendment are working effectively and is seeking Council's endorsement of its recommendation to readopt these policies without amendment.

 

Administration is proposing that a number of policies be rescinded. The reason behind each of these policies is explained in the table in the DETAILS section of this report. Typically, this has been recommended where either the policy is no longer considered to be necessary or appropriate (e.g. Loan of City Items Policy), or where Administration considers that the matter is primarily operational in nature and therefore best dealt with by an Administration Procedure (e.g. Newsletters Policy).

 

4.1.34 - Relationship Declaration Register

 

Of note is that on 18 December 2012, the City of Vincent established Western Australia’s first Relationship Declaration Register (the Register) enabling couples, regardless of sexual orientation, an opportunity to formally recognise their relationship. The Register was introduced following Council’s adoption of a Notice of Motion from Cr John Carey on 25 September 2012 and was considered to be symbolic of the City’s support of marriage equality. It is considered that the Register, and the supporting policy, have played an important role both in recognising relationships of all types and also in expressing Council’s position on marriage equality.

 

The City of Vincent demonstrated its continued support of same-sex marriage on 18 November 2014 and then on The Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey was held between 12 September and 7 November 2017 following an increase in popular support for same-sex marriage in Australia and again on 22 August 2017 when Council resolved as follows:

 

That Council:

 

1.         NOTES its public support for marriage equality was first demonstrated in December 2012 with the establishment of Western Australia’s first Relationship Declaration Register, providing all couples, regardless of sex and gender identity, with a formal recognition of their committed relationship;

 

2          NOTES its commitment to marriage equality was reaffirmed with the adoption of a Marriage Equality Proclamation at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 18 November 2014;

 

3.         REAFFIRMS its strong support for marriage equality on the basis that a committed relationship between two loving adults, regardless of sex and gender identity, deserves to be respected and recognised in the Australian Marriage Act 1961; and

 

4.         APPROVES the flying of rainbow flags in place of the City of Vincent's corporate flag at the City's Administration and Civic Centre and at Axford Park for the duration of the Australian Marriage Law Postal Survey, from the close of enrolments to one week following the date of the survey results being published.

 

On 7 December 2017, Parliament passed the Marriage Amendment (Definition and Religious Freedoms) Bill 2017 which amended the Marriage Act 1961 to allow couples to marry, regardless of gender. As a consequence, Administration considers that the primary purpose of the Register has been served and is now superseded. As a consequence, Administration is therefore recommending that this policy be rescinded, but that the existing register and the relationship declarations contained within it be kept in perpetuity. No new applications for inclusion on the Register would be accepted, nor would the City continue to offer replacement Declaration Certificates. However, parties to a relationship that are already on the Register would still be able to request that the City amends the Register to show that a relationship has been terminated.

 

If this policy is rescinded then it is also appropriate to delete the fees relating to making a Relationship Declaration from the City’s schedule of fees and charges.

 

Two policies are being recommended for readoption with minor amendments. The proposed amendments to each of these policies is explained below:

 

Policy 4.1.10 - Execution of Documents

 

The policy specifies that "Documents required in the management of land as a landowner" are able to be executed by either the CEO or the Director Corporate Services. However, Administration notes that the Minister for Lands Instrument of Authorisation dated 2 June 2016 specifies that a Development Application on any crown land managed by a local government can be signed only by the CEO of that local government. A note of clarification has been added to the policy to this effect.

 

Policy 4.2.7  - Council Members Allowances, Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses

 

Administration is proposing to delete clause 1.4 of this policy which relates to additional payments when undertaking an "Acting Role". The Salaries and Allowance Tribunal sets maximum limits on the allowances that may be paid to Mayors, Deputy Mayors and Councillors. The Local Government Act 1995 does not provide the scope for any Council Member to receive any additional allowance or payment than that maximum regardless of whether they take on any of the functions of the Mayor or Deputy Mayor in their absence. Similarly, there are no provisions under the Act requiring any Council Member on leave of absence forgo any part of their annual allowance. As a consequence, Administration is of the view that section 1.4 of the policy is inconsistent with the Act and should therefore be deleted. Advice received from the Department of Local Government on this matter supports Administration's view.

 

Administration is also proposing to add attendance at Regional Council meetings to the list of functions for which expenses may be reimbursed. The policies of both the Mindarie Regional Council and Tamala Park Regional Council state that member Councils will be responsible for expenses claims. Notwithstanding any debate as to which body should be responsible for member expenses, Administration has to-date considered that these expenses meet the definition of clause 3(f) – "Any other occasion in the performance of an act under the express authority of Council.". Nevertheless, it would be provide greater clarity to Administration if Regional Council meeting were expressly added to the list of approved functions.

 

Administration is aware of a number of other policies that require review. This report is intended to be the first in a series that will endeavour to ensure that the City's policies are reviewed in a timely fashion. Once Council makes a decision on the status of these policies, the City's policy manual will be updated accordingly.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

11.4        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 2 February 2018 to
28 February 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/35199

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT February 2018

2.       Payments by Cheque February 2018

3.       Payments by Credit Card February 2018  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 2 February 2018 to 28 February 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

Cheque Numbers 82087 - 82164

 

$95,200.72

Cancelled cheques

 

$0.00

EFT Documents 2202 - 2212

 

$3,078,597.96

Payroll       

 

$1,220,449.04

 

 

 

Direct Debits

 

 

·      Lease Fees

$385.00

 

·      Loan Repayments

$0.00

 

·      Bank Fees and Charges

$11,728.30

 

·      Credit Cards

$4,963.23

 

Total Direct Debit

 

$17,076.53

Total Accounts Paid

 

$4,411,324.25

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 2 February 2018 to 28 February 2018.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 1.14) the exercise of its power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

The list of accounts paid must be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 2 February 2018 to 28 February 2018, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

PAY PERIOD

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

Cheques

82087 - 82164

$95,200.72

Cancelled Cheques

 

$0.00

EFT Payments

2202 - 2212

$3,078,597.96

Sub Total

 

$3,173,798.68

 

 

 

Transfer of Payroll by EFT

06/02/18

$585,697.68

 

20/02/18

$629,405.25

 

22/02/18 Ad hoc

$3,540.25

 

27/02/18 Ad hoc

$1,805.86

 

February 2018

$1,220,449.04

 

 

 

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits

 

Lease Fees

 

$385.00

Loan Repayments

 

$0.00

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$11,728.30

Credit Cards

 

$4,963.23

 

 

 

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)

$17,076.53

 

 

Total Payments

 

$4,411,324.25

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 12(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

12.     Payments from municipal fund or trust fund, restrictions on making

 

(1)      A payment may only be made from the municipal fund or the trust fund —

·    if the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from those funds — by the CEO; or

·    otherwise, if the payment is authorised in advance by a resolution of Council.

(2)      Council must not authorise a payment from those funds until a list prepared under regulation 13(2) containing details of the accounts to be paid has been presented to Council.

 

Regulation 13(1) and (3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

13.     Lists of Accounts

 

(1)        If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared -

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

(3)      A list prepared under sub regulation (1) is to be —

·       presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared; and

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Management systems are in place to establish satisfactory controls, supported by internal and external audit function.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

“4.1         Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

 

4.1.2       Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

 

(a)      Continue to adopt best practice to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All Municipal Fund expenditure included in the list of payments is in accordance with Council’s Annual Budget.

Comments:

If Councillors require further information on any of the payments, please contact the Manager Financial Services.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

11.5        Financial Statements as at 28 February 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/37472

Author:                     Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 28 February 2018  

 

 Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 28 February 2018 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the Financial Statements for the period ended 28 February 2018.

Background:

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity reporting on the sources and applications of funds, as set out in the budget.

 

A statement of financial activity report is to be in a form that sets out:

·       the annual budget estimates;

·       budget estimates for the end of the month to which the statement relates;

·       actual amounts of expenditure, revenue and income for the end of the month to which the statement relates;

·       material variances between the year-to-date income and expenditure; and

·       other supporting notes and other information that the local government considers will assist in the interpretation of the report.

         

In addition to the above, under Regulation 34 (5) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996, each financial year a local government is to adopt a percentage of value, calculated in accordance with AAS 5, to be used in statements of financial activity for reporting material variances.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1 represent the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ending 28 February 2018:

 

Note

Description

Page

 

 

 

1.

Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph

1-3

2.

Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report

4

3.

Net Current Funding Position

5

4.

Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas

6-63

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule

64-78

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

79

7.

Rating Information and Graph

80-81

8.

Debtor Report

82

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

83

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The following table provides a summary view of the year to date actual, compared to the Revised and Year to date Budget.

         

Summary of Financial Activity by Program as at 28 February 2018

 

Revised Budget

Revised YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Variance

Variance

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

2017/18

$

$

$

$

%

REVENUE

22,397,993

15,493,718

14,922,814

(570,904)

-4%

EXPENDITURE

(57,017,898)

(38,102,950)

(36,515,825)

1,587,125

-4%

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES

(34,619,905)

(22,609,232)

(21,593,011)

1,016,221

-4%

OPERATING ACTIVITIES EXCLUDED FROM BUDGET

NON-CASH EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE

Add Deferred Rates Adjustment

0

0

9,237

9,237

0%

Add Back Depreciation

9,663,980

6,442,552

6,812,118

369,566

6%

(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals

(411,373)

(411,373)

(127,888)

283,485

-69%

"Percent for Art" and "Cash in Lieu" Funds Adjustment

0

0

0

0

0%

AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES

9,252,607

6,031,179

6,693,467

662,288

11%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES

Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions

2,712,344

1,128,644

1,026,186

(102,458)

-9%

Capital Expenditure

(13,379,565)

(10,427,350)

(3,296,494)

7,130,856

-68%

Proceeds from Joint Venture Operations

333,333

333,333

166,667

(166,666)

-50%

Proceeds from Disposal of assets

204,500

204,500

305,020

100,520

49%

(10,129,388)

(8,760,873)

(1,798,621)

6,962,252

-79%

FINANCING ACTIVITIES

Repayments Loan Capital

(881,398)

(579,452)

(579,451)

1

0%

Transfers from Reserves

1,342,875

1,219,165

241,468

(977,697)

-80%

Transfers to Reserves

(1,850,534)

(1,345,729)

(404,893)

940,836

-70%

(1,389,057)

(706,016)

(742,876)

(36,860)

5%

Plus: Surplus/(Deficiency) Brought Fwd 1 July 2017

3,946,211

3,946,211

4,475,026

528,816

13%

Surplus/(Deficiency) Before General Rates

(32,939,532)

(22,098,731)

(12,966,015)

9,132,717

-41%

Total amount raised from General Rates

32,939,532

32,858,277

33,004,208

145,931

0%

NET CURRENT ASSETS at JUNE 30 C/FWD - SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)

0

10,759,546

20,038,193

9,278,648

86%

 

 

 

 

 

Comments on Summary of Financial Activity by Program:

 

Operating Revenue

 

There is a difference in classification of revenue reported by Program and by Nature and Type.  Operating revenue by Program reporting includes ‘Profit on Sale of Assets’, but this is excluded in the Nature and Type report, however ‘Rates’ revenue is added.

 

Revenue by Program is showing a negative variance of 4% ($570k). This is due to lower revenue in Other Property and Services $270k (asset disposals), Recreation and Culture of $207k ($95k Beatty Park fees and charges, $49k Public Hall revenue) and Transport of $137k (predominantly parking infringement revenue which is expected to improve).

 

Operating Revenue as presented on the ‘Nature and Type’ report (Page 4 of Attachment 1) is showing nil variance in terms of percentage.

 

Operating Expenditure

 

Expenditure by Program is showing an underspend variance of 4% ($1.58m). This is due to lower expenditure in:

 

·       Community Amenities - $558k, primarily comprising $333k Policy and Place, $30k Environmental Services, $97k Processable Waste Collection and $47k on Recycling expenditure;

·       Recreation and Culture - $795k, primarily comprising $89k Community Partnerships, $66k Library Services, $373 nib Stadium – depreciation and $203k Parks and Reserves;

·       Transport - $259k, largely comprising $110k Engineering Design, $38k Environment Services, $55k Parks Services, $223k Rangers Services and over spend of $120k in Works and Operations Services; and

·       Education and Welfare - $71k, primarily comprising $36k Senior, Disability and Youth Services and $26k Child Care Centres and Play Groups.

 

Similarly, the operating expenditure listed under the Nature and Type report reflects a corresponding favourable variance of 4%, with the largest variances in:

 

·    Employee Costs, comprising $150k Salaries, $68k Superannuation, $190k Labour and $16k Wages;

·    Materials and Contracts, where the underspend is predominately in $87k Events and $399k Contractors; and

·    Depreciation on Non-current Assets, due to revaluation of Building assets, adjusted in mid-year budget review.

 

Transfer from Reserves

 

Transfer from Reserves is aligned with the timing of Capital Works projects that are reserve funded. Most of these projects have not yet started, with a large number likely to do so before the end of the financial year.

 

Capital Expenditure

 

The variance is attributed to timing on commencement of projects. For further detail, refer to Note 5 on Attachment 1.

 

Transfer to Reserves

 

Monthly transfer to reserves commenced in July 2017 except for the Tamala Park Land Sale Reserve which is transferred when actual funds are received.

 

Opening Funding Surplus / (Deficit)

 

The surplus opening balance brought forward from 2016/17 was $4,035,268, compared to the revised budget opening surplus balance of $3,946,211, after end of year carry forward adjustments.  The actual surplus for 2016/17 was $4,475,026, which reflects an improvement of $529k over the anticipated end of year result for 2016/17.

Closing Surplus / (Deficit)

 

There is currently a surplus of $20,038,193 compared to the year to date budget surplus of $10,759,546. This is substantially attributed to underspending in operating and capital expenditure and the increase in the opening balance.

 

Comments on financial performance as set out in the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1) and an explanation of each report is detailed below:

 

1.         Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report (Note 1 Page 1)

 

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Program.

 

2.         Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report (Note 2 Page 4)

 

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by nature and type.

 

3.         Net Current Funding Position (Note 3 Page 5)

 

Net current assets is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities, less committed assets and restricted assets. This amount indicates how much capital is available for day to day activities.  The net current funding position as at 28 February 2018 is $20,038,193.

 

4.         Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 63)

 

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by Service Unit.

 

5.         Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 64 - 78)

 

The following table is a summary of the ‘2017/2018 Capital Expenditure Budget by Program’, which compares year to date budget with actual expenditure to date.  The full Capital Works Program is listed in detail in Note 5 of Attachment 1.

 

 

Revised Budget

Revised YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Land and Buildings

               2,351,801

               2,011,801

                   542,160

77%

Infrastructure Assets

               8,329,870

               5,883,655

               2,022,090

76%

Plant and Equipment

               1,583,747

               1,583,747

                   541,045

66%

Furniture and Equipment

               1,114,147

                   948,147

                   191,200

83%

Total

             13,379,565

             10,427,350

               3,296,494

75%

 

 

 

 

 

FUNDING

Revised Budget

Revised YTD
Budget

YTD
Actual

Remaining Budget

 

$

$

$

%

Own Source Funding - Municipal

               9,119,846

               7,875,041

               1,723,820

81%

Cash Backed Reserves

               1,342,875

               1,219,165

                   241,468

82%

Capital Grant and Contribution

               2,712,344

               1,128,644

               1,026,186

62%

Other (Disposals/Trade In)

                   204,500

                   204,500

                   305,020

-49%

Total

             13,379,565

             10,427,350

               3,296,494

75%

Note:         Detailed analysis is included on page 64 - 78 of Attachment 1.

 

 

6.       Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 79)

 

The Cash Backed Reserves schedule details movements in the reserves, including transfers and funds used, comparing actual results with the annual budget.  The balance as at 28 February 2018 is $9,071,544.

 

7.         Rating Information (Note 7 Page 80 – 81)

 

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2017/18 were issued on 07 August 2017.

 

The Local Government Act 1995 provides for ratepayers to pay rates by four instalments.  The due dates for each instalment are:

 

First Instalment

12 September 2017

Second Instalment

06 November 2017

Third Instalment

08 January 2018

Fourth Instalment

06 March 2018

 

To cover the costs involved in providing the instalment program the following charge and interest rates apply:

 

Instalment Administration Charge

(to apply to second, third, and fourth instalment)

$13.00 per instalment

Instalment Interest Rate

5.5% per annum

Late Payment Penalty Interest

11% per annum

 

Pensioners registered with the City for rate concessions do not incur the above interest or charge.

 

The Rates debtors balance to be collected as at 28 February 2018 is $3,693,167 (this includes deferred rates of $100,508). This represents 10.08% of collectable income compared to 10.47% at the same time last year.

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 82)

 

Receivables of $3,810,824 are outstanding as at 28 February 2018, of which $2,943,020 has been outstanding over 90 days. This is comprised of:

 

·        $2,430,779 (82.6%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), who then collect the outstanding balance and return the funds to the City for a fee. Administration is currently reviewing systems issues that have implications for timely collection of infringement debtors;

 

·        $350,104 (11.9%) relates to Cash in Lieu Parking. Some Cash in Lieu Parking debtors have special payment arrangements over more than one year; and

 

·        $162,137 (5.5%) relates to Other Receivables, (refer page 82)

 

Administration has been following up outstanding items which relate to Other Receivables by issuing reminders when they are overdue and initiating formal debt collection when payments remain outstanding over longer periods of time.

 

9.         Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position Report (Note 9 Page 83)

 

As at 28 February 2018 the operating deficit for the centre was $650,807 in comparison to the year to date budgeted deficit of $418,482. This unfavourable outcome is primarily due to a higher depreciation expense being incurred as a result of the latest Fair Value Revaluation.

 

Once the depreciation component has been deducted, the cash position showed a current cash surplus of $123,298 in comparison to the year to date budget estimate of a cash deficit of $53,850.

 

 

10.       Explanation of Material Variances

 

All material variances as at 28 February 2018 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

 

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $10,000. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the year to date budget, where that variance exceeds $10,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2017/18 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to prepare an annual financial report for the preceding year and such other financial reports as are prescribed.

 

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires the local government to prepare each month, a statement of financial activity reporting on the source and application of funds as set out in the adopted Annual Budget.

 

A statement of financial activity and any accompanying documents are to be presented at an Ordinary Meeting of the Council within two months after the end of the month to which the statement relates.

 

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, specifies that a local government is not to incur expenditure from its Municipal Fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure is authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Provision of monthly financial reports fulfils a statutory requirement.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

“4.1         Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management:

 

4.1.2       Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner;

 

(a)    Continue to adopt best practice to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Comments:

The capital works schedules includes an item for unbudgeted purchase of an Engineering tools trailer. This was the replacement of an existing trailer due to age and poor condition. This has now been addressed in the mid-year budget review.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

12          Community Engagement

12.1        Reallocation of Loftus Recreation Centre reserve funds

TRIM Ref:                  D18/31783

Author:                     Dale Morrissy, Manager Beatty Park Leisure Centre

Authoriser:                Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       In accordance with Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the unbudgeted expenditure of $41,192.50 from the Loftus Recreation Centre Reserve to replace the Centre’s outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface; and

2.       NOTES the following budget adjustment to facilitate 1. above:

 

From

To

Loftus Recreation Centre Reserve Fund

$41,192.50

 

New Capital Budget Item: Loftus Recreation Centre 

 

$41,192.50

 

Purpose of Report:

To approve the transfer of $41,192.50 from the Loftus Recreation Centre Reserve Fund into the City’s Municipal Fund for the purposes of replacing the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface.

Background:

Loftus Recreation Centre is located on Loftus Street, Leederville and provides a range of sport, recreation and fitness services for the community.  Belgravia Health and Leisure Pty Ltd (Belgravia Leisure) operates the Centre on the City’s behalf through a Lease and Management Contract expiring on 31 December 2021. 

 

The Centre hosts one of the largest team sports programs in Western Australia with more than 450 teams competing each week in basketball, netball, soccer and volleyball.  These team sports competitions enable participation for people of all skill and fitness levels across junior, male, female and mixed divisions.  The outdoor synthetic soccer pitch located at the rear of the Centre overlooking Leederville Oval accommodates approximately 18,000 users and generates nearly $190,000 per annum.

 

Unfortunately, due to poor storm water drainage design the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch at the Centre has been subjected to ongoing drainage issues for an extended period of time and as a result the surface has deteriorated significantly.  The pitch was installed in 2012 and while the expected asset life would normally be around 10 years an inadequate storm water pipe system and broken pipework under the court has led to the need for surface replacement earlier than anticipated.  The ongoing build-up of water and other materials on the surface has also accelerated wear and tear.  Despite ongoing maintenance and repairs many sections of the surface are now threadbare with sub-surface concrete exposed. 

 

Over the last 12 months Belgravia Leisure has received an increasing number of complaints regarding the quality and safety of the playing surface, and they have now formally raised concerns with the City regarding the increased likelihood of injury and loss of revenue should the surface not be improved.  Under the terms of the Lease and Contract the City may, at its sole discretion, undertake capital improvements and redevelopment. Belgravia Leisure is responsible for monitoring the premises and ensuring that all fittings, fixtures, plant and equipment are serviced, maintained and repaired as required. The Contract requires the City to maintain fittings and equipment and replace specific items.  Any capital improvements are normally considered through Council’s annual budget process however this will not enable these important works to be undertaken in a timely manner.  

Details:

Upon investigating the need for ongoing repairs and maintenance to the Centre’s outdoor synthetic soccer pitch Administration has identified that an inadequate storm water pipe work system and broken pipe work under the court itself are the direct cause.  The pipe work connecting the two floor wastes from the spectator area are broken in their entirety which requires part of the court to be removed and excavated.  The drainage system has backfall which does not effectively allow volumes of water to flow away and also results in the rubber particles on the pitch to creating blockages.  The drainage works to resolve this situation are scheduled for completion in April 2018.  This requires the synthetic soccer pitch surface to be removed and given the extent of existing damage to the pitch surface it will need to be totally replaced when the drainage works are complete.

 

Based upon quotations received the replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface will cost $41,192.50 (excluding GST).  The Lease between the City and Belgravia Leisure required the establishment of a Loftus Recreation Centre Reserve Account, and at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 March 2018 it was resolved to amend the purpose of that Reserve to ensure consistency with the Lease Agreement.  This Reserve has been established “for the purpose of capital improvements, including replacing major items of plant and equipment or renewal and modifications to the Centre.”  An amount of $58,394 is currently available within this Reserve that can be made available for this project subject to Council approval.  There are no alternative plans to utilise these Reserve funds for other projects in the short to medium term.

 

While replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface is vitally important to ensure safe, quality playing conditions for Centre patrons it is also incumbent upon the City under the objectives of the Lease and Contract to ensure that the Premises are “attractive to the community and maintained in good working order.”  Belgravia Leisure notified the City in early 2017 that the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface was in poor condition and required intervention through either significant asset maintenance or capital replacement otherwise they could not deliver a good quality service to customers.  Administration acknowledges that the Centre’s soccer competition forms an important part of Belgravia Leisure’s services, and on that basis the replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface is regarded as a high priority. With drainage repair works scheduled in April 2018 prior to the commencement of winter it is not considered appropriate to await the availability of funds through Council’s 2018/19 capital budget.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

In accordance with Section 6.8(1) of the Local Government Act 1995 a local government is not 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, authorised in advance by resolution (absolute majority required) or authorised in advance by the Mayor in an emergency. 

 

Belgravia Leisure leases the Loftus Recreation Centre from the City pursuant to a Lease Agreement dated 9 July 2010, and the operation of the Centre is governed by a Management Contract also dated 9 July 2010 (Contract). At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 23 August 2017 it was resolved that the Lease and Contract be extended for a term of five years commencing on 1 January 2017.

 

Clause 3.1 of the Lease requires Belgravia Leisure to contribute to a reserve fund which can only be spent by the City on capital improvements which are defined as “improvements of a fixed, permanent and substantial character with respect to the Land and Buildings or parts of it which comprise items of a capital nature and do not comprise repairs and maintenance.”  Clause 19 of the Contract also states that any capital improvements are at the City’s sole discretion, and more specifically, that “while the Town must consult with the Contractor about the nature of any Capital Improvements to be funded from the Reserve Fund, the Town shall retain an unfettered discretion as to what Capital Improvements it will make and when it will make them.”  The replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface is a capital improvement and therefore Council may, at its sole discretion, resolve to undertake the works.

 

Any capital improvements are at the sole discretion of the City, and therefore the Lease and Contract do not impose any obligation on the City to undertake the replacement, and the City will not be in breach of its obligations pursuant to the Lease or Contract if it delays or does not choose to undertake the replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface. Similarly, the City will not be required to compensate Belgravia Leisure for any loss of income associated with the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch.

 

Risk Management Implications:

High: The Lease states that Belgravia Leisure occupies the Premises at its risk and agrees to indemnify the City in respect to any loss or damage arising as a result of their operations, and the Contract specifically sets out the obligations of Belgravia Leisure which includes risk and safety management.  On that basis, Belgravia Leisure is responsible for ensuring the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch is in a suitable condition for use, and if it determines that it is not, they are responsible for restricting use accordingly.

 

The City provides Belgravia Leisure with quiet enjoyment of the Premises for the term of the Lease, and therefore the City has no obligation to identify and respond to risks. However, upon the City being advised of any risk by Belgravia Leisure the City may play a role in mitigating that risk particularly where capital improvements are required.  Should Council resolves not to undertake the surface replacement then Belgravia Leisure will be responsible for taking appropriate action to mitigate any risks or liability which may include closing the pitch until such time that it is repaired or replaced.

Strategic Implications:

The following objectives of Council’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 – 2023 are relevant to this matter:

 

“1.1      Improve and maintain the natural and built environment and infrastructure

 

1.1.4 Enhance and maintain the City’s infrastructure, assets and community facilities to provide a safe, sustainable and functional environment.

 

4.1       Provide good strategic decision-making, governance, leadership and professional management

 

4.1.2     Manage the organisation in a responsible, efficient and accountable manner

 

(a)        Continue to adopt best practise to ensure the financial resources and assets of the City are responsibly managed and the quality of services, performance procedures and processes is improved and enhanced..”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface at the Centre will cost $41,192.50 with sufficient funds available within the Loftus Recreation Centre Reserve so that municipal funds are not required.  The transfer of funds from the Reserve for this purpose will leave a balance of $17,201.50 for future use.  Drainage works are being completed in April 2018 at a cost of approximately $10,000.

 

As per clause 5.2 of the Contract, Belgravia Leisure is required to pay the City a profit share amount of 25 percent for every dollar exceeding an annual Centre profit of $250,000. The profit share amount for the last three financial years is provided below:

 

Financial Year

Profit Share

2014/15

$                          9,617.74

2015/16

$                        25,092.10

2016/17

$                        31,132.20

 

It should be noted that the Centre’s outdoor synthetic soccer pitch generates approximately $190,000 revenue per annum, and therefore the inability to utilise this pitch as part of the soccer competition will negatively impact revenue and as a result may also negatively impact any profit share payment to the City.

 

Any capital improvements are at the sole discretion of the City, and therefore the Lease and Contract do not impose any obligation on the City to undertake the replacement, and the City will not be in breach of its obligations if it delays or does not choose to undertake the replacement of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface. The City will not be required to compensate Belgravia Leisure for any loss of income associated with the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch.

Comments:

The Loftus Recreation Centre is a highly utilised community facility and hosts one of the largest team sports programs in Western Australia which requires all playing areas to be safe and functional.  With drainage works soon to be undertaken to resolve the issues that have led to sooner than anticipated deterioration of the outdoor synthetic soccer pitch surface it is considered necessary to allocate funds to fully replace that surface as soon as practicable.  The availability of funds within the Loftus Recreation Centre Reserve for this purpose ensures there is no direct, negative impact on Council’s 2017/18 budget.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

12.2        Petition to Exclude Brisbane Terrace, Perth from New Parking Zone 7 - Parking Permits Policy No. 3.9.3

TRIM Ref:                  D18/40405

Author:                     Steve Butler, Manager Community Safety

Authoriser:                Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Residential Parking Zones

2.       Attachment 2 - Aerial view of Brisbane Terrace  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES that initial parking occupancy surveying conducted on Brisbane Terrace, Perth does not fully reflect the concerns raised by residents through the petition received at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 March 2018; and   

2.       REQUESTS that a further report on this matter be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting on 29 May 2018 following the completion of more detailed parking occupancy surveying over a one month period.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider a petition requesting that Brisbane Terrace, Perth be exempt from Residential Parking Zone No. 7 through the introduction of Resident Only Parking after 6pm Monday to Friday and on weekends.

Background:

A petition titled ‘Protest Against Changes to Parking Permit Policy 3.9.3’ containing 22 signatures was received at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 6 March 2018.  The petition states:

 

We, the Residents of Brisbane Terrace, Perth, request that the City of Vincent reviews the recently introduced Parking Permits Policy No. 3.9.3.  We are in the newly created ZONE 7 PARKING PERMIT AREA.  This new policy is disadvantaging residents in our street because we now have any Zone 7 residents able to park in our street which is very close to shops, restaurants, bars and cafes in William Street.

 

We are no having difficulty parking in our own street after 6pm and on weekends.  The street parking is now at full capacity at night and on weekends.  If we need to park in another street at night, it means walking in the dark back to our homes.  This is not acceptable.  It is not safe and certainly not in the best interests of Brisbane Terrace residents.

 

We fought long and hard to get Resident Only Parking Permits for our street.  That system worked very well.  The street is short, narrow and only has parking on one side.  We simply do not have the street parking space to accommodate other City of Vincent residents.  We are asking that Brisbane Terrace be EXEMPT from the new Zone 7 and reverts to Resident Only Parking after 6pm and on weekends.”

Details:

Council Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits

 

Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits provides guidance on the issue and control of Parking Permits that may be issued in accordance with the Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law.  At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 October 2015 it was resolved to initiate a review of this Policy with a view to providing a simpler, more streamlined and contemporary approach to parking control and the issuing of permits.    An extensive review was undertaken which recognised that Vincent faces increasing car parking and traffic management challenges associated with population growth and residential density increases.  The review also recognised that managing resident perceptions and expectations are a considerable challenge as while inner-City living has an array of benefits there are also associated constraints such as limited supply of on-street parking spaces.

 

A draft revised policy was authorised for public comment at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 5 April 2016.  Public comment included correspondence to all existing permit holders, notices within the Guardian and Perth Voice, and a detailed Information Sheet on the City’s website.   A total of 51 submissions were received and considered.  Subsequently, at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 20 September 2016 it was resolved to adopt the revised Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits.  A number of changes were introduced through the revised policy to provide greater flexibility to residents and reduce administrative resources required to issue parking permits.  Key components of the revised policy include:

 

·       A single ‘Residential Parking Permit’ rather than separate residents and visitors permits;

 

·       Residential Parking Permits being valid for three years and reissued automatically rather than residents needing to reapply on an annual basis;

 

·       Residential Parking Permits being associated with a property rather than a person to enable permits to more easily be transferred to new tenants or new owners as required;

 

·       The maximum number of Residential Parking Permits that will be issued is three for single houses (detached), two for grouped dwellings (town houses), and one for multiple dwellings (apartments).  Although some grouped and multiple dwellings will be subject to a specific Development Approval condition which states they will not receive parking permits;

 

·       Residents being entitled to receive the specified number of Residential Parking Permits regardless of the amount of off-street parking that may available on their property.

 

This revised policy has been in effect since October 2016 with any existing Residential Parking Permits transitioned to these new arrangements upon expiry.  There are currently 3,433 permits allocated to residents throughout Vincent compared to 1,663 under the previous policy. 

 

Residential Parking Zones

 

While the issuing a Residential Parking Permit does not guarantee an on-street parking space or an entitlement to park on any particular street it is acknowledged that the demand for on-street parking continues to increase.  When adopting the revised Parking Permits Policy it was recognised that the allocation of three permits to each single house and two permits to a grouped dwelling where parking restrictions apply may lead to a situation where more permits are issued than on-street bays are available.  It was also recognised that this may lead to resident vehicles being displaced to adjacent and surrounding streets.  During the revised Parking Permit Policy public comment process a number of respondents raised concerns that allocating permits to all eligible residences regardless of their off-street parking availability would increase street congestion and would be detrimental to existing parking options in already congested areas.

 

In response, Administration recommended that the revised policy enable the establishment of ‘Residential Parking Zones’ whereby each zone would include the streets within a logical urban precinct framed by major roads.  These zones would assist residents that reside in streets with limited on-street parking availability and enable flexibility during peak times when the number of residents seeking to park a vehicle on their street exceeds the number of on-street bays.  As a result, the current Parking Permits Policy states the following:

 

2.1    Residential Parking Permit

 

a.       Property owners with a parking restriction in their street will be issued with this Permit to allow residents and visitors to park on their street or streets within their Residential Parking Zone area, as designated by the City, beyond the prescribed time limit restriction.”

 

A total of nine Residential Parking Zones (refer to Attachment 1) were determined primarily through the consideration of major roads but also suburb boundaries, public amenities and activity centres.  Importantly, the above-mentioned clause within the Policy allows flexibility for Administration to vary these Residential Parking Zones subject to any unanticipated issues or opportunities for improvement.

 

With an increased number of complaints throughout 2017 regarding on-street parking congestion within residential streets and inability for residents to park on the street where their permit applies it was determined appropriate to implement these zones.  Formal implementation of the zones commenced in February 2018 and was also aligned with the City-wide roll-out of new Residential Parking Permits.  These electro-static permits are easier to transfer between vehicles to allow for usage by visitors as well as handover between owners and tenants.  In addition, these new permits include a QR code which in combination with upgraded parking infringement devices enable the City’s Rangers to more effectively identify expired, cancelled or revoked permits. 

 

Brisbane Terrace Assessment

 

Brisbane Terrace is located in the suburb of Perth (refer to Attachment 2).  It is approximately 190 meters in length and currently comprises 19 residences including 10 single houses, two duplexes and a block of seven town houses.  There are also two vacant, undeveloped blocks on the street.  While individual on-street parking bays are not line marked the street has provision to accommodate approximately 23 vehicles.  There are currently 38 Residential Parking Permits allocated to residents on Brisbane Terrace with one residence yet to apply for any permits. Brisbane Terrace is located within Residential Parking Zone No. 7 with the boundaries being Newcastle Street, Fitzgerald Street, Vincent Street and Beaufort Street.

 

Residents are entitled to permits due to the following restrictions being in place:

 

·      ‘No Stopping’ along the entire southern side of the street

·      2P between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday on the northern side of the street. Permit holders excepted

 

Essentially any motorist can park on the northern side of Brisbane Terrace for two hours between 8am and 6pm during the week.  After 6pm and on weekends only those with a valid Residential Parking Permit can park on the street.  It is important to note that Brisbane Terrace does not have a ‘Resident Only’ restriction as referred to within the petition.

 

The ‘No Stopping’ restriction on the southern side of Brisbane Terrace is due to the relatively narrow street width (less than 6 metres) as well as Right of Way access and rear access for residences located on Robinson Avenue.

 

Overall, it is acknowledged that there is currently more Residential Parking Permits allocated to Brisbane Terrace residents than there is available on-street parking bays.  This situation is exacerbated by an entire side of the street being ‘No Stopping’ at all times.  Based on the existing parking restrictions demand for on-street bays may be generated by any motorist 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday, and this has not changed with the introduction of the Residential Parking Zones.  Demand for on-street bays after 6pm Monday to Friday and on weekends will be generated by Brisbane Terrace residents and may now also included other Residential Parking Zone No. 7 holders, including those residing on Robinson Avenue with direct rear access to Brisbane Terrace.

 

Brisbane Terrace Occupancy

 

Upon review, the petition solely raises concerns regarding the Residential Parking Zones and does not raise any other concerns or issues relating to the Parking Permits Policy.  The petition associates the implementation of Residential Parking Zones with specific concerns regarding on-street parking availability on Brisbane Terrace, including:

 

·      “We are now having difficulty parking in our own street after 6pm and on weekends”;

·      “The street parking is now at full capacity at night and on weekends”;

·      “We simply do not have the street parking space to accommodate other City of Vincent residents”.

 

In order to determine the extent of these issues the City’s Rangers assessed on-street parking occupancy over the period 9 March to 18 March 2018, and identified the following:

 

Date

Time

Vehicle Count

Occupancy

23 bays = 100%

Comments

 

Friday 9 March

9.00pm

18

78%

 

 

Saturday 10 March

8.00am

12

52%

 

 

1.00pm

14

61%

 

 

5.00pm

14

61%

2 infringements (no Permit)

 

9.00pm

17

74%

 

 

Sunday 11 March

8.00am

12

52%

 

 

1.00pm

14

61%

 

 

5.00pm

12

52%

1 infringements (no Permit)

 

9.00pm

17

74%

 

 

Monday 12 March

8:00am

8

35%

 

5.00pm

16

70%

 

 

9.00pm

18

78%

 

 

Tuesday 13 March

8.00am

10

43%

2 infringements (park - contrary to signs) 

 

1.00pm

15

65%

 

 

5.00pm

12

52%

 

 

9.00pm

19

83%

 

 

Wednesday 14 March

8.00am

8

35%

 

 

5.00pm

13

57%

 

 

9.00pm

17

74%

 

 

Thursday 15 March

8.00am

8

35%

4 infringements (park - prohibited period)

 

5.00pm

11

48%

 

 

9.00pm

13

57%

 

 

Friday 16 March

8.00am

7

30%

 

 

5.00pm

11

48%

 

 

9.00pm

18

78%

 

 

Saturday 17 March

8.00am

10

43%

7 infringements (park - prohibited period)

 

1.00pm

12

52%

 

 

5.00pm

14

61%

 

 

9.00pm

19

83%

 

 

Sunday 18 March

9.00am

12

52%

7 infringements (park - prohibited period)

 

12.00pm

17

74%

 

 

7.00pm

19

83%

 

 

AVERAGE

13.6

59%

23 Infringements issued

 

Based upon this occupancy the survey the following trends have been identified:

 

·       Average occupancy during the day (8am to 5pm) is 52% leaving an average of 11 bays available

·       Average occupancy during the evening (after 5pm) is 72% leaving an average of 7 bays available

·       Average occupancy when parking restrictions are in place (between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday) is 47% leaving an average of 12 bays available

·       Average occupancy when resident only permit restrictions are in place (after 6pm Monday to Friday and on weekends) is 63% leaving an average of 8 bays available

·       At no time when the surveying took place was the Brisbane Terrace on-street parking fully occupied.

 

While the City does not have occupancy statistics prior to implementation of the Residential Parking Zones the survey data demonstrates that, as identified by the petitioners, it is likely to be more difficult for Brisbane Terrace residents to locate parking on their street after 6pm and on weekends.  Although based on the surveying at no time were the on-street bays at full capacity so the data does not substantiate the petitioners concerns that “street parking is now at full capacity at night and on weekends” and that “we simply do not have the street parking space to accommodate other City of Vincent residents.”

 

Given the peaks in parking occupancy after 6pm Monday to Friday and on weekends it is possible that residents from throughout Residential Parking Zone No. 7 are parking in Brisbane Terrace to access entertainment and hospitality businesses on William Street.  Although it is also possible that these peaks align with Brisbane Terrace residents being at home, and under the Residential Parking Permit Zone No. 7 these peaks may also align with Robinson Avenue residents being at home.

 

It is acknowledged that the occupancy data only provides a snapshot of Brisbane Terrace on-street parking usage and may not necessarily reflect the full extent of issues being experienced by residents.  It is recommended that Administration undertake further occupancy surveying including analysis of where valid permit holders reside to better determine the extent to which the implementation of Residential Parking Zones may (or may not) have contributed to the current concerns.  To ensure consistency Administration will apply the same methodology utilised for the North Perth Town Centre parking occupancy surveys that being the completion of surveying across multiple days and times over a four week period in order to determine midweek and weekend occupancy rates, and that information will then directly inform any parking restriction proposals.  


This survey data will then be presented back to the Ordinary Council Meeting in May 2018 given that these parking issues may be having an immediate, negative impact on residential amenity and community safety for the Brisbane Terrace residents. 

Brisbane Terrace Options

 

Administration considers that the Residential Parking Zones remain a key element to ensure the successful management of Residential Parking Permits in accordance with Policy No. 3.9.3.  It is expected that the demand for such permits will continue to increase particularly with the necessary introduction of new parking restrictions such as those in the North Perth Town Centre.  It remains important that Council and Administration acknowledge and respond to any issues created through the Residential Parking Zones or Policy No. 3.9.3 more broadly.

 

The initial occupancy data for Brisbane Terrace does not currently justify the street being exempt from Residential Parking Zone No. 7 through the introduction of Resident Only Parking after 6pm Monday to Friday and on weekends.  However should further, more detailed occupancy surveying better substantiate concerns raised by the petitioners then there are a number of options that may then be considered:

 

1.         Resident Only Parking Restrictions – Specified Criteria

 

Maintain the Residential Parking Zones but establish specific, robust criteria as the basis for considering Zone Exempt Streets whereby only vehicles displaying a valid permit for that street would be permitted to utilise on-street parking.  This criteria could then be applied to Brisbane Terrace and any other similar requests that may be received in the future.  The criteria may include the length and width of the road, available on-street bays versus number of permits issued, proximity to a specific land use or activity type, prevalence of specific restrictions causing additional disadvantage such as ‘No Stopping’ along one side of the road, and/or average on-street occupancy above a designated percentage.  

 

2.         Amended Residential Parking Zones

 

Policy No. 3.9.3 states that permits allow residents to park on their street or streets within their Residential Parking Zone area as designated by the City.  Administration acknowledges that while these zones have been established based upon logical urban precincts there remains a need to review their effectiveness.  It is for that reason the specific extent and boundaries of these zones were not included within the policy.

 

An option may be the creation of an additional number of smaller zones which then limits the number of surrounding streets on which a resident may park although this approach will inevitably create a larger number of zone boundaries which may be more difficult for residents to interpret and and also more difficult for the City’s Rangers to enforce.  Another option may be to remove Town Centres and immediately adjacent streets from the existing zones.  This will prevent the ability for residents to drive and park as close as possible to an activity centre that falls within their zone.  Those residences within Town Centres will still need to be granted the ability to park so in effect additional zones most likely comprising Exempt Streets (as per the option above) will be established.  It should be noted that permits do not authorise parking in 15/30 minute parking bays and ticket machine zones.  

 

3.         Change Existing Brisbane Terrace Parking Restrictions

 

Given the somewhat unique characterisitics of Brisbane Terrace it may be justifiable to simply introduce ‘Resident Only Parking’ after 6pm Monday to Friday and on weekends to relieve issues raised by residents.  Upon initially reviewing the petition Administration was symptehtic to these unique characteristics, however a recommendation to simply change the existing parking restrictions and Residential Parking Zone No. 7 is difficult given the initial occupancy survey data.

 

Nonetheless, an immediate change to the existing parking restrictions to restrict on-street parking to permit holders only residing on Brisbane Terrace remains an opiton.  This will provide a solution to the concerns raised within the petition but does necessary not provide the basis for consistent, well-informed decision making moving forward.  

 

4.         No Change

 

Both Council and Administration have recognised that increasing density and activity has led to a decrease in the availability of on-street parking, and while parking permits enable access for residents and businesses they do not guarantee the availability of a car parking space or entitlement to car parking spaces on any street.  The on-street parking challenges being experienced on Brisbane Terrace may simply be regarded as a constraint of inner-City living where alternative transport options are increasingly necessary given the limited supply of on-street parking spaces.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

The City of Vincent Parking & Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 (as amended) regulates the parking or standing of vehicles in all or specified thoroughfares and reserves under the care, control and management of the local government and to provide for the management and operation of parking facilities.

 

Council Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits provides guidance on the allocation and control of Parking Permits issued in accordance with the City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium:      Implementation and administration of Council Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits directly impacts parking, traffic management, residential amenity, community safety, Local Law enforcement and corporate reputation.

Strategic Implications:

Effective implementation of the Parking Permits Policy aligns with the following objective within the City of Vincent Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

1.1.5     Take action to improve transport and parking in the City and mitigate the effects of traffic.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The revised Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits has been in place since late 2016 and the simpler, more contemporary approach to parking control has generally been effective although changes to the number of permits that eligible residents are able to receive has increased pressure on on-street parking in several areas.  Implementation of the policy has been supported by a number of initiatives including the establishment of Parking Rangers, new rosters and patrol patterns for Parking Rangers, acquisition of more contemporary infringement devices, allocation of new electro-static permits with QR codes, and the establishment of Residential Parking Zones.

 

With the number of Residential Parking Permits increasing from 1,663 to 3,433 since the revised policy came into effect it is considered that the Residential Parking Zones are an important tool to assist with the management of on-street parking demands.  However, the concerns raised by Brisbane Terrace residents through their recent petition has identified that certain streets may be adversely impacted by these Residential Parking Zones particularly where the street is already constrained and in close proximity to an activity centre.  The petition submitted by Brisbane Terrace has been objectively considered by Administration, however the initial on-street parking occupancy survey does not support the concerns raised.

 

It is recommended that Administration undertake further occupancy surveying as a matter of priority and also specifically identify whether other residents from within Residential Parking Zone No. 7 are indeed parking on Brisbane Terrace.  This will ensure well-informed decision making in response to the concerns raised thorough the petition and also provide a basis for considering any similar issues raised by residents throughout Vincent.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

13          Chief Executive Officer

13.1        Information Bulletin

TRIM Ref:                  D17/177308

Author:                     Emma Simmons, Governance and Council Support Officer

Authoriser:                Len Kosova, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:             1.       WALGA Central Metropolitan Zone Minutes of Meeting held on 1 March 2018

2.       Monthly Street Tree Removal Information

3.       Statistics for Development Applications as at end of February 2018

4.       Register of Legal Action and Prosecutions Register Monthly - Confidential  

5.       Register of State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals – Progress Report as at 9 March 2018

6.       Register of Applications Referred to the MetroWest Development Assessment Panel – Current

7.       Register of Applications Referred to the Design Advisory Committee – Current

8.       Register of Petitions - Progress Report - April 2018

9.       Register of Notices of Motion - Progress Report - April 2018

10.     Register of Reports to be Actioned - Progress Report - April 2018  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Information Bulletin dated April 2018.

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                           4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                            4 April 2018


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                          4 April 2018

14          Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given

14.1        Notice of Motion - Cr Loden - Action on Climate Change

TRIM Ref:                  D18/43286

Attachments:             Nil

 

 

That Council:

1.       AFFIRMS its support for addressing climate change within the City of Vincent;

2.       ENDORSES the position expressed in the Western Australian Local Government Association’s Draft Climate Change Policy Statement that there is a climate emergency which requires urgent action by all levels of government to avoid an unacceptable burden on future generations;

3.       REQUESTS that the Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy be presented to Council for advertising by March 2019 to support decision making in the 2019/20 Budget and Corporate Business Plan;

4.       REQUESTS that the Sustainable Environment Strategy include the following measures:

4.1.      Set a target of zero net carbon emissions by a defined date;

4.2.      Set a target of zero net carbon emissions from stationary energy by a defined date;

4.3.      Include plans to support the uptake by the community of electric vehicles and other technology that can achieve zero emissions vehicles within the City of Vincent;

4.4.      Include plans for the City to create an electric vehicle fleet or other technology that can achieve zero emissions as part of forward purchasing practice; and

5.       REQUESTS that administration give consideration to the carbon emissions which result from           the management of waste as part of the current Waste Management Strategy.

 

 

Reason

Climate Emergency

 

Human induced climate change stands in the first rank of threats to humans, civilisation and other species. WALGA has recently echoed the calls of climate scientists that “we are in a state of climate emergency which requires urgent action” (Draft Climate Change Policy Statement). This draft policy states that ‘Local Government acknowledges:

 

1.   The science is clear: Climate change is occurring now, and human activities are the dominant cause.

2.   Climate change threatens human societies and the Earth’s ecosystems.

3.   Climate change requires urgent action to mitigate against catastrophic climate change and to adapt to the climate change that is now unavoidable.

4.   Mitigation and adaptation strategies must be efficient, effective and equitable.

5.   A failure to adequately address this climate change emergency places an unacceptable burden on future generations.’

 

The International Panel on Climate Change most recent assessment Report (AR5) confirmed that ‘Continued emissions of greenhouse gases will cause further warming and changes in all components of the climate system. Limiting climate change will require substantial and sustained reductions of greenhouse gas emissions’.

 

Working Group 3 of Assessment Report 5 found that ‘without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, emissions growth is expected to persist driven by growth in global population and economic activities. Baseline scenarios, those without additional mitigation, result in global mean surface temperature increases in 2100 from 3.7°C to 4.8°C compared to pre-industrial levels.’ ‘Delaying mitigation efforts beyond those in place today through 2030 is estimated to substantially increase the difficulty of the transition to low longer-term emissions levels and narrow the range of options consistent with maintaining temperature change below 2°C relative to pre-industrial levels’.

 

Within the suite of IPCC Representative Concentration Pathways the only scenario which can achieve this outcome is RCP2.6, which is likely keep the climate below 2oC and more unlikely than likely to achieve 1.5oC temperature increase. No Representative Concentration Pathways yet exist which can achieve a 1.5oC. A 2oC temperature increase equates to a global CO2 concentration of 450ppm.

 

IPCC AR5 Working Group 3 states ‘Mitigation scenarios reaching around 450ppm CO2eq concentrations by 2100 show large-scale global changes in the energy supply sector (robust evidence, high agreement). In these selected scenarios, global CO2 emissions from the energy supply sector are projected to decline over the next decades and are characterized by reductions of 90% or more below 2010 levels between 2040 and 2070. Emissions in many of these scenarios are projected to decline to below zero thereafter’. Below zero emission requires systems which pull CO2 out of the air and then sequester it back into the ground.

 

The shift required to achieve the scale of reduction of emissions (90% reduction in the next 22+ years) will be the most significant shift in the global energy system in the last 100 years. Because most infrastructure is already built and anything new will be built for a 40+ year timeframe to achieve the types of reductions in emissions requires immediate action for all future infrastructure investments. Further there will need to be early decommissioning of existing assets to achieve the reductions required.

 

We are facing a climate emergency which requires urgent and immediate action by the City of Vincent as well as all levels of government.

 

Sustainable Environment Strategy</