AGENDA

 

 

Council Briefing

 

22 May 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 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 Meeting Procedures 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 and the suburb in which they reside or, where a member of the public is representing the interests of a business, the suburb in which that business is located 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.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

4          Declarations of Interest 7

5          Development Services. 8

5.1             No. 101 (Lot: 4 D/P: 1976) Alma Road, North Perth - Proposed Dwelling (Grouped) 8

5.2             Nos. 224-226 (Lot 139; D/P: 30309) Stirling Street, Perth - Change of Use from Office to Educational Establishment 34

5.3             Nos. 1-3 (Lot: 3; SP: 15113) Blake Street, North Perth - Extension to Existing Telecommunications Tower 56

5.4             Nos. 33-35 (Lots: 53 & 350; D/P: 672 & 302361) Mary Street, Highgate - Additions and Alterations of an Existing Eight Multiple Dwelling Development to a Seven Multiple Dwelling Development and Construction of Two Grouped Dwellings - Reconsideration of Condition. 73

5.5             No. 131 (Lot: 282; D/P: 2503) Coogee Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Awning to Single House. 107

5.6             No. 33A (Lot: 2; STR: 70869) Redfern Street, North Perth - Proposed Dwelling (Grouped) 122

5.7             Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2. 171

6          Engineering. 179

6.1             Review of Engineering Policies Relating to Verge Treatments and Street Trees. 179

6.2             Proposed Traffic Management and Safety Improvement - Edinboro Street, Mount Hawthorn. 214

6.3             Response to Notice of Motion - City Building Information. 221

6.4             Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023. 227

6.5             LATE REPORT: Waste Strategy Summit 2018. 241

7          Corporate Services. 242

7.1             Leases to Department of Health to govern Department's current use of the Child Health Clinics within City of Vincent 242

7.2             Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 April 2018 to  30 April 2018. 248

7.3             Investment Report as at 30 April 2018. 278

7.4             LATE REPORT:  Financial Statements as at 30 April 2018. 288

8          Community Engagement 289

8.1             Seasonal Licences for use of Charles Veryard Pavilion - Modernians Hockey Club Inc., Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc. and Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club Inc. [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 289

8.2             Petition to Exclude Brisbane Terrace, Perth from New Parking Zone 7 - Parking Permit Policy No. 3.9.3. 302

8.3             2018/19 Festivals and Events Sponsorship [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 315

9          Chief Executive Officer 326

9.1             LATE REPORT: Chief Executive Officer Recruitment 326

9.2             Information Bulletin. 327

10        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 398

Nil

11        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 398

12        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed (“Behind Closed Doors") 399

12.1           LATE REPORT:  Licence to govern encroachment of drainage infrastructure from 152 Joel Terrace, Mount Lawley into Swan River Foreshore Reserve 43459. 399

13        Closure. 399

 

 


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            Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

4            Declarations of Interest


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

5            Development Services

5.1          No. 101 (Lot: 4 D/P: 1976) Alma Road, North Perth - Proposed Dwelling (Grouped)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/53665

Author:                     Rana Murad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   8 – North Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Perspective

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions and Administration's Comments

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant's Response

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Dwelling (Grouped) at No. 101 (Lot: 4, D/P: 1976) Alma Road, North Perth, in accordance with the plans show in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       This approval is for the Dwelling shown on the approved plans only. This approval does not relate to any other development;

2.       Landscape and Reticulation Plan

A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site is to 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:

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

2.2       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

2.3       The site area to be provided with a minimum 14.75 percent deep soil zone and 37.29 percent canopy cover at maturity;

All works shall be undertaken to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

3.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish the surface of the boundary walls in a good and clean condition to the satisfaction of the City prior to the occupation or use of the development and shall thereafter maintain the surface of the boundary walls to the satisfaction of the City;

4.       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 noise impact on surrounding landowners and shall be screened from view from the street, and where practicable from adjoining buildings to the satisfaction of the City;

 

5.       Stormwater

All stormwater produced on the subject land shall be retained on site, unless otherwise approved in writing by the City. Stormwater retention shall occur by suitable means to the full satisfaction of the City;

6.       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;

7.       Visually Permeable Fence

The area of the fence shall be a minimum 50 percent visually permeable, as shown on the approved plans, in accordance with the provisions of the Residential Design Codes; and

8.       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 Dwelling (Grouped) at No. 101 Alma Road, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of a three storey dwelling (grouped) at the subject site. The proposed dwelling will gain vehicle access from the eastern right of way adjoining the site.

Background:

Landowner:

Andrew Burrell and Rebecca Turner

Applicant:

Logan Joyce

Date of Application:

15 February 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R-Code: R40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant Lot

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Grouped)

Lot Area:

180m²

Right of Way (ROW):

East: City owned, sealed and drained 5.0m wide

South: Privately owned, sealed and drained 4.0m wide

West: City owned, sealed and drained 5.0m wide

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Alma Road, in between Fitzgerald Street and Ethel Street, North Perth, as shown in Attachment 1. The site is bound by three ROWs to the east, south and west with an existing single house abutting the lot to the north. To the west across the ROW is the North Perth Town Centre with a number of commercial developments fronting Fitzgerald. The subject site and the land to the east and south is Residential zoned land with a density code of R40. The properties to the north of Alma Road are zoned District Centre and have been developed with grouped dwellings. The site has been identified in the Residential Built Form Area under the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

A subdivision application was granted conditional approval by the Western Australian Planning Commission on 24 September 2015 to create two survey strata lots with common property. The subject lot is the vacant rear lot approved in this subdivision and is located approximately 23.0 metres from the primary street.

 

On 15 February 2018, the City received a development application for the construction of a three storey dwelling (grouped) at the subject site. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2 and a development perspective 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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form 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

Density/Plot Ratio

ü

 

Street Setback

ü

 

Front Fence

 

ü

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Open Space

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Setbacks of Garages and Carports

 

ü

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Walls and Fences

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.10 of Policy No. 7.1.1

 

400mm maximum width of piers

 

 

940mm pier proposed for letter box.

Walls Built on Boundary

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.1.3 and Built Form Policy Clause 5.3

 

Boundary walls with an average height of 3m and a maximum height of 3.5m.

 

 

 

Northern boundary wall has an average height of 3.35m.


 

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.1.4

 

45%

 

 

43%

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.1.6 and Built Form Policy Clause 5.6

 

Maximum two storeys

 

 

 

 

Three storeys proposed.

Maximum wall height of 6m and maximum height to the top of pitched roof of 9m

Maximum wall height under gable roof of 9.6m on northern side and 9.3m on southern side.

 

Maximum wall height of 7.8m on eastern side and 7.1m on western side. Height to top of pitched roof 10m on Northern side, 9.7m on southern side, and 10.1m on eastern side and 9.4m on the western side.

Setbacks of Garages and Carports

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.7

 

Garage to be setback 0.5m behind the dwelling

 

 

Garage is 0.5m forward of the dwelling.

 

The above elements of the proposal does 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 28 March 2018 and concluding on 14 April 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as show in Attachment 1 and a notice being published on the City’s website. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, five submissions were received by the City, all of which objected to the proposal.

 

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

 

·       Concerns regarding the proposed height;

·       Impact of building bulk and scale on the surrounding landowners; and

·       Concerns regarding loss of privacy.

 

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 4. The applicant has also provided responses to the submissions received and this is included as Attachment 5.

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 will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

It is noted that the deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), who have instead issued approval for a modified set of deemed-to-comply landscaping standards that are similar to those set out in Design WA but which have not been approved by Council. As a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to those deemed-to-comply landscaping approved by Council in the Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development proposed is three storeys in height and the CEO has not been delegated the authority to determine development applications proposing new development of three storeys or more in height.

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:

Walls Built on Boundary

 

The proposal incorporates a boundary wall on the northern boundary which has an average height of 3.35 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply average height set by the R Codes of 3.0 metres. The overall maximum height and length of the boundary wall is proposed to be 3.3 metres and 5.0 metres respectively, which is compliant with the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes. The subject site and the proposed boundary walls adjoin an existing dwelling which completely screens the development from Alma Road. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed boundary wall will not be visible from Alma Road.

 

The subject site has a natural slope in the ground level along the northern boundary. Whilst this slope is not significant it is considered to contribute to the proposed average boundary wall height exceeding the deemed-to-comply standard by 0.35 metres.

 

The proposed boundary wall does not restrict the ability of sun and ventilation to be attained by the subject site or any surrounding sites. The orientation of the subject site ensures that the shadow of the proposed boundary wall 21 June falls onto the site itself. Given the wall meets the maximum wall height and length standards set by the R Codes it is considered that the proposed average height of 3.35 metres does not result in significant bulk and scale. The location of the boundary wall will ensure that it is not easily visible from Alma Road and the surrounding properties.

 


 

Open Space

 

The proposal incorporates 43 percent open space in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 45 percent as per Clause 5.1.4 of the R Codes. The proposed grouped dwelling is located on a site with a total site area of 180 square metres. The proposal has been designed to incorporate an outdoor living area with a total area of 22.0 square metres which is in excess of the requirements of the R Codes. The outdoor living area is located on the northern aspect of the site and is open to winter sun and ventilation. It is considered that the outdoor living area provides ample area for the prospective occupants for outdoor pursuits and is well located and directly accessible from the living area. The proposed grouped dwelling has also incorporates a green space area on the first and second floors. The design of the proposed grouped dwelling has incorporated skylights which will allow for added sun light to the dwelling. In light of this, it is considered that the open space provided on the subject site meets the design principles of Clause 5.1.4 of the R Codes.

 

Building Height

 

The proposed development incorporates three storeys, with a maximum wall height of 9.6 metres and roof pitch of 10.1 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply building height set for the site of two storeys, 6.0 metres and 9.0 metres respectively.

 

The subject site adjoins the Fitzgerald Street District Centre zone to the west, where a deemed-to-comply building height of six storeys applies. The properties to the north, south and east are all zoned Residential and have a deemed-to-comply building height of two storeys. The subject site is located behind a single dwelling which fronts Alma Road. The existing single house on the front lot is single storey with a pitched roof what height and will provide some screening to the proposed development which will reduce the visual impact on Alma Road. The property to the south at 130 Raglan Road includes a mature Jacaranda tree which is considered to provide some screening to the proposed development and therefore, the dwelling will not be readily visible from Raglan Street.

 

The proposal has been designed to contain the third storey within the roof space which has resulted in a roof pitch of 10.1 metres which is 1.1 metres above the deemed to comply roof pitch height of 9.0 metres. This effectively minimises the impact of the third storey as it has been designed to be integrated within the proposed dwelling and as such, presenting as a two storey development.

 

Alma Road has been developed with single and grouped dwellings with a range of materials including red brick, render and cladding. The proposed development has incorporated a range of materials, textures and finishes into the design of the dwelling. These materials include exposed red brick, steel and cladding. The incorporation of these materials is considered to reinterpret the existing development style which currently exists in the streetscape. The proposed elevations of the grouped dwelling have included a number of openings and are well articulated. The design is considered to be sympathetic to the area and preserve and enhance the visual character of the existing streetscape. The inclusion of the aforementioned materials are considered to reduce the impact of building bulk and scale of the overall development on the streetscape. The inclusion of these materials and the articulation of the elevations contribute to the perception of appropriate massing of the buildings and thus, present an acceptable scale to the streetscape and the surrounding properties.

 

The design of the proposed grouped dwelling has ensured that visual privacy to the surrounding landowners is not compromised and the proposal complies with all deemed-to-comply requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes. The proposed development is complaint with the solar access requirements of Clause 5.4.2 of the R Codes and will not result in excessive overshadowing onto the surrounding landowners.

 

It is considered that the additional building height has been mitigated through appropriate design measures and will therefore, reduce the perception of building bulk and scale on the locality and the surrounding landowners.

 

Street Walls and Fences

 

The proposal incorporates one 0.475 metre wide pier fronting the eastern ROW in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 0.400m as per Clause 5.10 of the Built Form Policy. The 0.475 metre wide pier accommodates the letter box, with the remainder of the front fence complying with the deemed-to-comply standards of the Built Form Policy. At present, the ROW largely incorporates solid wall, fences and garages. The proposed fence incorporates a laser cut screen panel which will be visually permeable and overall the fence will increase surveillance of the ROW. A condition of development approval has been recommended to ensure that the proposed fence is 50 percent visually permeable. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed fence has a negligible impact in terms of building bulk and scale of the streetscape and the locality.

Landscaping

 

The applicant has provided a landscaping plan which shows 14.75 percent deep soil zone and 37.29 percent canopy cover at maturity. Although the deep soil zones proposed does not meet the deemed-to-comply standard of 15 percent set by the City’s Built Form Policy, it is considered that the deep soil zones allow for mature trees to be planted which will provide extensive canopy cover at maturity. The proposed landscaping is considered to provide an increased amenity to the area and a sense of open space for the subject site. A detailed landscaping plan showing irrigated and non-irrigated areas has not been submitted as part of this application, however, a condition requiring this has been recommended. Subject to the condition, it is considered that the proposal is capable of facilitating high quality landscaping which will enhance the appearance of the development and the amenity for residents.

 

Garages

 

The garage for the proposed dwelling is located 0.5 metres in front of the dwelling line and 1.0 metre from the ROW to the east. The garage is proposed to accommodate one vehicle and has a width of 3.7 metres. The proposed dwelling has a total width of 14.8 metres at the eastern lot boundary and presents a visually permeable fence with major openings looking out to the ROW. Therefore, it is considered that the total frontage taken up by the garage is minor as it equates to only 24 percent of the eastern frontage.

 

The ROW is currently largely made up of rear fences, blank walls, garages and it is considered that the open fencing proposed will improve the amenity and passive surveillance of the ROW. The garage wall is proposed to be constructed from recycled red brick which is a prominent building material used throughout the locality. The proposed dwelling has ensured that adequate truncations are provided to ensure for sightlines and safe manoeuvring. In light of the above, it is considered that the impact of the garage at the current location will have a negligible impact on the locality terms of building bulk and scale.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to walls on boundary, building height, open space, landscaping and setback of garages. The proposed building height of the dwelling is considered to be appropriate in the context of the area and will have a negligible impact on the surrounding properties and Alma Road. The development has been appropriately designed and has utilised materials which are prominent in the locality such as recycled red brick and cladding. The perception of building bulk and scale is considered to be mitigated as a result of the proposed building materials. The proposed dwelling has incorporated a generous outdoor living area that optimises the northern aspect of the subject site which is capable of being used by future occupants for outdoor pursuits. At the same time the proposal incorporates 14.75 percent deep soil zone and 37.29 percent canopy cover. This is considered to significantly enhance the visual amenity of the dwelling as well as provide a sense of open space. In light of the above, it is recommended that the application be approved by Council subject to the recommended conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

5.2          Nos. 224-226 (Lot 139; D/P: 30309) Stirling Street, Perth - Change of Use from Office to Educational Establishment

TRIM Ref:                  D18/53821

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   Beaufort

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Parking Management Plan

4.       Attachment 4 - Consultant Report

5.       Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for development approval for a Change of Use from Office to Educational Establishment at Nos. 224-226 (Lot: 138; D/P: 30309) Stirling Street, 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.       Use of Premises

1.1       The area shown as ‘Educational Establishment’ on the approved plans shall be used in accordance with the definition of ‘Educational Establishment’ as defined by the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

1.2       The maximum number of persons attending the Educational Establishment at any one time shall be limited to 15 persons; and

1.3       The hours of operation for the Educational Establishment shall be limited to the following times:

·       Monday to Friday – 8:30am to 5:00pm;

·       Saturday – 9:00am to 5:00pm; and

·       Closed Sunday and public holidays;

2.       Car Parking and Access

2.1       Prior to the commencement of development, five short term bicycle bays shall be provided at the applicants cost within the area marked as ‘bicycle parking’ on the approved plans, to the City’s satisfaction. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and all works shall be undertaken to the City’s specification and satisfaction; and

2.2       The three car parking bays shows as bays No. 8 - 10 on the approved plans shall be marked as ‘staff only’ parking prior to the commencement of the use; and

2.3       A Parking Management Plan setting out the parking management strategies for the development to the satisfaction of the City shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the use or occupation of the development. The Parking Management Plan shall detail the measures to be implemented to inform and encourage all students of alternative means of transport to the site including public transport, cycling and walking; and

 

3.       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 change of use from Office to Educational Establishment at Nos. 224-226 Stirling Street, Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

This application proposes to change the use of the subject site from Office to Educational Establishment. The Educational Establishment will offer adults training in the field of first aid, security/crowd control and aged care. The Educational Establishment will operate with three employees and up to 12 students. The application proposes the following operating hours:

 

·       8:30am – 5:00pm weekdays;

·       9:00am – 5:00pm on Saturday; and

·       Closed Sunday and Public Holidays.

Background:

 

Landowner:

The Australian Rail, Tram and Bus Industry Union of Employees

Applicant:

Vicus Property Group

Date of Application:

6 February 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Mixed Use            R-Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use

Existing Land Use:

Office

Proposed Use Class:

Educational Establishment

Lot Area:

559m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Stirling Street and Brewer Street at Nos. 224-226 Stirling Street, Perth. The site is occupied by a single building, as shown on the location map included as Attachment 1. The site is bound by a Shop to the north, an Office to the east, Brewer Street to the south and Stirling Street to the north.

 

A mixed use development is located on the opposite side of Brewer Street and contains Multiple Dwellings, Offices and Shops. A Multiple Dwelling development is located on the opposite side of Stirling Street. The subject site and the surrounding area are zoned ‘Mixed Use’ with a density coding of R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2).

 

The subject site has been operating as an Office since being approved by the City of Perth in 1966. The original application for the Office required 11 car bays to be provided and was approved with a car parking shortfall of four car bays. A subsequent approval for an extension to the existing office building was issued by the City of Perth in 1993. This application required a total of 13 car bays to be on site and was approved with an additional car parking shortfall of two bays. The total approved car parking short fall for the site is six bays.

 

The subject site has five existing line marked car bays located at the front of the site and five line marked car bays located at the rear of the site. Through a leasing arrangement, the proposed Educational Establishment has exclusive access to the five car bays located at the rear of the site only. The planning assessment from 1993 noted that the five car bays provided within the rear area are ‘substandard’ in terms of vehicle manoeuvring. The development approval from 1993 only approved three car bays located within this area.

 


 

This application proposes to use the three approved car bays as staff car parking and use the two substandard car bays as bicycle parking and a ‘small car’ parking bay. This application proposes to reuse the existing building on site with no external alterations or signage proposed as part of this application. This application relates to level one of the subject site only. The ground level will remain as an Office use.

 

The applicant’s development plans are included in Attachment 2. The applicant has also provided a Parking Management Plan included as Attachment 3 and consultant report included as Attachment 4.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2, Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement. 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

 

P

Parking & Access

 

P

Bicycle Facilities

 

P

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

“P” Use

 

 

Educational Establishment “D” Use

Parking and Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Car Bays

 

To be determined by the City on a site specific Parking Management Plan

 

 

 

 

 

Parking Management Plan included and 3 car bays proposed

Bicycle Bays

 

To be determined by the City on a site specific Parking Management Plan

 

 

Parking Management Plan included and 5 short term bays proposed

 

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 from 5 April 2018 to 18 April 2018. The method of consultation being 350 letters mailed 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.

No submissions were received during the advertising the community consultation period.

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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement.

 

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 will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

LPS2 was gazetted and became operational on 16 May 2018. The gazettal of LPS2 did not impact on the zoning or land use permissibility for the subject lot. LPS2 includes the following objectives for the Mixed Use zone:

 

·       To provide for a wide variety of active uses on street level which are compatible with residential and other non-active uses on upper levels.

·       To allow for the development of a mixed of varied but compatible land uses such as housing, offices, showrooms, amusement centres, eating establishments and appropriate industrial activities which do not generate nuisances detrimental to the amenity of the district or to the health, welfare and safety of its residents.

·       To provide for a compatible mix of high density residential and commercial development.

·       To promote residential use as a vital an integral component of these mixed use zones.

·       To ensure development design incorporates sustainability principles, with particular regard to waste management and recycling and including, but not limited, to solar passive design, energy efficiency and water conservation.

·       To ensure the provision of a wide range of different types of residential accommodation, including affordable, social and special needs, to meet the diverse needs of the community.

 

An Educational Establishment is a discretionary use under the LPS2 and requires the Council to exercise discretion when approving the use.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development proposes a new ‘Educational Establishment’ and the CEO has not been delegated the authority to determine new ‘Educational Establishment’ land uses.

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

 

The subject site and surrounding area is zoned Mixed Use under LPS2 with a density of R80. LSP2 sets out the objectives to guide development within the Mixed Use zone. The immediate vicinity surrounding the subject site is characterised by a mix of residential and commercial uses. The subject site is located directly adjoining a Shop and Office to the north and east and adjacent to Multiple Dwellings, Shops and Offices to the south and west. The Educational Establishment is consistent with the commercial nature of the subject site, which is currently approved as an Office.

 

The Educational Establishment is considered to be low scale given the proposed number of patrons and the operating hours. Conditions of approval have been recommended to ensure the development functions within the proposed scope of the operations. Given the context of the subject site and proposed operations, the Educational Establishment is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Mixed Use zone, which envisions a compatible mix of residential and commercial development within the locality.

 

Car Parking

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement requires the car parking for an Educational Establishments to be determined by the City on a site specific Parking Management Plan. The subject site currently has ten line marked car bays. However, only seven of these car bays were approved by the City of Perth approval granted in 1993. The applicant has provided a Parking Management Plan which confirms the subject tenancy has access to three of the seven car bays. The applicant has also proposed to convert the remaining space left by the non-compliant parking bays into a ‘small car’ parking bay and five short term bicycle bays. The three car bays are proposed to be for the exclusive use of staff only and the five bicycle bays will be shared between the staff and students. A condition has been recommended for the car bays to be marked as staff parking and for the bicycle bays to be provided in accordance with the Australian Standards.

 

The applicant’s consultant report outlines that the students will be notified that there is no on-site parking available at the subject site and advised of the alternative transport options. The subject site has access to public transport and is located 150 metres from the Beaufort Street high frequency bus route, 400 metres from the Lord Street high frequency bus route and 650 metres from the Claisebrook Train Station. The subject site also has access to paid on-street parking along Stirling Street and Brewer Street.

 

The application proposes to use three of the existing car bays on site as staff only parking and will convert the two ‘substandard’ car bays into a ‘small car’ bay and bicycle bays. The proposed ‘small car bay’ does not meet the minimum requirements of AS2890.1 – Off-Street as such is not supported and is recommended to be removed from the site plan. A condition of the development approval is recommended for the three car bays to be marked as ’staff parking only’ and the installation of the five bicycle bays prior to the commencement of the use.  The applicant has confirmed that the subject site already contains end-of-trip facilities to service the additional bicycle bays.

 

The Educational Establishment is of a moderate scale, with a maximum of 12 students proposed at any one time. The hours of operation and number of employees and students is not considered to be a more intense use of the site than the currently approved Office, which at 400 square metres could accommodate a significantly higher number of staff at any one time. The City of Perth in 1993 Council report notes the site accommodated between 25 – 30 persons when used as an Office. Given the site has an approved car parking shortfall of six car bays, the car and bicycle parking provided on site and the Parking Management Plan is considered to be sufficient to manage the car parking requirements of the Educational Establishment and promote alternative modes of transport, which is consistent with the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal is considered to be an appropriate use of the site and compatible with the mixed use nature of the area. It is recommended the development is approved subject to conditions.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

5.3          Nos. 1-3 (Lot: 3; SP: 15113) Blake Street, North Perth - Extension to Existing Telecommunications Tower

TRIM Ref:                  D18/24824

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   8 – North Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Photo Montage

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response

6.       Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to extend the telecommunications tower at Nos. 1-3 (Lot: 3; SP: 15113) Blake Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for the extension of an existing telecommunications tower located at Nos. 1-3 Blake Street, North Perth (subject site).

Proposal:

This application proposes to increase the height of the existing telecommunications tower by 3.46 metres and remove the existing antennas, headframe and associated equipment located at 14 metres above ground level on the tower.

Background:

 

Landowner:

DM and JM Burke

Applicant:

Axicom Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

12 January 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Local Centre

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use

Existing Land Use:

Shop and Unlisted Use (Telecommunications Tower)

Proposed Use Class:

Shop and Unlisted Use

Lot Area:

701m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at Nos. 1-3 Blake Street, North Perth, which comprises of a single commercial building, as shown in the location plan included as Attachment 1. The site has two commercial tenancies that are currently used as a hair salon and beauty shop.

 

The subject site fronts Blake Street to the North, Walcott Street to the north-east and little Walcott Street to the south-west. The site is adjoining a retail premises to the west and a vacant block to the east. The vacant block has development approval for the construction of four storey multiple dwellings.

 

The subject site is zoned Local Centre under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The area surrounding the subject site fronting Walcott Street and Blake Street is also zoned Local Centre. The land located on the opposite side of Little Walcott Street to the south is zoned Residential R30/R40.

 

The subject site accommodates an existing telecommunication tower, which is located at the rear of the site in the western corner. The existing telecommunications tower is 24.5 metres tall and contains numerous antennas and associated equipment. The proposal seeks to undertake the following modifications to the existing tower:

 

·       Extend the existing tower by 3.46m to a total height of 27.96 metres;

·       Remove the existing Optus equipment and headframe currently mounted at 14 metres;

·       Replace the triangular headframe with slimline turret; and

·       Installation of ancillary equipment including ratio units, antennas and cables.

 

A copy of the development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant has provided a photo montage of the proposed works which 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 LPS2, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) and Policy No. 7.5.6 – Telecommunication Facilities (Telecommunication Facilities Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning elements are discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table:

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Maximum height of 16.3m

Maximum height of 27.96m

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation on the proposal occurred for a period of 21 days from 13 February 2018 to 6 March 2018. The method of consultation involved notification being placed in the local newspaper, a sign being placed on site and 76 letters being mailed out to all owners and occupiers within 75 metres of the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Additional advertising was undertaken in the form of 273 letters being sent to all owners and occupiers within 200 metres of the subject site for a period of 14 days, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.6 – Telecommunication Facilities. The City of Stirling requested an additional advertising period of 21 days in accordance with the City of Stirling’s policy. However, it was not considered appropriate to readvertise the application for 21 days due to the statutory timeframes and extent of advertising undertaken.

 

The City received 14 submissions during the community consultation period objecting to the application (13 submissions from the community and one submission from the City of Stirling) and one submission in support of the proposal. A summary of the submissions and Administration’s comments on each issue raised is included as Attachment 4, with the applicant’s response to the submissions provided in Attachment 5.

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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

·       Policy No. 7.5.6 – Telecommunication Facilities;

·       State Planning Policy 5.2 Telecommunication Infrastructure;

·       The Telecommunications Act 1997;

·       Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 2018; and

·       Telecommunications Code of Practice 1997.

 

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 will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

 

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

LPS2 includes the following objectives for the Local Centre zone:

 

·       To provide services for the immediate neighbourhoods which do not expand into or adversely impact on adjoining residential areas.

·       To encourage high quality, pedestrian-friendly, street-orientated development.

 

Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 2018

 

Clause 3.1 of the Telecommunications (Low-impact Facilities) Determination 2018 outlines that an extension to an existing telecommunication facility is only considered to be ‘low impact’ and exempt from development approval if the telecommunication tower is located on in an industrial or rural area, which is used for industrial or rural purposes. As the subject site is zoned Local Centre and used for mixed residential and commercial purposes, the development cannot be considered as a low impact facility and is subject to development approval.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This application is being referred to Council for determination as a written objection was received during the community submission period.

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:

The subject site and surrounding area has a maximum building height of 4 storeys under the City’s Built Form Policy. This generally equates to a 16.3 metre building height for a building with a pitched roof. The area surrounding the site is currently characterised by one to three storey development. The lot directly adjoining the site to the south-east has development approval for a four storey mixed use development and the lot located on the opposite side of Little Walcott Street to the west is currently under construction for a four storey development.

 

The existing telecommunications tower on site is currently 24.50 metres in height and exceeds a four storey height. The proposed extension will increase the height by an additional 3.46 metres to bring the tower to a total height of 27.96 metres. The City’s Telecommunication Facilities Policy requires telecommunication towers to be of a slim line monopole design erected at the minimum possible height level. The existing tower is of a monopole design, however the existing antennas and infrastructure located along the tower have not resulted in a slim line appearance. The proposed application will remove the existing equipment and headframe located at 14 metres on the existing tower and will add new antennas at the top of the existing tower. This reduces the bulk of the structure as well as the visual clutter on the monopole and creates a more slim line appearance that is considered to accord with the City’s Telecommunication Facilities Policy, as can be seen in the photo montage submitted by the applicant and included as Attachment 3.

 

Overall, the slim line design of the proposed upgrade is considered to be significantly reduced the bulk and scale of the existing tower, despite the increase in height. The subject site is located within a local centre which predominantly contains commercial uses. There are not considered to be any identified views of significance in this area and the existing tower is not located within or adjoining any properties identified to have heritage or environmental value. As a result, the additional height is not considered to obstruct any significant vistas or have an adverse impact on the visual amenity or integrity of heritage properties, as is required by the City’s Telecommunication Facilities Policy.

 

The extension is proposed to be constructed using neutral colours and finishes to further assist in minimising the visual impact of the telecommunications tower. The design of the extension and upgrade is considered to have a minimal impact on the streetscape and the amenity of the surrounding area. Given the above, the additional height in the context of the overall proposal is considered to align with the City’s Telecommunication Facilities Policy and be appropriate.

 

The proposal will ensure that communications coverage is maintained without the introduction of an additional telecommunications facility within the locality. The increase in height is considered appropriated as the overall bulk of the tower has been reduced through the removal of the existing equipment and headframe currently mounted at 14 metres. On this basis the application has been recommended for approval. As the proposal relates to an addition to an existing telecommunications tower only, and does not increase the footprint of the tower, no specific conditions are recommended for the development approval.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

5.4          Nos. 33-35 (Lots: 53 & 350; D/P: 672 & 302361) Mary Street, Highgate - Additions and Alterations of an Existing Eight Multiple Dwelling Development to a Seven Multiple Dwelling Development and Construction of Two Grouped Dwellings - Reconsideration of Condition

TRIM Ref:                  D18/56196

Author:                     Remajee Narroo, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   12 – Hyde Park

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Copy of Approval

3.       Attachment 3 - Policy No. 3.9.3 - Parking Permits

4.       Attachment 4 - Applicant's Letter  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme APPROVES the application to amend planning approval 5.2014.716.1 for Proposed Additions and Alterations of an Existing Eight Multiple Dwelling Development to a Seven Multiple Dwelling Development and Construction of Two Grouped Dwellings, at Nos. 33-35 (Lots: 53 & 350; D/P: 672 & 302361) Mary Street, Highgate, granted on 30 June 2015, subject to the following condition:

1.       All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on planning approval 5.2014.716.1  granted on 30 June 2015 continue to apply to this approval, with exception of Condition 8 which is deleted.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to delete Condition 8 of the planning approval for additions and alterations of an existing eight multiple dwelling development to a seven multiple dwelling development and construction of two grouped dwellings, at Nos. 33-35 Mary Street, Highgate.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to delete of Condition 8 of the planning approval granted by Council at its meeting on 30 June 2015. Condition 8 requires a notice to be placed on the Sales Contract to advise prospective purchasers that the City of Vincent will not issue a residential or visitor car parking permit to any owner or occupier of the residential dwelling.

Background:

Landowner:

D G Canning Double Click Enterprises

Applicant:

John Kestel

Date of Application:

9 March 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Multiple Dwellings and Grouped Dwellings under Construction

Proposed Use Class:

Not applicable

Lot Area:

820m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Rear, Southern Side, 3.0 metres in width

Heritage List:

The existing building on the front portion of the Lot is a Category “B” listed building on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Mary Street, Highgate. The site is adjoined by single houses to the east and west. The Sacred Height Church and Primary School is located to the north, on the opposite side of Mary Street. The site abuts a three metre wide right of way (ROW) to the south. The area to the south of the ROW comprises of single storey single houses. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

Originally there were eight multiple dwellings existing on the subject site which were constructed in 1940s. On 30 June 2015 Council conditionally approved additions and alterations of the existing eight multiple dwellings, which included the replacement of one of the multiple dwellings with two grouped dwellings and the provision of 12 on-site car parking bays. Previously there were no parking bays required to be provided on site and all residents parked in Mary Street. This approval, along with the conditions and approved plans, are included as Attachment 2. The development is currently under construction.

 

This current application proposes to have Condition 8 of the approval deleted, which states as follows:

 

“8.        Car Parking Permits

 

A notice being placed on the Sales Contract to advise prospective purchasers that the City of Vincent will not issue a residential or visitor car parking permit to any owner or occupier of the residential dwelling;

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation on the proposal was not undertaken given the application is for reconsideration of a condition that requires notifications to be places on sales contracts and as such this condition is not considered to impact surrounding landowners.

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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 3.1 – Residential Design Codes;

·       Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the Council determined the previous 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:

Clause 2.1e(i) of the City’s Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits states that residential parking permits will not be issued for a grouped dwelling or multiple dwelling development where the development approval included a specific condition not to receive parking permits. It is considered that Condition 8 of the current planning approval for the subject site meets the intent of this provision and so currently parking permits would not be issued under this policy for the two grouped dwellings that form part of this approval unless discretion was exercised by the CEO. The deletion of Condition 8 would allow parking permits to be issued for the two grouped dwellings that form part of the development and would remove the requirement of the developer to notify purchasers that residential parking permits will not be issued for the development.

 

The applicant considers that removal of the condition is appropriate as parking permits were previously available for the eight multiple dwellings on site prior to Council’s 2015 planning approval, and that parking permits are issued to other existing residential developments on Mary Street. In addition, the applicant contends that the 12 on-site car parking bays provided by the development significantly reduced the demand for street parking, given all previous residents were only able to park on the street, and that as a result allowing parking permits for the development will not have any significant impact on street parking.

 

The City’s Parking Permits Policy allows two permits to be issued for each grouped dwelling and one permit to be issued for each multiple dwelling. Under this policy the eight multiple dwelling development that previously existed on the subject site would have been eligible for a maximum total of eight permits. The subject planning approval, which replaced one of the multiple dwellings with a grouped dwelling, would be eligible for a maximum of 11 parking permits if it were not for the restriction created by Condition 8 of the planning approval.

 

Condition 8 was imposed to administer the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits and not to address a specific planning purpose or parking issue on Mary Street. The removal of Condition 8 will allow the potential for an additional three parking permits to be issued for the subject site compared situation prior to the development. This is not considered to have any significant impact on the availability of on street parking within the surrounding area, particularly given that the development has provide 12 additional parking bays on site and so demand for parking permits is likely to be lower than previously. It is therefore considered appropriate that Condition 8 restricting the issue of car parking permits be deleted from the conditions of approval.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

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

TRIM Ref:                  D18/62131

Author:                     Kylie Harrison, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Precinct:                   10 – Norfolk

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Proposed Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Previous Determination and Plans  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme REFUSES the application for a proposed 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 reasons:

 

1.       The proposed awning does not meet Design Principles P2.1 and P2.2 of Clause 5.1.2 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1: Residential Design Codes for the following reasons:

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; and

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.

 

Purpose of Report:

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

PROPOSAL:

The proposal is to remove and replace the existing tile awning, measuring 0.7 metres in depth and 3.1 metres wide, with a colorbond bullnose awning. The bullnose awning is proposed to be 1.7 metres deep and 3.8 metres wide.

Background:

Landowner:

Arondina Van Der Feltz

Applicant:

Ric Van Der Feltz

Date of Application:

17 April 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    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 the addition of a 1.7 metre deep bullnose awning located on the northern side of the dwelling that will replace the existing tile awning in this location.  The awning is proposed to extend across the width of the front building façade to the edge of the carport roof, with a total width of 3.8 metres.  The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

 

The property has an 11.3 metre frontage to Coogee Street.

 

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.

 

2.         On 23 March 2017, the applicant lodged a development application (5.2017.100.1) for the exact 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.

 

3.         On 19 March 2018 the applicant resubmitted revised plans following the SAT decision for development approval for a carport and awning addition to a single house.  The proposed carport was relocated to the southern side of the property, and the awning addition proposed a 2.5 metre deep and 3.8 metre wide bullnose awning extending into the front setback area and located on the northern side of the dwelling, to replace the existing tile awning in this location.

 

On 4 April 2018, Council resolved to conditionally approve the proposed carport and refuse the proposed 2.5 metre deep bullnose awning.  The reason for refusal of the proposed awning was as follows:

 

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:

 

a.         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;


 

b.         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

 

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

 

4.       On 17 April 2018 the applicant lodged a revised application for a 1.7 metres deep and 3.8 metres wide colorbond bullnose awning in the same location as previously proposed to replace the existing tile awning. This application is the subject of this report.

 

See Attachment 3 for the most recent determination and development plans considered by Council on 4 April 2018.

Details:

The revised plans submitted, subject of this application for development approval indicate a reduction in depth of the proposed bullnose awning from the original 2.5 metre depth to 1.7 metres.  The proposed material for the awning remains as colorbond.  Officer advice to the applicant prior to submitting the current application was to that an awning of up to 1.7 metres in depth and 2.2 metres in width would meet the deemed-to-comply standards of the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and would be exempt from the need for development approval under the State Government Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015. The applicant has reduced the depth of the awning to 1.7 metres, however, has not modified the width of the proposed awning, which at 3.1 metres, remains over the maximum 2.2 metres. As a result, the awning requires development approval.

 

The revised plans submitted for approval consist of handwritten annotations made by the applicant including proposed dimensions over the original plans submitted on 19 March 2018. The following discrepancies, originating from the handwritten changes, are as follows:

 

·     the Site Plan does not reference the awning, which is the subject of this application, only the car port;

·       the roof plan does not align with the Ground Floor Plan; and

·       the design of the awning, as shown on Elevations 2 and 3 and the related perspectives, do not align with the measurement that has been handwritten onto Elevation 2.

 

Due to the applicant being overseas, the plans were not able to be amended and resubmitted with the correct details outlined above.  Given that the recommendation for this application for development approval is for refusal, it was not considered inherent that consideration of this item was delayed on the premise of the quality of plans.

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the 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

 


 

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

R Codes Clause 5.1.2

 

The primary street setback is calculated using the average of the five adjoining properties: 6.8m

 

A porch, balcony, verandah, chimney or the equivalent may (subject to the Building Code of Australia) project not more than 1m into the street setback area. Projections up to 1m are not subject to a compensating area, provided that the total of such projections does not exceed 20 percent of the building façade as viewed from the street. Projections greater than 1m and exceeding 20 percent of the building façade at any level are subject to an equivalent open area under Clause 5.1.2 C2 iii.

 

 

The proposed awning is setback 5.8m from the front boundary (extends 1.0m into the street setback area) with a width is 3.8m, which constitutes 41 percent of the total building façade as viewed from the street.

 

The above element 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 not undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.  In light of the recently determined application for a single carport and awning addition to the front of the existing dwelling (Ref. 5.2018.13.1), where only one submission was received, it was determined that the need to advertise the revised proposal for the proposed awning as not required on the following basis:

 

·       The revised design of the proposed awning shows a reduced depth from 2.5 metres to 1.7 metres, which will result in a lesser impact than the previous proposal; and

·       The members of the community have been previously informed of matters that affect them and no objections were received.

 

The previous application for a proposed carport and awning determined refusal for the proposed awning on the basis of its non-compliance with City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the R Codes, Clause 5.1.2 relating to Street Setbacks.

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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the application for a bullnose awning 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:

Street Setbacks

 

It is proposed to replace the existing tiled awning (approximately 0.7 metres deep and 3.1 metres wide) with a colorbond bullnose awning of 1.7 metres deep and 3.8 metres wide.  The applicant has noted the reasons for removal of the existing awning and support being given for the replacement with the bullnose awning as follows:

 

·       The existing awning is in a poor condition;

·       The existing awning is too small to keep the weather off the lead light window and tuck pointed wall underneath;

·       The awning is only 0.7 metres deeper and 0.84 metres wider than the existing awning;

·       The nominated material for the awning will match the remainder of the house as the roof of the existing dwelling is also in poor condition and will need to be replace with a colorbond roof; and

·       The 1.7 metre deep awning complies with the setback requirements.

 

The R Codes deemed-to-comply standards allow an awning to project no more than 1 metre into 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 deemed-to-comply standard for the awning is a setback 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 5.8 metres from the street boundary with a width of 3.8 metres and as such does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 5.1.2 of the R Codes. 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 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.  This design element is also reflected in nearby residences.  Reference is also made to the SAT decision on the previous carport application for this site, whereby 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.  Despite the applicant’s assertion that the roof for the remainder of the dwelling will be replaced imminently with colorbond, this assessment is limited to assessing the proposal against the existing materials and character of the dwelling.  As such, the colorbond material selected for the bullnose awning is considered to detract from the character of both the dwelling and established streetscape;

·       The width of the proposed awning fails to comply with the R Codes provisions for projections into the front setback area, with the total width proposed comprising 40 per cent of the building façade, which is double the maximum permissible 20 per cent of the building façade specified in the R Codes;

·       The addition of the bullnose awning reduces the street setback to 5.8 metres in lieu of the 6.8 metre average that is maintained by the adjoining five dwellings;

·       The recent approval for a single tiled roof carport within the front setback will significantly add to the bulk and scale of the dwelling to the street frontage.  For this reason, it is preferential that the existing tiled awning remain on-site, as it will maintain a significant area of open space and landscaping adjoining the recently approved 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’s view is 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. The proposed departures to the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes and Policy No. 7.1.1 in relation to the proposed bullnose awning is not considered to meet the corresponding design principles and will not positively contribute to the existing streetscape.  On this basis, the proposed bullnose awning is recommended for refusal.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

5.6          No. 33A (Lot: 2; STR: 70869) Redfern Street, North Perth - Proposed Dwelling (Grouped)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/53456

Author:                     Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Cathrine Temple, A/Manager Approval Services

Ward:                        North

Precinct:                   8 – North Perth

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location and Consultation Plans

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Applicant's Justification

4.       Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant's Response

5.       Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions and Administration's Response  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for the Dwelling (Grouped) at No. 33a (Lot: 2; STR: 70869) Redfern Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed street setback to Macri Lane does not meet the Design Principles P2.1 and P2.1 of Clause 5.1.2 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes and the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.2 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form as the street setback does not provide adequate open space for the dwelling to accommodate landscaping and the building mass and form does not minimise the proportion of the façade at ground level taken up by vehicle entries and parking, does not positively contribute to the development context of Macri Lane and does not incorporate design features to reduce the building bulk and scale onto Macri Lane;

2.       The proposed lot boundary setbacks to No. 33 Redfern Street and No. 35 Redfern Street do not meet the Design Principles P3.1 of Clause 5.1.3 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes as the impacts of building bulk on the western adjoining property and the overlooking and loss of privacy on the northern adjoining property resulting from the proposed setback will adversely impact on the amenity of the adjoining properties;

3.       The proposed garage does not meet the Design Principles P1 of Clause 5.2.1 and P2 of Clause 5.2.2 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes and the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.7 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, as it will detract from the streetscape and appearance of the dwelling given it is forward of the dwelling and occupies a greater proportion of the development frontage as viewed from Macri Lane;

4.       The proposed open space does not meet the Design Principles P4 of Clause 5.1.4 of State Planning Policy No. 3.1 Residential Design Codes, as it does not reflect the existing streetscape character, does not reduce building bulk on the site and does not provide an attractive setting for buildings, landscape, vegetation or the streetscape;

5.       The dimensions of the proposed outdoor living areas do not provide sufficient spaces for the areas to be used for active and passive use in conjunction with the dwelling; and

6.       Having due consideration of subclauses 67(m) and (n) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the development is not considered compatible with its setting due to the likely effect of building bulk, scale and appearance of the development on the character of the locality.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a Dwelling (Grouped) at No. 33a Redfern Street, North Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a two storey grouped dwelling at No. 33a Redfern Street, North Perth, which fronts and proposes vehicular access solely from Macri Lane.

Background:

Landowner:

Chantel Concei and Jade Concei

Applicant:

Chantel Concei and Jade Concei

Date of Application:

06 February 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R30/40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

223m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, sealed and owned by the City

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located on the southern side of Redfern Street, North Perth, fronting onto a ROW. The site is adjoined either side by two-storey houses, one to the east and one to the west, and a single-storey house to the north. The abutting southern ROW is 6.0 metres in width. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

 

The subject site is impacted by two existing boundary walls being 8.9 metres and 11.8 metres in width on the western and eastern boundaries respectively. The subject site and surrounding area is zoned Residential with a dual coding of R30/40 under the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). In accordance with Clause 26(1) of LPS2 the proposal has been assessed in accordance with R40 provisions of the R Codes, as the northern adjoining single house has been retained through the previous subdivision. The subject site is located within the ‘Residential’ built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

The existing ROW is predominantly characterised by garages and fencing, with only two single houses fronting Macri Lane. The materials of the streetscape include exposed brick, face brick, red brick and rendered garages and street walls, and corrugated fibre cement, colorbond, limestone and wooden fences.

 

The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s justification for the proposed departures from the deemed-to-comply standards is included in Attachment 3. Photographs of Macri Lane between Hunter Street and the intersection of Norham Street and Blake Street are included in Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2, the City’s Built Form Policy and the 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

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

ü

Front Fence

 

ü

Setback of Garages and Carports

 

ü

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Garage Width

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Open Space

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Privacy

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.2 of Built Form Policy

 

No deemed-to-comply standard (see comments below)

 

 

1m

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3 of Built Form Policy and 5.13 of the R Codes

 

Northern Boundary

 

Level 1: 2.0m

Level 2: 3.5m

 

 

 

 

Northern Boundary

 

Level 1: 1.9m

Level 2: 3.1m

Western Boundary

 

Level 1: 1.5m

Level 2: 3.4m

Western Boundary

 

Level 1: 1.2m

Level 2: 1.2m

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.1.4 of the R Codes

 

45%

 

 

44.3%

Setback of Garages and Carports

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.7 of Built Form Policy

 

Garages are to be setback a minimum 500mm behind the building line of the dwelling

 

 

Garage set forward 500mm in front of the building line of the dwelling

Garage Width

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.2.2 of the R Codes

 

Garage door and supporting structures facing the primary street not to occupy more than 50% of frontage

 

 

Garage door and supporting structures occupy 52% of frontage

Street Walls and Fences

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.10 of the Built Form Policy

 

Visual permeability of 50% above 1.2m

 

 

Visual permeability of 43% above 1.2m

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.1 of the R Codes

 

Minimum dimension 4m

 

Two-thirds uncovered by permanent roof cover

 

 

Courtyard and yard: Minimum dimension 3.419m

 

52% uncovered by permanent roof cover

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes

 

Setback of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces (balconies and courtyards): 7.5m

 

Setback of major openings to habitable rooms other than bedrooms and studies (meals room): 6m

 

 

Setback of balcony to the western boundary: 1.2m

 

Setback of meals room to the northern boundary: 4.7m

 

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 Schemes) Regulations 2015, from 1 March 2018 to 15 March 2018. The method of consultation being written notifications in the form or eight letters being mailed to all owners and occupiers as shown on Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Seven submissions were received, six of which objected to the proposal.

 

The main concerns raised by the submissions are as follows:

 

·       Building bulk and design;

·       Setback variations;

·       Streetscape and impact on Macri Lane;

·       Open space provisions;

·       Outdoor living area;

·       Landscaping;

·       Disruption of views;

·       Solar access and overshadowing; and

·       Ventilation.

 

The applicant’s responses to each submission is contained in Attachment 4. The summary of submissions and Administration’s comments on each issue raised is contained in Attachment 5.

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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       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 will have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of Council’s determination.

It is noted that the deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), who have instead issued approval for a modified set of deemed-to-comply landscaping standards that are similar to those set out in Design WA but which have not been approved by Council. As a result the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to those deemed-to-comply landscaping approved by Council in the Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the City received six written objections during the consultation period.

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:

Streetscape (Street Setback, Setback of Garages and Carports, Garage Width and Street Walls and Fences)

 

The proposed street setback from the dwelling is 1.5 metres from the primary street boundary, which in this instance is Macri Lane. The City’s Built Form Policy prescribes a deemed-to-comply setback, being the average of the five adjoining properties.  The existing dwellings on the five adjoining properties all address Redfern Street and therefore they do not provide a primary street setback to Redfern Street and therefore there is no deemed-to-comply street setback that applied in this instance. Accordingly, the street setback has been assessed against the relevant design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

The proposed garage is located 0.5 metres in front of the proposed dwelling line, in lieu of the deemed‑to‑comply setback of 0.5 metre behind the dwelling. The proposed garage width also does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards, comprising 52 percent of the street frontage in lieu of 50 percent. The proposed street fence too does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards, having a visual permeability of 43 percent in lieu of 50 percent. The applicant has justified these elements of the proposal on the basis that the existing Macri Lane streetscape is dominated by single storey garages and argued that as a result the development will not have an adverse amenity impact on Macri Lane or the visual outlook from any dwellings looking onto Macri Lane.

 

The subject site was a result of a subdivision approval issued by the Western Australian Planning commission on 22 September 2014, which approved the main frontage of any subsequently proposed dwelling as Macri Lane. Macri Lane is dominated by single storey garage and rear fences. All existing houses in the immediate vicinity of the subject site front Redfern Street and Elizabeth Street, with their rear outdoor living areas and yards adjacent to Macri Lane.

 


 

The proposed setback of the dwelling, at 1.5 metres does not allow space for sufficient landscaping to be provided between the dwelling and Macri Lane to soften the appearance of the dwelling, particularly given that at 6.1 metres in width, Macri Lane has itself limited space for landscaping. Any landscaping in this setback will be limited in height and scale given future canopy coverage will be restricted by the dwelling and the ROW. This, in addition to the garage being 0.5 metres in front of the dwelling and 52 percent of the width of the frontage, exacerbates the bulk and scale of the development and will detrimentally impact on the streetscape. The impact is further impacted by the limited permeability of the front fence and results in a development which will detrimentally impact on the streetscape and is not considered to satisfy the design principals and local housing objectives of the R Codes and the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

North

 

The development proposes a reduced setback of 3.4 metres from the northern lot boundary to the area titled ‘void’ at the top of the staircase adjoining the upper floor meals area, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 3.5 metres. The upper floor setback to bedroom 1 satisfies the deemed-to-comply standard as this portion of wall does not have a major opening. The applicant argues that the proposal is unlikely to have an adverse amenity impact with regard to building bulk and scale and that the depth of the subject site is a constraint in satisfying the deemed-to-comply 3.5 metre setback. An existing a single-storey house sits on the adjoining lot to the north and has two windows, including one major opening, and a rear door facing the development site.

 

Whilst the plans depict the area at the top of the staircase as a void, the reality is this space is of the same width as the adjoining meals and living area and could conceivably be used as an extension of this area. A setback of 3.42 metres from an upper floor major opening is considered not sufficient to achieve adequate privacy separation from the adjoining dwelling given there is a major opening along this boundary and that this space is the only rear outdoor area this dwelling has. A redesign of this window to a highlight window or obscure glass could address this issue, however, the proposal as presented is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R Codes and is therefore not supported.

 

West

 

The development proposes an upper floor setback of 1.2 metres to the western boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 3.4 metres. The applicant has justified this setback on the basis that it relates to an unscreened balcony and that there is an outbuilding located on the boundary in the adjoining property to the west. The applicant has contended that given this fact, the proposed setback of the dwelling from the western side boundary will not have an adverse impact on any outdoor living areas or major openings to the habitable rooms associated with the existing dwelling on adjoining No. 33 Redfern Street.

 

The affected adjoining lot (No. 33 Redfern Street) consists of a two-storey single house fronting Redfern Street, but which also has views from major openings across the subject site. These upper storey windows face Macri Lane and have a clear though oblique view across the development site. There is a single-storey garage, with a boundary wall, that sits below these windows facing Macri Lane. However, this garage will not screen the upper floor of the proposed development from the upper storey windows of No. 33 Redfern Street.

 

The upper floor wall of the proposed development facing the No. 33 Redfern Street provides no articulation and is one solid length of wall. No landscaping is provided along this western lot boundary to reduce the impact of the bulk this wall presents to No. 33 Redfern Street or Macri Lane. Consequently, the perception of building bulk is exacerbated and given this, the proposed lot boundary setbacks are not considered to reduce the overall building bulk of the proposed development and therefore do not satisfy the relevant design principles of the R Codes.

 

Open Space and Outdoor Living Areas

 

The applicant proposes 44.3 percent open space in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 45 percent an outdoor living areas with minimum dimension of 3.419 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply minimum dimension of 4 metres. The applicant has justified this on the basis that the outdoor living area is north facing and the development also includes separate clothes drying area as well as a 2.2 metre deep balcony fronting Macri Lane that provides a second outdoor area. The applicant has contended that this departure is acceptable on this basis noting that the site is one of a ‘small nature’ and the departures will not have a detrimental impact on neighbouring properties or the street.

 

Although the applicant considers the site to be of a ‘small nature’, the existing site area of the lot, as approved by the WAPC on 22 September 2014, exceeds the average site area of R40 density coding. It is agreed that the proposed open space does provide for access to natural sunlight and space for external features. However, the size of the outdoor living area, combined with the amount of open space and resulting lack of landscaping, is considered to be insufficient to contribute to the amenity of the development, which does not satisfy the design principles of the R Codes and is therefore not supported.

 

Landscaping

 

The applicant has provided 11 percent deep soil zone and 5 percent canopy coverage in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 15 percent and 30 percent, respectively. The applicant has contended that the small lot size and inability to plant species with large root systems in the open spaces proposed, impacts on the ability to provide vegetation that result in canopy coverage. The applicant has proposed to plant seven ornamental pear trees which reach a height of 8 metres, and five magnolia teddy bear trees which reach a height of 3 metres.

 

Administration considers the use of alternative species could provide a greater canopy coverage within the deep soil zones that are proposed. However, it is noted that the tree species suitable for within the front setback area is limited due to the constrained 1.5 metre primary street setback proposed for the dwelling.  Increased canopy coverage and landscaping can greatly assist in reducing the impact of building bulk as viewed from neighbouring properties and the public realm. Provision of high quality landscaping is imperative in achieving good built form outcomes and building design which is sympathetic to the character of the area and reduces the perception of building bulk and scale. It is not considered that the development provides adequate landscaping that contributes to the appearance and amenity of the development.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The application proposes a 1.2 metre setback from the first-floor balcony in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 7.5 metre. The proposed balcony results in overlooking onto a garage, and not over any outdoor living areas or into major openings into habitable rooms and as a result is considered acceptable.

 

Conclusion

 

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the street setback, lot boundary setbacks, setback of garages, garage width, street walls and fences, open space, outdoor living areas, landscaping and visual privacy. It is considered that the collective impact of these departures result in an overdevelopment of the site, and the perception and exacerbation of the building bulk and scale when viewed adjoining properties and Macri Lane. The proposed garage width and setback in front of the dwelling line is considered to result in a built form that dominates the dwelling, resulting in an unacceptable building bulk and scale when viewed from the primary street. The inadequate amount of canopy coverage from the proposed landscaping is considered to further exacerbate the perception of building bulk and size when viewed from neighbouring properties and public realm. The proposed building footprint of this proposal, in conjunction with the reduced lot boundary setbacks, is considered excessive for the R30/40 density applicable to the site. As a result of this overdevelopment, the proposal is unable to achieve adequate open space, deep soil zones, canopy coverage or outdoor living areas. This is considered to result in a negative built form outcome and impact on the amenity of both future residents, surrounding landowners and the public realm. The proposed development is not considered to satisfy the design principles of the R Codes or the Local Housing Objectives of the Built Form Policy relating to street setback, lot boundary setback, setback of garages and carports, garage width, open space, landscaping and outdoor living areas and is recommended for refusal.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

5.7          Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

TRIM Ref:                  D18/41183

Author:                     Jordan Koroveshi, Coordinator Policy & Place

Authoriser:                Stephanie Smith, Manager Policy and Place

Attachments:             1.       Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - Amendment Documents  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       PREPARES Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 included as at Attachment 1, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

2.       CONSIDERS Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 as a basic amendment under Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, on the basis that the amendment is intended to correct an administrative error, and an amendment to the scheme so that it is consistent with the model provisions in Schedule 1 or with another provision of the local planning scheme”; and

3.       FORWARDS Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to the:

3.1       Environmental Protection Authority pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

3.2       Western Australian Planning Commission within 21 days, subject to Section 57 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider preparing a basic amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (the Scheme) to incorporate a number of administrative modifications that improve clarity, correct minor errors and increase consistency with State legislation.

Background:

The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 was published in the Government Gazette on 16 May 2018. In the late stages of the Scheme approval process, a number of minor administrative errors were identified in the Scheme text and on the zoning map. While these were identified prior to the Scheme being published, it was determined that the legislative process did not allow for additional changes without preparing a formal amendment. As such, Administration compiled a list of all required changes, which forms the basis of this proposed Amendment 1 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (the Amendment).

Details:

There are 36 modifications that are proposed to be made to the Scheme. A full explanation of these is included in Attachment 1.

 

Modification 1 – 32 are administrative changes to correct spelling errors, grammatical errors, formatting and inconsistent wording with the Model Scheme Text.

 

Modification 33 and 34 relate to Supplemental Provisions. These are provisions which supplement the requirements of the Deemed Provisions, but do not overwrite them. Modification 33 and 34 modify the existing Supplemental Provisions by adding the parent clauses to the provisions themselves. This makes it easier for the reader to understand which clause in the Regulations is being supplemented, without needing to refer to a different document (the Deemed Provisions). Modification 33 corrects the clause number from 61A(1)(k) to 61(1)(k). Modification 34 also corrects the clause number from 67(cz) to 67(zc).

 

Modification 35 changes the definition of ‘consulting rooms’ to match the required definition in the Model Scheme Text. The definition in the Scheme was incorrectly written as a duplicate of that for ‘community purpose,’ as follows:

 

consulting rooms means premises designed or adapted primarily for the provision of educational, social or recreational facilities or services by organisations involved in activities for community benefit”.

 

The proposed definition is exactly the same as the Model scheme Text, as follows:

 

consulting rooms means premises used by no more than 2 health practitioners at the same time for the investigation or treatment of human injuries or ailments and for general outpatient care”.

 

Modification 36 replaces the R40 Residential Density Code for 50 Fairfield Street, Mount Hawthorn with the R60 Residential Density Code. This administrative correction is to ensure 50 Fairfield Street’s R-Code is the same as the R-Code on either side of it.

 

All of the proposed changes have been discussed with officers at the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage. The officers have agreed in writing that all 36 proposed amendments can be considered as a ‘basic’ amendment under Section 34 of the Regulations.

Consultation/Advertising:

As the proposed Amendment is considered a ‘basic’ amendment, no formal advertising or consultation is required. The City has contacted the landowner of the affected property at 50 Fairfield Street, Mount Hawthorn to advise of this Amendment.

Legal/Policy:

If Council resolves to prepare the Amendment, the City will forward the Amendment Documentation to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for its consideration under Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Once the EPA is satisfied there are no environmental concerns, the City will forward the Amendment Documentation to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage for endorsement by the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Minister for Planning, pursuant to Section 63 of the Regulations.

Risk Management Implications:

Proceeding with the Amendment will mitigate the risk of errors causing issues with communication and interpretation of the Scheme.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

“1.1.1    Develop and implement a Town Planning Scheme and associated policies, guidelines and initiatives that deliver the community vision.”

 

The proposal aligns with Council’s Strategic Priority:

 

“Best practice transparency, accountability & financial management”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed Amendment has no measurable effect on sustainability.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Administrative expenses can be met within the current operating budget.

Comments:

The proposed changes to the Scheme are relatively minor and administrative in nature and are considered necessary to improve clarity, legibility and consistency throughout the planning framework. It is recommended that Council initiate the Amendment to the Scheme.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

6            Engineering

6.1          Review of Engineering Policies Relating to Verge Treatments and Street Trees

TRIM Ref:                  D18/60361

Author:                     Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Property Services

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Draft Revised Policy 2.1.2 - Street Trees

2.       Draft Revised Policy 2.2.4 - Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to advertise the draft revised Policies 2.1.2 – Street Trees and 2.2.4 – Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification included as Attachments 1 and 2 respectively, for public comment for a period of 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

 

2.       NOTES that a subsequent report will be submitted to Council at the conclusion of the public comment period and completion of risk assessments.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider revised draft Policies 2.1.2 and 2.2.4 for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Background:

Policy 2.1.2 – Street Trees was first adopted by Council on 22 May 2007 and was due for review on 22 May 2012.  Policy 2.2.4 – Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification was first adopted by Council on 14 August 2007 and is due for review in December 2018.

 Details:

Administration has reviewed the effectiveness of Policies 2.1.2 and 2.2.4 and is recommending changes to both policies to take a more liberal approach to permitting attachments to street trees and greater variety in verge gardens.

 

The policies reviewed are listed below together with commentary regarding the reasons for the proposed changes.

 

Policy No.

Policy Name

Commentary

2.1.2

Street Trees

This policy provides guidance on the care, control and management of street trees.  Whilst the majority of the policy remains unchanged, an important amendment has been made with the addition of a section referred to as Street Tree Attachments.

 

The proposed changes will, upon approval, allow residents to attach various items to street trees such as rope ladders, swings and platforms, subject to certain criteria being met.

 

2.2.4

Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification

This policy provides guidelines and specifications for permissible verge treatments.

 

An important amendment has been made to the Beautification of Verges section.

 

The proposed changes will allow residents to install items such as raised garden beds, seats, logs, rocks and various forms of paving on their verge, subject to certain criteria being met.

 

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation relating to policies is only required for new policies or where significant amendments are being proposed. The changes being proposed to both policies are considered to be contemporary and (anecdotally) reflective of the Vincent community’s expectations, but they are nonetheless important insofar as they contribute to a change to the streetscape.  As such, it is recommended the revised draft policies are advertised for twenty-one days in accordance with the Community Consultation policy.

Legal/Policy:

Policies provide essential 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 policies.

Risk Management Implications:

Failure to review Council policies does not result in any breach of legislation, however the routine review and readoption of policies will ensure their continued currency and alignment with Council and community expectations.

 

In progressing with the proposed significant changes to Policy No. 2.1.2 - Street Trees and Policy No. 2.2.4 - Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification, Administration has been in regular contact with the City’s insurer, Local Government Insurance Services (LGIS).

 

The type of treatments proposed are already widely present across the City and LGIS has advised that no claims have been received related to the type of verge and tree treatments proposed.

 

To mitigate any residual risks and ensure that appropriate controls are in place, Administration will undertake a more detailed risk assessment of the proposed permissible verge treatments before the amended policies are presented to Council for final adoption.

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 up-to-date suite of policies serves to ensure that the City’s practices are operating effectively and this in turn may enhance sustainability principles.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Comments:

Policy Nos. 2.1.2 - Street Trees and 2.2.4 - Verge Treatments, Plantings and Beautification have been amended in recognition of verge space being seen as important useable urban space.  These amendments are considered to be substantial enough to warrant public advertising to gauge community sentiment on the proposed permissible verge treatments.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

6.2          Proposed Traffic Management and Safety Improvement - Edinboro Street, Mount Hawthorn

TRIM Ref:                  D18/64630

Author:                     Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Design

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Plan No. 3456-CP-01A

2.       Comment Sheet  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

 

1.       NOTES the comments received as outlined in Attachment 1, regarding the proposals for:

 

1.1       two speed humps in Edinboro Street located either side of the Edinboro Street Reserve as shown on Plan No. 3456-CP-01A (Attachment 2); and

 

1.2       a raised plateau through the intersection of Edinboro and Ellesmere Streets;

 

2.       APPROVES the installation of two speed humps in Edinboro Street located either side of the Edinboro Street Reserve as shown on Plan No. 3456-CP-01A (Attachment 2), to be funded from  the 2018/19 Miscellaneous Traffic Management Capital Works Budget, and

 

3.       DOES NOT APPROVE a raised plateau at the intersection of Edinboro and Ellesmere Streets; and

 

4.       ADVISES all respondents of its decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcome of the recent community consultation regarding the proposal to install two speed humps in Edinboro Street, Mount Hawthorn, either side of the Edinboro Street Reserve and a raised plateau at the intersection of Edinboro and Ellesmere Streets as a means of controlling the speed of traffic.

Background:

Edinboro Street is approximately 0.95km in length, linking Scarborough Beach Road to Green Street, and is classified as an Access Road under the Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy and subject to the 50kph urban speed limit.  In addition the section between Woodstock and Green Streets is part of the Transperth 403 bus route.

 

The function of an Access Road is defined as:

 

‘Providing access to abutting properties with safety aspects having priority over the vehicle movement function.  In urban areas, these roads are bicycle and pedestrian friendly, with aesthetics and amenity also important.  Access Roads are managed by local government’.

 

Over the past year the City has been approached by two separate groups of residents, those representing the section between Hobart and Woodstock Streets, and those representing the section from Woodstock Street to Green Street.

 

The residents, for the section Hobart Street to Woodstock Street, while concerned about traffic volumes and speed in general, specifically focused on road safety in area immediately adjacent the Edinboro Street Reserve, a small but very popular, park and playground.

 

The residents north of Woodstock Street were primarily concerned about speed including that of the Transperth buses.

Further, both groups of residents are of the opinion that the traffic volumes have increased since the construction of the Shakespeare Street Bike Boulevard Stage 1 (Street Safe Active Streets) in 2017 as motorists seek to avoid the lower speed limit and traffic calming measures.

Details:

Over the past months the Mayor and a number of Councillors, as well as that of the Administration, have spoken to residents about their concerns around traffic volumes and speed in Edinboro Street.

 

The concerns of the residents of the southern end of Edinboro Street differ to those at the northern end.

 

At the southern end the major concern is about child safety and the speed of traffic in the vicinity of the Edinboro Street Reserve.  Whereas from Woodstock Street north it is more about speed and including that of the Transperth buses.

 

As a result of the representation by residents traffic data has been collected in Edinboro on a number of occasions over the past year.  In addition the Department of Transport has collected data for Shakespeare Street Bike Boulevard post construction.

 

Analysis of Data:

 

For the section between Hobart Street and Woodstock Street the data was collected in June 2017 and again October 2017.  The June period coincided with the completion of the majority of the Shakespeare Street Bike Boulevard works while the October collection was approximately three months after it was completed.  For Edinboro Street north, Woodstock Street to Green Street, the data was collected in June 2017, and is as per the table below:

 

LOCATION

AWT

Ave Speed

kph

85% Speed

kph

% Heavy

5 Day Peak Vehicle/hr

AM

PM

Ellesmere to Green

973

45.7

53.5

9.4*

108.8

111.0

Woodstock to Ellesmere

1,076

46.8

54.9

9.9*

123.4

122.4

Hobart to Woodstock Nov.14 (before Bike Boulevard)

1,189

43.5

51.5

2.5

116.6

128.2

North of reserve Jun. 17

1,270

39.0

46.5

3.6

141.6

135.8

South of reserve Jun. 17

1,283

41.6

50.4

3.8

142.4

133.2

North of reserve Oct. 17

1,188

43.8

50.1

2.6

129.4

121.0

South of reserve Oct. 17

1,192

44.7

52.1

3.1

128.2

120.6

 

AWT = Average Weekday Traffic.

 

*the higher than average volume of heavy/commercial vehicles can be attributed to the buses.

 

As can be seen from the data the volumes at the northern end of Edinboro Street are approximately 11% lower than those of the southern end, conversely the 85% speed is about 9% higher (between the highest and lowest).

 

Specific to speed it would not warrant Police attention as their criteria for active or programmed enforcement (as opposed to random) on local or Access Roads is an 85% speed 10 kph and over the speed limit.

 

In respect of traffic volumes while some residents are of the opinion the traffic volumes are excessive there are a 103 dwellings on Edinboro Street (between Hobart and Green Streets) all of which generate daily vehicle trips.  Using a conservative 6 trips per day per property the residents would potentially generate in the order of 620 daily trips.  However an average two car family with children tends to generate far more than 6 trips per day and therefore the resident’s movements potentially equate to more than 50% of all traffic.

 

It was also suggested that traffic volumes had increased as a direct result of motorist avoiding the (parallel) Shakespeare Street 30kph ‘Bike Boulevard’.  However, the November 2014 and October 2017 data indicates that upon completion of the Shakespeare Street Bike Boulevard works, the traffic in the southern portion of Edinboro Street returned to pre-construction levels.

Proposed Traffic Calming Treatments

 

Hobart Street to Woodstock Street

 

The resident’s primary focus is on the area abutting the park.  The proposed treatment, as discussed with the residents, is a speed hump, with the appropriate signage and line-marking, be installed either side of the reserve as shown on the drawing 3456-CP-01A (Attachment 1).

 

The intention of the speed humps is two-fold, to reduce the speed, and in conjunction with the existing signage, to act as visual cue to the driver that there are children in the area.

 

Woodstock Street to Green Street

 

For the section north of Woodstock Street a number of options were canvassed with residents with the emphasis on the intersection of Ellesmere and Edinboro Streets.

 

Currently the stop control at the intersection is on Ellesmere Street while Edinboro Street is free flowing.  It was suggested that the simplest and most cost effective treatment would be to reverse the stop control to Edinboro Street.  The rational being that it would interrupt the through traffic resulting in lower speeds including that of the buses.

 

However, given that regulatory line-marking and signage is a function of Main Roads WA the City sought Main Roads advice on the feasibility from both a safety and operational perspective.  Having assessed the location Main Roads advised that they would not support the change.

 

An alternate suggestion is to construct a ‘raised’ plateau through the intersection, similar to those on the Shakespeare Street bike boulevard.

 

While Main Roads are unlikely to support a raised plateau either as it does not involve regulatory line-marking or signage, the City ultimately has the authority to proceed.

 

However, the discomfort of bus passengers aside (as the bus passes over the plateau), raised plateaus generate noise, with the constant breaking of vehicles and shifting of loads.  As a consequence several of the residents who homes are located at the intersection also approached the Administration directly (in addition to their written submissions) with their concerns.

Consultation/Advertising:

Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation policy where residents of Edinboro Street were asked to comment on both proposals.  The residents were supplied with two comments sheets, one for each location, with the intention that they (the residents) would submit either one or both, depending upon where they lived.  While generally this occurred some residents took the opportunity to provide alternate suggestions.

 

Required by legislation

No

Required by City of Vincent Policy

Yes

 

Consultation Period

5 April to 20 April 2018.

Comments Received

103 consultation packs were distributed. At the close of consultation 60 responses were received.

 

Speed humps either side of the reserve. 

 

28 in favour, 6 against and 1 provided a qualified support.

 

Raised plateau inter. Edinboro & Ellesmere Streets

 

18 in favour, 4 against and 3 suggested an alternative*.

(Refer Attachment 1).

 

*A roundabout, which, because the grade and constraints of intersection could not be accommodated without significantly impact on all four abutting properties, and is considerably more expensive.

Legal/Policy:

Edinboro Street is under the care, control and management of the City of Vincent

Risk Management Implications:

Low/Medium:   While the recorded 85% speeds and the traffic volumes are well within the criteria the proposed traffic calming should improve the amenity of the majority of residents by better regulating traffic speed in the street.

Strategic Implications:

In keeping with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective’s 1 states:

 

“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.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

As the proposed speed humps are considered minor works and would cost in the order of $6,000 they can be funded from the 2018/19 ‘draft’ Miscellaneous Traffic Management budget.

 

However the proposed plateau at the intersection of Edinboro and Ellesmere Streets is considerably more expensive and is estimated to cost in the order of $25,000 (dependent upon services). 

Comments:

The issue of traffic speeds, volumes and rat running can be an emotive subject with residents and not always supported by the traffic data.

 

In this instance both the speeds and volumes are within the operating criteria for an Access Road.

 

For the southern end of Edinboro Street the residents are of the view that the imperative is the safety of the reserve users, and in particular children, and that the speeds are too high.  Further, some are of the opinion that the data does not take into consideration the ‘hoon’ factor, the individual traveling at excessive speed.

 

However, while acknowledging that the data does not support the need for traffic calming, there is a community expectation that the City will implement appropriate measures to reduce speed in the vicinity of the reserve using the Safe Active Streets principles.  Therefore, in this instance, the Administration supports installation of the two speed hump as a low cost and effective treatment.

 

For the northern end, Woodstock Street to Green Street, the issue is a combination of speed and the buses.  It has been explained to the residents that the bus routes and frequency are determined by the Public Transport Authority and that the Council has limited influence on these matters.  Further, Main Roads WA will not support reversing the stop control at the intersection of Ellesmere and Edinboro Streets and nor will a roundabout work at this location given the site constraints. 

 

Therefore, in light of the above, and given the prohibitive cost, the installation of a raised plateau is not supported and nor has it been included in the 2018/19 ‘draft’ Capital Works budget.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

6.3          Response to Notice of Motion - City Building Information

TRIM Ref:                  D17/178755

Author:                     Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Design

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       City Building Information  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the information on the City’s buildings provided in this report in response to Councils decision from 12 December 2017 (Item 14.2); and

2.       NOTES that a project to review and assess the City’s building asset portfolio will be listed for consideration in the 2018/19 to 2022/23 Corporate Business Plan.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider information on the City’s buildings and community facilities to Council as a first step in a project to review and assess the City’s building assets portfolio in order to develop a strategic approach to sustainably manage the City’s building assets.

Background:

A textbook definition of Asset Management is that it ‘is a systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading, and disposing of assets cost-effectively.’  In general terms it can be defined as a process that guides the acquiring of assets, and their whole of life use in order to gain the most out of an asset, and to know at what point to dispose of them.

 

Notice of Motion

 

At its meeting on 12 December 2017, Council considered a Notice of Motion (Item 14.2) relating to the City’s building asset portfolio and resolved as follows:

 

That Council:

1        LISTS FOR CONSIDERATION in the 2018/19 to 2022/23 Corporate Business Plan a project to review and assess the City's building asset portfolio in order to:

 

1.1       Develop a strategic framework that assesses the long term need for and required number, nature and type of community building assets within the City;

1.2       Determine the City of Vincent's position in providing and maintaining those building assets, taking into account both community needs and the City's long term financial sustainability;

1.3       Identify opportunities for the City to efficiently and effectively manage its building assets portfolio; and

2.       To assist in Council’s timely deliberations on 1. above, REQUESTS the CEO to provide a report to Council by March 2018 comprising the following for each building in the City’s building assets portfolio:

2.1       A summary of its current use, tenure and occupancy arrangements;

2.2       An opinion on the extent to which it satisfies or could satisfy a current or future community need;

2.3       An estimate of the future asset maintenance and renewal costs; and

2.4       Identification of options to sustainably manage the asset management and renewal burden on the community.

 

This report is presented to Council in response to resolution 2 above.

Details:

Strategic Approach

 

The City has 81 structures over 57 sites in its property portfolio which imposes a significant and on-going maintenance cost to the City particularly as many of the building have traditionally not been maintained to an optimum standard and/or are being underutilised. If the City is to continue to provide an acceptable level of service through its buildings it is imperative that a review is undertaken of City building assets and a determination made on how they can be best utilised to service the needs of the community going forward.

 

Administration has commenced work to review the City’s buildings based upon a significant volume of data collected over the past two years. The initial high level review has confirmed that the City is not spending enough on its building stock to either maintain the current standard or upgrade the various facilities to improve their level of service. Increasing expenditure on building asset maintenance to overcome the maintenance backlog and then maintain or increase the standard of buildings would represent a significant financial burden on our community given the likely need for those costs to be substantially funded through rates.

 

There are a number of strategic approaches that the City could take in order to ensure a sustainable future for its building asset portfolio:

 

·           Increasing investment in its building stock

·           Rationalising its building stock through disposal or demolition

·           Making clear decisions on its approach to key buildings to create a smaller number of high quality, well utilised public buildings whilst accepting that others will be maintained to a basic functional standard; or

·           A mixture of all the above approaches

 

It is accepted that some decisions regarding the City’s building assets portfolio will also be strongly influenced by the outcomes of other work currently being undertaken, such as various Reserve Master Plans and a City-wide Public Open Space Strategy.

 

Building Assets Information

 

In accordance with the Notice of Motion of 12 December 2017 a Buildings Asset Information Table (refer Attachment 1) has been developed.  It combines asset condition data, current and future cost projections for all of the City’s buildings and 2015/16 and 2016/17 utilisation data (collected by Community Partnerships).

 

The net result is a table that collates information in relation to each of the City’s buildings in one place.  The table provides Administration and Council with an opportunity to commence the process of determining options for the future use of individual facilities based upon evidence and data (condition, financial, utilisation) rather than anecdotal information.

 

Review and Assessment of the City’s Building Asset Portfolio

 

In addition to the requirement to provide the information contained in the attachment to this report the Notice of Motion also requires that Council “lists for consideration in the 2018/19 to 2022/23 Corporate Business Plan a project to review and assess the City’s buildings asset portfolio”. The outcome of this process is ultimately:

 

·           to make decisions on the required number and type of community building assets

·           to identify how they can be sustainably managed from a community needs and financial perspective, and

·           to identify opportunities to efficiently manage the portfolio to achieve these outcomes.

 

A project to systematically review and asses the portfolio using the information collated as part of this report will be listed for consideration in the Corporate Business Plan to be delivered in 2018/19.

Consultation/Advertising

The information contained in the attachment to the report was collated by the Asset and Design team through consultation with officers in Community Engagement and Corporate Services.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

The City exposes itself to a number of risks if it does not effectively manage its property portfolio. These risks are financial and reputational as poor management will lead to increasing costs and failure to meet the needs of the community. In recent years, Council has already had to contend with the results of historical under investments in building asset maintenance.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

“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.”

 

In addition, the outcomes of this report going forward will assist in the development of the 2018/2019 budget.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil arising directly from this report. However, the long term financial impost on the City (and therefore the community) to maintain, renew or redevelop its buildings is very significant in the context of the budget process and Council’s Long Term Financial Plan into the future.  The Building Assets information included as Attachment 1 to this report provides a starting point for the discussion on the options for managing the City’s buildings in a financially sustainable way.

Comments:

This report provides an overview of all of the City’s buildings as the basis for a systematic review of the City’s Building Asset portfolio. It is proposed that this review will take place in 2018/19 and will be used to inform Council on the best way to manage the portfolio in the longer term. The outcome will be a Buildings Asset Management Plan (or a series of plans) that will make recommendations on how each building should be managed.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

6.4          Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023

TRIM Ref:                  D18/69986

Author:                     Kylie Hughes, CSO Waste Minimisation

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023  

 

Recommendation:

That Council APPROVES the draft Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 for public comment for a period of 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the Draft Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 for the purpose of advertising public comment.

Background:

In response to the necessity for long-term decision-making and improvement in Waste and Recycling Services, the City has been developing a Draft Waste Strategy as contained in Attachment 1.  The requirement for a Waste Strategy is included in the Corporate Business Plan 2016/17 – 2019/20 (CBP) with the Engineering Directorate as the responsible Directorate. The Strategy was identified in order to;

-     Guide the implementation of waste minimisation measures that will achieve greater waste diversion higher in the waste hierarchy than landfill and energy recovery.

-     Inform a review of the City’s delivery of waste management to the community.

Details:

The draft strategy proposes the following overarching aims:

1.         Zero waste to landfill through maximising avoidance and recovery

2.         Engaged and informed community

3.         Long-term planning to maximise opportunity

4.         Cost effective and contemporary waste services

5.         Working in collaboration, locally and regionally

It is proposed that the City will approach delivery of the strategy by:

-           Application of the ‘Waste Hierarchy’ in all Projects

-           Working towards Zero Waste to landfill throughout the Waste Strategy implementation

-           Investigating opportunities for the Circular Economy (local solutions)

-           Considering the carbon emissions which result from the management of waste


 

The overall target is to achieve zero waste to landfill and the draft strategy proposes that specific targets are developed in Year 1 of the Waste Strategy in response to the outcomes of individual projects. Accurate and relevant targets for waste reduction and recovery for the City must be informed by and aligned with the new State Waste Strategy expected later in 2018.

Consultation/Advertising:

The consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Community Consultation Policy and the results of the consultation will be reported back to Council following assessment by Administration.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

The City exposes itself to risk if it does not have a strategy to guide the long term planning and development of its waste and recycling services. The Waste Strategy will ultimately provide the guidance required as the City strives to manage its waste in an efficient, effective and ore sustainable fashion.

Strategic Implications:

The draft Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028 (SCP) is the City’s most significant guiding document and establishes the community’s vision for Vincent’s future. The SCP will drive our planning, budgeting, resource allocation and service delivery over the next decade, in order to focus our efforts and align our activities to achieve the community’s vision.

 

As described, the Corporate Business Plan 2016/17 – 2019/20 (CBP) instigated the development of the Waste Strategy and those projects therein.  The Waste Strategy has addressed the following draft community derived outcome areas within the Draft SCP:

 

-         Priority 1: Enhanced Environment

1.4     Our use of resources and management of waste is more efficient

 

-         Priority 6: Leadership & Governance

6.1     Programs, events and actions are proactively communicated

6.2     We are open and accountable

6.3     We are financially responsible

6.4     Assets are appropriately planned, managed and delivered

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Waste has a significant impact on the environment and the strategy supports the City to sustainably manage its waste and to minimise its impact on the environment.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

 

However, the City currently spends in the region of $6.5M on its waste and recycling services each year and a strategic approach is required to ensure that services are cost effective and that the impact of the rising landfill levy is controlled. The Waste Strategy proposes that a number of projects are delivered, resulting in options that will consider the cost of services as part of the appraisal process.

Comments:

This report presents a draft Waste Strategy that will be a key document to guide the future direction of the City so that it can effectively manage its waste. It is considered timely to now release the strategy for full public consultation to allow community feedback on the strategy before it is finalised for implementation.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

6.5          LATE REPORT: Waste Strategy Summit 2018

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL BRIEFING – 22 MAY 2018

 

 

 

  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

7            Corporate Services

7.1          Leases to Department of Health to govern Department's current use of the Child Health Clinics within City of Vincent

TRIM Ref:                  D18/60136

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Property Leasing Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ACKNOWLEDGES the community benefit provided by the child health clinics located within the City of Vincent and on this basis SUPPORTS the subsidisation of the Department of Health’s use of the City’s buildings to provide this service, which is estimated to be $23,000 per annum (including depreciation). 

2.       APPROVES a lease of the Loftus Child Health Clinic, located at 99 (Lot 501) Loftus Street, Leederville, to the Department of Health, commencing on 1 July 2018, on the following key terms:

2.1.      Term:                           5 years;

2.2.      Option Term:               Three 5 year terms at City’s discretion;

2.3.      Permitted Purpose:     Child health clinic;

2.4.      Rent / Utility fee:          $5,000 incl GST per annum (indexed by CPI), based on current                                level of use of clinic by lessee and level of service provided by                                the City (particularly cleaning frequency);

2.5.      Rates & Taxes:            to be paid by City;

2.6.      Utilities:                       to be paid by City;

2.7.      Insurance:                   building insurance premium to be paid by City, lessee to effect                               and maintain public liability insurance;

2.8.      Indemnity:                   Department to indemnify the City against any loss / damage;

2.9.      Repairs:                       City to repair and maintain premises, including structural;

2.10.     Cleaning:                     City to organise cleaning three times per week;

2.11.     Toilet access:              Department has a licence to access the toilet within the centre;

2.12.     Capital works:             at sole discretion of the City; and

2.13.     Redevelopment:           City may terminate the lease to redevelop the centre by providing                                     1 years’ notice in writing.

 

3.       APPROVES a lease of the Mt Hawthorn Child Health Clinic, located at 197 (Lot 274) Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn, to the Department of Health, commencing on 1 July 2018, on the key terms set out in 2. above, except for 2.11.

4.       APPROVES a lease of the Highgate Child Health Clinic, located at 84 (Lot 150) Harold Street, Mount Lawley, to the Department of Health, commencing on 1 July 2018, on the key terms set out in 2. above, except for 2.11.

5.       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 leases in 2, 3 and 4 above. 

6.       NOTES that the North Perth Child Health Clinic is located at 20 (Lot 4) View Street, North Perth which is owned by the Multicultural Services Centre of WA Inc (MSCWA) and the Ethnic Communities Council of WA Inc (ECC) and that the City currently leases the clinic portion of the building from the MSCWA and ECC.

 

 

7.       NOTES that the Department of Health has confirmed an interest in entering into a lease directly with the MSCWA and ECC, and that Administration will monitor the negotiations and investigate the termination of its lease with the MSCWA and ECC and present a report to Council in respect to the prospective termination of its lease following successful lease negotiations between the Department of Health and MSCWA and ECC.  

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider entering into leases with the Department of Health (Department) to formalise the Department’s current use of the child health clinic buildings within the City of Vincent.

Background:

Child health clinics are operated and managed by the Department across the state. The Department has provided the below information addressing the community benefit provided by the clinics:

 

“The Department (Child and Adolescent Community Health (CACH)) provides a comprehensive range of community based early identification and intervention services to children, adolescents and families. CACH’s focus is on growth and development in the early years, promoting wellbeing during childhood and adolescence. The service is provided from birth to school entry, and is primary and high school based thereafter.

 

Service delivery is both universal (Child Health Nursing) and targeted (Child Development Services) and includes child health nursing, child development services, immunisation and school health. Groups at risk of poorer health outcomes, such as Aboriginal people and newly arrived refugees, are of particular focus. The community based services CACH provides contribute heavily to the health, growth, development and overall life trajectory of children and adolescents in the Perth Metropolitan area. It is also known to reduce the occurrence of illness and further developmental delays in the broader community and reduce the overall costs associated with illness prevention.

 

Achievement of CACH’s mission and vision would not be possible without the right facilities within each local community so that all families have equal opportunity to access these services close to home.”

 

Historically the clinics have been located within local government owned properties without a lease or other tenure arrangement governing the use. The general practice has been for the relevant local government to repair and maintain the building, while the Department is responsible for the internal fit out and the management and operation of the clinic.

 

Health Clinic Buildings

 

The following child health clinics operated by the Department are within the City of Vincent:

·       Loftus Child Health Clinic – Loftus Centre, 99 Loftus Street, Leederville;

·       Mount Hawthorn Child Health Clinic – Mount Hawthorn Community Centre, 197 Scarborough Beach Road, Mt Hawthorn;

·       Highgate Child Health Clinic – 84 Harold Street, Mount Lawley; and

·       North Perth Child Health Clinic – 20 View Street, North Perth.

 

The Loftus and Mount Hawthorn Clinics are located within community centres which are owned and managed by the City. The City repairs and maintains the whole building, including the health clinic, and organises the cleaning of the health clinic portion. The utilities for the building are apportioned between the lessees and the City, with the City paying the health clinic portion. Bathroom / toilet facilities for the community centre are used by the health clinic nurses and clients. The health clinics are in serviceable condition consistent for the age of the building.

 

The Highgate Clinic is freestanding and is located on a 475 square metre freehold lot which is zoned ‘Public Purpose (Civic Use)’ pursuant to the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 and draft Local Planning Scheme No. 2. The City cleans, repairs and maintains the building and garden and pays all utility costs. The building is in a serviceable condition consistent for the age of the building.

 


 

The North Perth Clinic is located on a portion of 20 View Street at the rear of Multicultural House, which is the administration centre for the Multicultural Services Centre of WA Inc (MSCWA). 20 View Street was sold by the City to the North Perth Migrant Resource Centre of WA Inc (now the MSCWA) and Ethnic Communities Council of WA Inc (ECC) in 1999. The sale was governed by a Deed of Contract dated 14 April 1997 which provided that the concessional purchase price of $100,000 (market value of $170,000) was acceptable to the City on the condition that the MSCWA and ECC lease the rear portion of the building to the City for no charge for a term of 10 years with three 10 year option terms. The Lease was entered into on 1 May 2000 and was actually for a term of 99 years commencing on 20 December 1999, with a further 99 year option term.

 

The North Perth Clinic has been located at 20 View Street since 2000 and is in a good condition. The City cleans, repairs and maintains the health clinic portion of the building and pays the associated utility costs.

 

Use and demand for Child Health Clinics

 

The Department has advised the City that the four child health clinics are well utilised and given the demographics of Vincent the demand for the clinics is likely to remain steady or increase. As at April 2018 there are 2,581 children registered for services at the four child health clinics. Seventy percent of these children reside within the City of Vincent.  The services provided by the clinics include universal child health checks, home visits, drop-in sessions, group sessions, clinical phone calls and targeted individual and group sessions to support families with additional needs. Between 2015 and 2017 (three year period) the clinics provided over 15,300 instances of these services to the community.

 

In light of the current use and predicted future demand for the clinics, Administration recommends that the Department’s current use of the four clinics is formalised to define the City and the Department’s responsibilities in respect to the provision of the service and management of the building. Administration notes that other local governments have recently negotiated leases with the Department in respect to the use of buildings for child health clinics.

Details:

On 15 February 2018 Administration met with a representative of the Department to discuss the Department’s current use of the child health clinics with the intent of formalising the use. By email dated 27 February 2018 Administration provided the Department with the proposed lease terms for the Mount Hawthorn, Loftus and Highgate clinics. The terms are set out below:

 

Term:                              5 years;

Option Term:                   three 5 year terms at City’s discretion;

Permitted Purpose:         child health clinic;

Rent:                              nominal;

Rates & Taxes:               to be paid by Department via Variable Outgoings;

Utilities:                          to be paid by Department via Variable Outgoings;

Insurance:                       building insurance premium to be paid by City, Department to effect and maintain public liability insurance;

Indemnity:                       Department to indemnify the City against any loss / damage /claims;

Repairs:                          City to repair and maintain premises, including structural;

Cleaning:                        Department to organise cleaning three times per week;

Toilet access:                 Department has a licence to access the toilet within the centre (appliance for Mount Hawthorn and Loftus Clinics only);

Capital works:                 at sole discretion of the City; and

Redevelopment:              City may terminate the lease to redevelop the land by providing one year’s notice in writing.

 

Administration noted in the email that the North Perth Child Health Clinic is not owned by the City and therefore it would be appropriate for the Department to negotiate the future use directly with the owners of the land, the MSCWA and ECC. Administration met with representatives of the MSCWA and ECC on 4 April 2018 to discuss the termination of the City’s lease of the child health clinic portion of the building and the opportunity for the Department to lease the clinic directly from the MSCWA and ECC. The Department is currently liaising directly with the MSCWA and ECC in respect to a future lease, and conditional on the Department, MSCWA and ECC reaching agreement on a direct a lease, Administration will negotiate the termination of its lease with the MSCWA and ECC.   

 


 

The Department responded to Administration’s email on 10 April 2018 confirming that the proposed terms were in general acceptable to the Department, subject to:

 

·       the City organising the cleaning of the clinics;

·       the Department paying an annual utility / outgoings fee of $5,000 per clinic to cover utility and cleaning costs (this is the fee paid to other local governments for use of health clinic buildings); and

·       the City paying all other costs associated with the clinics, including rates and taxes.

 

Administration notes that cleaning is currently the highest annual cost for each clinic. The clinics are currently cleaned by the City’s contracted cleaner, Academy, four times per week. Administration, the Department and the respective clinic nurses have agreed that cleaning three times per week is sufficient and will reduce the cleaning costs to $2,262 per clinic per annum. If the clinics are cleaned three times per week and the utility costs for each clinic remain consistent with previous years’ costs, the $5,000 utility / outgoings fee proposed by the Department is relatively consistent with the estimated costs for 2018/19, as set out in the table below:

 

Clinic

Statutory compliance work

Utilities

Routine maintenance (aircon/pests)

Cleaning (3 times per week)

Total cost for each clinic per annum

Highgate

$100

$3,000

$600

$2,262

$5,962

Loftus

$100

$1,000

$1,000

$2,262

$4,362

Mt Hawthorn

$100

$3,000

$1,000

$2,262

$6,362

TOTAL COST

 

 

 

 

$16,686

 

A site visit of the four clinics was attended by Administration and a representative of the Department on 10 April 2018. As a result of the site visit the following works are proposed at each clinic to ensure the clinics are in good repair at the commencement of the proposed leases:

 

·       Loftus Clinic – ceiling and light fitting replacement and new carpet;

·       Mount Hawthorn – ceiling and light fitting replacement and new carpet; and

·       Highgate – kitchen refurbishment.

 

The following work was also proposed for the North Perth Clinic in anticipation of the termination of the City’s lease:

 

·       internal repaint;

·       replacement of carpet; and

·       vinyl buffing in kitchen and waiting room / foyer area.

 

Funding for the above work is included in the 2018-19 Capital budget.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration met with a representative of the Department on 15 February and 10 April 2018 and has negotiated the terms of the proposed leases.

 

Administration also met with representatives of MSCWA and ECC on 4 April 2018 to discuss the termination of the City’s lease of 20 View Street.

 

As the proposed disposition is to a State government department the City is not required to advertise or provide public notice of the proposal.

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (WA) (Act) provides that a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to sell or lease property) in accordance with section 3.58(3) unless the disposition falls within the scope of section 3.58(5), which includes:

 

“(d)       Any other disposition that is excluded by regulations from the application of this section.”

 

Regulation 30(2)(c)(ii) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides that a disposition to a department or agency of the state is an exempt disposition for the purposes of section 3.58(5) of the Act.

 

Therefore as the proposed dispositions are to the Department the City is not required to comply with section 3.58. 

The City’s Leasing Policy 1.2.1 provides the following guidance in respect to the lease term:

 

 “1.       Any new lease granted by the Council shall usually be limited to a five (5) year period, and any option to renew shall usually be limited to no more than a ten (10) year period.

 

2.         Council may consider longer periods where the Council is of the opinion that there is benefit or merit for providing a longer lease term.”

 

In accordance with this Policy Administration is proposing a five year term with two five year option terms at the City’s discretion. Administration is also proposing a redevelopment clause to allow the City to terminate the lease at any time if the land is to be redeveloped, provided one years’ notice is given to the Department.

Risk Management Implications:

High            The Department is currently using the four clinics without any formal arrangement to govern the use. This poses liability and indemnity risks for the City and is also resulting in the City expending money on repairs, maintenance, cleaning and utilities for the benefit of the Department, without any formal recognition or clarification of responsibility.

                  

The proposed leases will address these issues and ensure that the service can continue to be provided to the local community.

Strategic Implications:

The proposed leases align with the following objectives in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2023:

 

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

 

2.1.3     Develop business strategies that reduce reliance on rates revenue

 

(c)        Continue to review leases and commercial contracts to ensure the best return for the City, whilst being cognisant of its community service obligations.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

N/A

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs the City incurred in 2016/17 in respect to the clinics is set out below.

 

CHILD HEALTH CLINIC EXPENSES 2016-17

 

 

 

Item

North Perth

Highgate

Loftus

Mt Hawthorn

Maintenance - General

$771.24

$0.00

$0.00

$577.28

Maintenance - Lighting & Electrical

$501.75

$711.12

$292.37

$376.26

Cleaning

$3,814.55

$4,606.13

$4,199.91

$2,979.79

Security

$213.00

$0.00

$65.00

$0.00

Refuse Collection

$207.33

$32.43

$64.68

$0.00

Maintenance - Roof / Gutter

$0.00

$264.48

$0.00

$0.00

Maintenance - Fire Appliance

$86.30

$196.95

$0.00

$90.61

Maintenance - Pest Control

$370.14

$123.25

$34.17

$0.00

Maintenance - Air Conditioner

$520.00

$480.00

$1,899.50

$0.00

Utilities

$2,450.99

$3,262.47

$760.93

$3,129.79

Depreciation Expense

$5,393.75

$3,917.17

$4,427.05

$6,393.85

Building Insurance

$259.75

$173.60

$204.19

$276.90

ESL & Other

$123.55

$379.63

$61.45

$250.62

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL

$14,712.35

$14,147.23

$12,009.25

$14,075.10

(MINUS DEPRECIATION)

$9,318.60

$10,230.06

$7,582.20

$7,681.25

 

 

 

 

 

TOTAL FOR ALL CLINICS

 

 

 

$54,943.93

(MINUS DEPRECIATION)

 

 

 

$34,812.11

Administration and the Department have agreed to reduce cleaning to three times per week for each clinic, which is estimated to reduce the City’s costs in respect to the three clinics to approximately $25,000 in 2018/19. The total depreciation for all three buildings is estimated to be $13,000 in 2018/19, therefore the total cost estimated for 2018/19 is $38,000.

 

The $5,000 utility / outgoing fee put forward by the Department is being recommended by Administration as an appropriate fee as it largely offsets the utility and cleaning costs associated with each clinic. However, the $5,000 is based on the current utility prices and level of service at each clinic (particularly cleaning frequency), and therefore if these factors change the fee will be adjusted accordingly. The Lease can be drafted to reflect this.

 

It is noted that the utility / outgoing fee may not offset all costs the City incurs in respect to each respective building, especially the general repair and maintenance costs. Based on the community benefit provided by the clinics Administration recommends that the City should be subsidising the Department’s provision of the service, and therefore the proposed fee is acceptable. The subsidy is estimated to be $23,000 in 2018/19 (including depreciation).

 

The termination of the City’s lease of the health clinic portion of 20 View Street will mean the City will have no further costs in respect to this building, which is estimated to result in a cost saving of $10,000 in 2018/19.

 

The cost of the works proposed at each clinic to ensure the clinics are in good repair at the commencement (termination in the case of the North Perth clinic) of the proposed leases is $70,000. This has been included in the draft budget.

Comments:

Administration recognises the community service the health clinics provide and based on the current and predicted future demand for the service is supportive of the continued use of the buildings by the Department for this purpose. Governing the Department’s current use of the clinics via a lease will clarify and protect the City’s and Department’s respective roles, responsibilities and liability. The recommended lease terms reflect the current arrangement at each clinic, however, imposes a $5,000 utility / outgoing fee on the Department which will offset the majority of the City’s utility and cleaning costs incurred in respect to each clinic.

 

On this basis Administration recommends that a lease of the Highgate, Loftus and Mount Hawthorn child health clinic buildings is granted to the Department on the terms set out above.

 

In respect to the North Perth child health clinic building, Administration will investigate the termination of its lease with the MSCWA and ECC and subject to successful negotiations of a direct lease between the Department, the MSCWA and the ECC, will recommend to Council that a surrender of lease is prepared to terminate its lease. This will ensure that the service provided by the North Perth child health clinic is not interrupted.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

7.2          Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 April 2018 to
30 April 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/64104

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Payments by EFT April 18

2.       Payments by Cheque April 18

3.       Payments by Credit Card April 18  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 April 2018 to 30 April 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

Cheque Numbers 82210 - 82277

 

$83,301.24

Cancelled cheques 82148, 82210 and 82270

 

-$1,759.56

EFT Documents 2231 - 2243

 

$4,302,271.37

Payroll       

 

$635,714.55

 

 

 

Direct Debits

 

 

·      Lease Fees

$135,290.06

 

·      Loan Repayments

$148,530.29

 

·      Bank Fees and Charges

$138,793.83

 

·      Credit Cards

$8,331.85

 

Total Direct Debit

 

$430,946.03

Total Accounts Paid

 

$5,450,473.63

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 1 April 2018 to 30 April 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 1 April 2018 to 30 April 2018, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

PAY PERIOD

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

Cheques

82210 - 82277

$83,301.24

Cancelled Cheques

82148, 82210 and 82270

-$1,759.56

EFT Payments

2231 - 2243

$4,302,271.37

Sub Total

 

$4,383,813.05

 

 

 

Transfer of Payroll by EFT

17/04/18

$635,714.55

 

April 2018

$635,714.55

 

 

 

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits

 

Lease Fees

 

$135,290.06

Loan Repayments

 

$148,530.29

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$138,793.83

Credit Cards

 

$8,331.85

 

 

 

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)

$430,946.03

 

 

Total Payments

 

$5,450,473.63

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.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

7.3          Investment Report as at 30 April 2018

TRIM Ref:                  D18/64110

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 30 April 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 30 April 2018 including on call in the City’s operating account were $33,647,074; compared to $30,661,122 for the period ending 30 April 2017.

 

Total Investments for the period ended 30 April 2018 were $31,177,278 as compared to $34,622,001 for the prior month end; and $26,206,328 for the period ending 30 April 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

$36,377,700

$34,622,001

April

$30,661,122

$26,206,328

$33,647,074

$31,177,278

May

$27,412,051

$25,718,292

 

 

June

$24,670,461

$23,533,279

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

Total accrued interest earned on Investments as at 30 April 2018:

 

 

Revised Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$423,000

$399,607

$442,384

110.70%

Reserve

$220,000

$192,089

$199,575

103.90%

Sub-total

$643,000

$591,696

$641,959

108.49%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$116,593

0.00%

Total

$643,000

$591,696

$758,552

128.20%

 

*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:

Nil.

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%

29.5%

30%

Nil

90%

54.7%

A1

25%

0.0%

30%

Nil

80%

0.0%

A2

20%

15.9%

n/a

Nil

60%

45.3%

 

*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 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:

Nil.

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 decreased from the previous period due to excess of payments to creditors and other expenditures over cash receipts, which is the expected seasonal cash flow.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.55% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.64% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for March 2018 is 2.06%.

 

As at 30 April 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income exceed the year to date budget estimate by $50,263 (8.49%).

The City’s Investment Policy states that 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”. Accordingly the City uses Marketforce.com to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investment in fossil fuel related entities. 45.24% of the City’s investments were held in institutions considered non-fossil fuel lending by Marketforce.com as at 30 April 2018.

 

The investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

 

·       Investment Performance & Policy Compliance Charts;

·       Investment Portfolio;

·       Investment Interest Earnings; and

·       Current Investment Holding.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

7.4          LATE REPORT:  Financial Statements as at 30 April 2018

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETING 29 MAY 2018

 

  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

8            Community Engagement

8.1          Seasonal Licences for use of Charles Veryard Pavilion - Modernians Hockey Club Inc., Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc. and Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club Inc.

TRIM Ref:                  D17/53475

Author:                     Karen Balm, Community Partnerships - Projects Officer

Authoriser:                Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments:             1.       Plan of Winter Licence Area (Hockey and Football Club)

2.       Plan of Summer Licence Area (Cricket Club)

3.       Plan of Storage Shed Licence Area (Cricket and Football Club)  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

 

1.       APPROVES the termination of the Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc. and Modernians Hockey Club Inc. joint monthly tenancy of the clubrooms and cricket wickets (turf and practice wickets) at Charles Veryard Reserve, pursuant to clause 14 of the Lease dated 2 October 2009; 

 

2.       APPROVES a joint winter Licence (1 April – 30 September) for the use of Charles Veryard Reserve Pavilion (excluding public toilets) to the Modernians Hockey Club Inc. and Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club Inc. on the terms set out below:

 

2.1          Term:                                         Two winter seasons;

2.2          Licence Fee:                              $2,175 plus GST (indexed by CPI) to be paid by each Club;

2.3          Licence Area:                            Kitchen, servery, social room, cool room, shared storeroom and change rooms (whole of Pavilion except for public toilets and storage areas);

2.4          Permitted Purpose:                   Sporting and recreational activities;

2.5          Days of Use (Mods):                  Monday, Thursday, Saturday and alternating Friday;

2.6          Days of Use (Cardinals):            Tuesday, Wednesday, Sunday and alternating Friday;

2.7          Outgoings (utilities & ESL):      Clubs pay 93 per cent of electricity and water charges (during season of use) and 50 per cent of the Emergency Services Levy – to be divided equally between Hockey and Football;

2.8          Insurance:                                 Clubs to effect and maintain public liability insurance;

2.9          Cleaning:                                   Clubs to keep clean and tidy during season;

2.10        Hand Over:                                At end of season Clubs to steam clean floor, touch up paint, and remove all items from area to the City’s satisfaction;

2.11        Maintenance:                             City to repair and maintain (including cleaning gutters and removing graffiti), and undertake structural maintenance and repairs, except if damage caused by Clubs, in which case Clubs to pay cost;

2.12        Minimum Level of Service

(statutory fire compliance

checks, pest inspections):        City to conduct at City’s cost;

2.13        Shared Use of Clubrooms:        Clubs can hire clubrooms at rates consistent with City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges;

2.14        Shared Use of Change

Rooms:                                      Clubs must provide use of change rooms to schools and community groups hiring the Reserve, subject to payment of a nominal cleaning fee of $30 per hour; and

 

2.15        Termination:                              In the event that the Reserve is not available for use by a Club, or is not of a suitable standard, the Club may terminate the Licence by providing one (1) months’ notice in writing to the City and if the Licensor and Licensee agree in writing that the Licence is no longer required, the Licence will terminate on the day that the Licensee yields up the Premises;

 

3.       APPROVES a summer Licence (1 October – 31 March)  for the use of Charles Veryard Reserve Pavilion (excluding public toilets) to the Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc. on the terms set out below;

 

3.1          Term:                                         Two summer seasons;

3.2          Licence Fee:                              $4,350 plus GST (indexed by CPI);

3.3          Licence Area:                            Kitchen, servery, social room, cool room, shared storeroom and change rooms (whole of Pavilion except for public toilets and storage areas);

3.4          Permitted Purpose:                   Sporting and recreational activities;

3.5          Days of Use:                              Monday – Sunday; 

3.6          Outgoings (utilities & ESL):      Club pay 93 per cent of electricity and water charges (during season of use) and 50 per cent of the Emergency Services Levy;

3.7          Insurance:                                 Club to effect and maintain public liability insurance;

3.8          Cleaning:                                   Club to keep clean and tidy during season;

3.9          Hand Over:                                At end of season the Club is to steam clean floor, touch up paint, and remove all items from area to the City’s satisfaction;

3.10        Maintenance:                             City to repair and maintain (including cleaning gutters and removing graffiti), and undertake structural maintenance and repairs, except if damage caused by the Club, in which case the Club to pay cost;

3.11        Minimum Level of Service

(statutory fire compliance

checks, pest inspections):        City to conduct at City’s cost;

3.12        Shared Use of Clubrooms:        Club can hire clubrooms at rates consistent with the City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges;

3.13        Shared Use of Change

Rooms:                                      Club must provide use of change rooms to schools and community groups hiring the Reserve, subject to payment of a nominal cleaning fee of $30 per hour; and

3.14        Termination:                              In the event that the Reserve is not available for use by the Club, or is not of a suitable standard, the Club may terminate the Licence by providing one (1) months’ notice in writing to the City and if the Licensor and Licensee agree in writing that the Licence is no longer required, the Licence will terminate on the day that the Licensee yields up the Premises;

 

4.       APPROVES annual Licences to the Tuart Hill Cricket Club and Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club to exclusively use their respective storage areas for the term of the seasonal Licences set out above, on the terms set out below:

 

4.1          Cleaning:                                 Club/s to keep storeroom clean and tidy; and

4.2          Maintenance:                          City to repair and maintain, except if damage caused by clubs, in which case Club/s to pay cost;

 

 

5.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director Corporate Services to affix the common seal and execute the Licences as set out above;

 

 

6.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY a waiver of fees for Modernians Hockey Club Inc. totalling $4,361.16 in recognition of Pavilion usage by Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club during the 2014/15 to 2017/18 period ;

 

7.       APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY a write-off of fees for Modernians Hockey Club Inc.  totalling $8,915.82 in recognition of Pavilion usage by Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club during the 2014/15 to 2017/18 period and restricted Pavilion access during the refurbishment works; and

 

8.       NOTES that Administration shall negotiate an appropriate agreement with Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc. regarding turf cricket wicket management and maintenance for further consideration by Council. 

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the shared use of Charles Veryard Reserve Pavilion by the Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc., Modernians Hockey Club Inc. and Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club Inc. through Seasonal Licences. 

Background:

Tuart Hill Cricket Club and Modernians Hockey Club have jointly held a Lease over the Charles Veryard Pavilion, practice wickets and turf wickets located at Charles Veryard Reserve since 1999. The term of the current Lease, dated 2 October 2009, expired on the 30 September 2014 and there is a further option period of five years expires on 30 September 2019. Both Clubs have confirmed their intention to exercise their option to extend the Lease for the term 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2019, however a Deed of Extension of Lease has not been finalised. In the interim both Clubs are leasing the Pavilion as monthly tenants pursuant to the holding over clause of the Lease.

 

In 2014, Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club advised Administration that due to their ongoing membership increases there was a need to improve amenities at Menzies Park and consider the relocation of some teams. Following investigations Charles Veryard Reserve was recommended by Administration as the most appropriate location for the Club. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 March 2014 (Item 9.2.6), Council resolved as follows:

 

‘1.        NOTES that;

 

1.1        the proposed redevelopment plans for Menzies Park presented by the Cardinals Junior Football Club have not been well received by the local community and the regular users of Menzies Park;

 

1.2        a petition with seventy five (75) signatures opposing the proposed redevelopment plans at Menzies Park was presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 11 March 2014; and

 

1.3 t      the City’s Mayor and Officers have held a number of meetings with the Tuart Hill Cricket Club, the Modernians Hockey Club and the Cardinals Junior Football Club to enable the co-existence of the three (3) clubs at Charles Veryard Reserve, North Perth, to provide better utilisation of the public open space, (refer attached Plan No. 3134-CP-01);

 

2.         AUTHORISES the A/Chief Executive Officer to re-negotiate the current Lease of the Charles Veryard Reserve pavilion to include the Cardinals Junior Football Club to the satisfaction of all parties;

 

3.         APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to reallocate an amount of;

 

3.1        $18,000 from the 2013/2014 ‘Forrest Park Fencing Installation Budget’ for costs associated with Cardinals Junior Football Club’s co-existence with Tuart Hill Cricket Club and Modernians Hockey Club at Charles Veryard Reserve for the winter season commencing 12 April 2014; and

 

3.2        $60,000 from the 2013/2014 ‘Birdwood Square Floodlighting Budget’ for the proposed Charles Veryard Reserve Lighting Upgrade;

 

 

 

4.         LISTS for consideration amounts of $320,000 and $60,000 respectively in the 2014/2015 Draft Budget for the provision of additional change rooms and including a storeroom, scoreboard, refurbishment of the existing building and the additional funding required to complete the sports lighting upgrade at Charles Veryard Reserve; and

 

5.         ADVISES the petitioners and the Cardinals Junior Football Club, Tuart Hill Cricket Club and the Modernians Hockey Club of its decision.’

 

The City commenced refurbishment of the Pavilion and upgrade of the sports floodlighting in February 2016. The refurbishment included expansion of the kitchen, servery, social room and kiosk, relocation of the public toilets, provision of a more extensive shaded area for parents and spectators as well as the provision of separate storerooms for all three clubs. The refurbishment also included the construction of a free standing 15m x 3.6m storage shed to the east of the cricket practice nets. The Cricket Club currently has exclusive use of two-thirds of the storage shed (with access via roller shutters) and the Football Club has exclusive use of the remaining third, with access via a separate roller shutter. The refurbishment was completed in September 2016, with the total cost being $641,536.

 

Administration previously commenced negotiations with the three clubs in regards to a new Lease at Charles Veryard Reserve based upon the following terms:

 

·      Joint Lease from 1 October 2014 to 30 September 2019 with a further five (5) year option;

·      Rent of $4,350 for Tuart Hill Cricket Club, $2,175 for Modernians Hockey Club and $2,175 for Mt Hawthorn Junior Football Club (all per annum plus GST indexed to CPI);

·      Outgoings to be paid jointly by the Lessees; and

·      Rates and Taxes to be paid jointly by the Lessees.

 

These proposed Lease terms were presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21 October 2014 for consideration however the item was deferred.  As such, the refurbished Pavilion has been occupied by the Cricket Club since October 2016 and by the Hockey and Football Clubs since April 2017 although no formal agreement has governed this shared use.  Apportionment of outgoings and some maintenance costs have been on hold pending the establishment of a formal shared use agreement.  The Hockey Club, in good faith, has provided the Football Club with Pavilion access as required in the absence of any formal agreement.  

Details

Local Sporting Club Membership

 

Charles Veryard Reserve has been important location for community sport and recreation for an extended period of time.  All three Clubs are locally based with a significant proportion of their membership base residing within the City of Vincent, as follows:

 


Club

Junior Members

Senior Members

Total Members

Modernians Hockey Club Inc.

248 (61% local residents)

222 (28% local residents)

470

Tuart Hill Cricket Club Inc.

Nil

145 (80% local residents)

145

Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club Inc.

380 (75% local residents)

Nil

380

Total

995

 

Replacement of Lease with Seasonal Licences

 

Upon investigating the most appropriate tenure arrangements for Charles Veryard Pavilion it was identified by Administration that a proposed joint Lease is not appropriate given that Clubs are sharing the Pavilion and therefore do not have exclusivity.  A Lease grants a lessee exclusive possession of a premises for a specified term, however at Charles Veryard Reserve the Clubs use is only seasonal and therefore access is on a shared rather than exclusive use basis.  A Licence is more appropriate as it provides the licensee/s with a contractual right to use the premises at certain times subject to certain conditions.

 

The proposed winter season Licence would be between the City and the Hockey Club and the City and the Football Club. The proposed summer season Licence would be between the City and the Cricket Club. Furthermore, the seasonal Licences would provide for exclusive use of specific storage areas (storeroom and portion of shed).  Attachment 1 and Attachment 2 delineate the specific winter and summer season Licence areas with Attachment 3 delineating the storage shed Licence area.

 

The current Lease provides that the Cricket Club must maintain the two turf centre wickets and turf practice nets, as they are defined as part of the Lease area. The Lease specifically sets out that the Cricket Club is responsible for the maintenance, and all associated costs.  In lieu of these responsibilities the Cricket Club has not been charged reserve hire charges throughout their tenure at Charles Veryard Reserve.  The proposed seasonal Licence will not include the turf wickets and practice nets as part of the Licence area, and instead Administration is currently developing a separate formal arrangement to govern turf wicket maintenance.  This agreement and proposal for a turf wicket subsidy will be presented to Council for consideration as a separate item

 

Seasonal Licence Terms

 

The seasonal Licence terms will reduce the Clubs’ responsibilities when compared to the current Lease. The Clubs will have exclusive use of the Pavilion during their specified seasons and it is proposed the City will maintain the premises and repair any damage (unless it is caused by the Clubs). The key differences of the proposed terms when compared to the current Lease are summarised below:

 

Proposed Licence Terms

Current Lease Terms

Licence area is social room, kitchen, servery, bar, storeroom / shed and change rooms

Lease area is whole Pavilion, turf & practice wickets

Term of 2 years

Term of 5 years with 5 year option

Licence Fee of $2,175 (Hockey Club and Football Club) and $4,350 (Cricket Club) per annum plus GST and indexed to CPI for each Club

$3,540 plus GST per annum indexed to CPI – currently approx. $4,440 for the Cricket Club and $4,320 for the Hockey Club

City to pay building insurance premium

Pay building insurance premium

Clubs to pay for utilities during season of use (excluding public toilet area – therefore Clubs will pay 93 per cent of utilities costs)

Clubs to pay all utilities

City to maintain premises and repair damage, except if caused by Clubs

Clubs to maintain premises and repair damage

City to conduct minimum level of service checks at own cost

City to conduct minimum level of service checks at cost of Clubs

Clubs must provide school and community groups using Charles Veryard Reserve with use of the change rooms with a nominal cleaning fee of $30

School and community group access at the Clubs discretion

 

A term of two years has been proposed to determine the effectiveness of these seasonal Licence arrangements, and given that Administration are currently reviewing the suitability of existing Lease/Licence terms and conditions for not-for-profit community organisations.  It is fully expected that these Clubs will continue to use the Pavilion and Charles Veryard Reserve beyond this two year period.

 

Licence Fee

 

Administration is proposing that the Licence fee for the Hockey Club and Football  Club is $2,175 per annum each and $4,350 for the Cricket Club (plus GST and indexed to CPI) totalling $8,700.  The proposed Licence fees have been based on the amount previously recommended by Administration in October 2014.

 

Apportionment of Utilities

 

As the Pavilion includes public toilets it is necessary for the utilities to be apportioned so the Clubs are not responsible for the costs associated with these amenities. Administration considered and investigated a range of charging methodologies including the installation of a sub meter and the apportionment of costs based on fixtures and fittings, however apportionment based on the area occupied by each Licensee is the preferred method.  Given that the public toilets account for 7 per cent of the total Pavilion area the City would be responsible for 7 per cent of the associated water and electricity costs.  This means that the Cricket Club will pay 93% of utilities costs during the summer season while the Hockey and Football Clubs will each pay 46.5% of utilities costs during the winter season.

 

Cost Implications for the Clubs and the City

 

The Table below shows that the approximate cost implications for the Clubs under the proposed seasonal Licences will be slightly less when compared to the current Lease terms.  This is primarily related to the building insurance premium, emergency services levy, building repair and maintenance costs, pest inspections and statutory fire appliance testing.

 

Terms

Licence Costs

Lease Costs

Rent / Licence fee

$8,700

$8,880

Water costs

$3,400

$3,430

Electricity costs

$3,200

$3,660

Waste

$2,400

$2,400

Building Insurance Premium

-

$1,260

Maintenance costs recouped

-

$3,000

Pest inspections & statutory compliance

-

$900

Emergency Services Levy

$1,500

$1,500

Total

$19,200

$23,530

 

The estimated costs for the Cricket Club are $9,600 per annum and $4,800 each for the Football and Hockey Clubs per annum whereas current costs for the Cricket and Hockey Clubs are approximately $11,765 per annum. Given that the Football Club has similar Pavilion access requirements to the Hockey Club, and their usage requirements will likely increase based on growing membership, it is considered fair and reasonable that they should be responsible for an equal portion of the costs pursuant to a seasonal Licence.  It should be noted that these estimated Licence costs may vary particularly during the winter season as it is anticipated that the Football Club may increase utilisation of the Pavilion upon their tenure arrangements being formalised.

 

Administration considers these arrangements and associated costs justifiable given the access and usage by three local sporting clubs with nearly 1,000 members and the associated community benefits. Furthermore, under the proposed Licence terms the Clubs are now obligated to provide schools and community groups with access to the change rooms when the group hires the sportsground. The Clubs can charge a nominal fee of $30 per day to cover additional cleaning costs associated with use of the change rooms by the school or community group. The proposed Licence terms require any external hire charges to be consistent with the City’s Annual Schedule of Fees and Charges.

 

Notably, under a Licence arrangement the City assumes a range of maintenance costs given that the Clubs do not have exclusive use.  This equates to approximately $15,000 per annum which is included within the annual operating budget noting that this figure does not include depreciation or future asset renewal costs.

 

Interim Pavilion Access Arrangements & Outstanding Costs

 

As building tenure negotiations were not concluded prior to relocation of the Football Club to Charles Veryard Reserve or prior to refurbishment of the Pavilion, and the proposed Lease terms were deferred by Council in October 2014, there has been no formal agreement to govern shared use of the Pavilion for an extended period of time.  The Hockey and Cricket Club are using the Pavilion as monthly tenants pursuant to the holding over clause within the Lease and the Football Club has been using the Pavilion solely due to the good faith and community minded outlook of the Hockey Club.

 

Given these circumstances it is considered appropriate to review the lease costs attributable to the Hockey Club from 2014/15 to 2017/18 in recognition that the Pavilion has been used by the Football Club during winter seasons over this period, and it should not be necessary for one sporting club to effectively subsidise community building utilisation by another sporting club.  Had a formal agreement been in place the Hockey Club would have likely been responsible for only 50% of the associated lease costs during that period as per the terms being proposed within the new seasonal Licence arrangements.  In addition, it has been revealed that the Hockey Club was not provided with any relief from lease costs when Pavilion access was restricted during the refurbishment from February to September 2016 nor were they provided with any temporary accommodation. 

 

Administration has reviewed all lease costs attributable to the Hockey Club throughout that period, both paid and outstanding, and now recommends that $4,361.16 be waived and $6,675.74 be written-off in recognition of use by the Football Club.  These figures are based on 50% of the total lease costs for each winter season during that period remaining payable by the Hockey Club.  In addition, it is recommended that a further $2,240.08 be written-off for restricted access to the Pavilion by the Hockey Club during the Pavilion refurbishment.  The specific details are provided within the Table below:

 

Total Cost

($)

Amount Payable by Hockey Club

($)

Waiver

($)

Write-Off

($)

Lease Fee 2014/15

4,319.10

2,159.55

-

2,159.55

Lease Fee 2015/16

4,431.42

2,215.71

-

2,215.71

Lease Fee 2016/17

4,480.16

-

-

4,480.16

Building Insurance 2016/17

662.96

331.48

331.48

-

Water Usage 2016/17

525.90

262.95

262.95

-

Water Usage 2016/17

120.80

60.40

-

60.40

Lease Fee 2017/18

4,538.58

2,269.29

2,269.29

-

Building Insurance 2017/18

596.66

298.33

298.33

-

Water Usage 2017/18

661.36

330.68

330.68

-

Power Usage 2017/18

1,736.86

868.43

868.43

-

Total

$22,073.80

$8,796.82

$4,361.16

$8,915.82

 

It is recommended that these costs be waived and/or written-off in good faith on the proviso that the Football Club now remains responsible for meeting 50% of costs as proposed within the new seasonal Licence.  The alternative is to retrospectively on-charge $11,036.90 to the Football Club although this is not considered feasible as that they have not previously been charged for use of the amenities at Menzies Pavilion, they were not subject to a formal agreement at Charles Veryard Reserve Pavilion, and they are a locally based not-for-profit junior sporting club.

 

The Hockey Club has already made numerous payments towards the $8,796.82 amount deemed payable with only $3,706.31 remaining outstanding.

CONSULTATION/ADVERTISING:

Administration has consulted with all three Clubs and provided them with the Licence (draft) comprising the terms now being presented to Council, and based upon feedback a number of amendments have been made to ensure a mutually agreeable outcome.  During the most recent discussions both the Hockey Club and Football Club advised that they are amenable to a Licence based upon a 50/50 cost sharing arrangement during each winter season.

legal/Policy:

The Local Government Act 1995 section 3.58 - Disposing of Property, provides that a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to Lease) in accordance with section 3.58(3) unless the disposition falls within the scope of section 3.58(5), which includes:

 

‘(d)       Any other disposition that is excluded by regulations from the application of this section.’

 

In accordance with Section 3.58(5), Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides a range of dispositions that are exempt from the application of Section 3.58 of the Act, including dispositions to:

 

“A body, whether incorporated or not the objects of which are of a charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions.”

 

As the Clubs are recreational and sporting in nature and the members would not receive any pecuniary profit from the seasonal Licences it is evident that the proposed seasonal Licences would meet the requirements of an exempt disposition, in accordance with Section 3.58(5) of the Local Government Act 1995. There would be no requirement for the City to advertise an intention to enter into seasonal Licences with the Clubs.

The Local Government Act 1995 section 9.49A states that a document is duly executed by a Local Government if the common seal is affixed to it or it is signed by an Officer authorised to do so.  Executing documents through the use of the common seal or by signing a document does not constitute the decision to undertake a particular course of action.  A Council resolution or a decision under delegated authority is required prior to executing documents.

 

As per Council Policy No. 4.1.10 – Execution of Documents Policy the proposed seasonal Licenses will be executed by having the common seal affixed under the authorisation of Council with the affixing of the seal in the presence of and being attested to by the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer or pursuant to s9.49A(3)(b) of the Act, the Mayor and a senior employee authorised by the Chief Executive officer to do so.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium:      The Hockey and Cricket Clubs have leased the clubrooms since 1999 and have generally complied with all Lease terms and obligations.  Administration believes that this type of tenancy is no longer appropriate due to the relocation of the Football Club, and the seasonal nature of these Clubs.  The proposed seasonal Licences are considered to be the most effective arrangement to activate the Pavilion and ensure high levels of community usage.

Strategic Implications:

The proposed Licences for the Charles Veryard Pavilion align with the following objective within the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013 - 2023:

 

‘2.1.3    Develop business strategies that reduce reliance on rates revenue

 

(c)        Continue to review Leases and commercial contracts to ensure the best return for the City, whilst being cognisant of its community service obligations.’

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Pursuant to the proposed Licences the City will receive $8,700 from the Clubs each year (plus GST and indexed by CPI). The City’s costs for managing and maintaining the Pavilion through the proposed Licences will be approximately $15,000 per annum not including building depreciation and asset renewal and.

 

Since the Football Club commenced using Charles Veryard Reserve in 2014 a number of lease costs have been placed on hold by Administration pending the resolution of building tenure arrangements.  It is recommended that $11,036.90 associated with Football Club access to the Pavilion be written-off/waived, and that a further $2,240.08 associated with Hockey Club lease fees when the Pavilion was not accessible due to refurbishment works be written off.  The Hockey Club will be required to pay outstanding costs of $3,706.31 in accordance with their existing lease obligations prior to entering into new a new seasonal Licence.

ComMents:

Administration recommends that the Modernians Hockey Club and Tuart Hill Cricket Club occupancy of the Charles Veryard Pavilion as monthly tenants pursuant to the holding over clause of the current Lease be terminated by providing one month’s notice to the Clubs.  Upon termination of that Lease the City will then enter into seasonal Licences with these Clubs as well as Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club to govern the use of the Pavilion (excluding public toilets) and the associated storage areas. These building tenure arrangements are considered reasonable given the community benefits associated with these Clubs and their role in successfully activating Charles Veryard Reserve.  Further reports will be presented to Council for consideration in the coming months regarding a Licence for the Mt Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club to access Menzies Pavilion and a Turf Wicket Agreement for Tuart Hill Cricket Club at Charles Veryard Reserve.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

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

TRIM Ref:                  D18/62086

Author:                     Steve Butler, Manager Community Safety

Authoriser:                Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments:             1.       Aerial View of Brisbane Terrace

2.       Parking Occupancy Survey Data - 9 April to 13 May 2018

3.       Residential Parking Zones  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the parking occupancy data for Brisbane Terrace, Perth compiled between 9 April and 13 May 2018;

2.       ADVISES the lead petitioner that the parking occupancy data compiled for Brisbane Terrace, Perth does not support the exclusion of this street from Residential Parking Zone No. 7 or the introduction of Resident Only Parking; and

3.       NOTES that the City’s Rangers will continue to proactively monitor and enforce parking restrictions on Brisbane Terrace, Perth to assist with the availability of on-street bays for residents in response to concerns raised through the recent petition.

 

Purpose of Report:

To receive additional parking occupancy survey data that has been compiled in response to the 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:

Brisbane Terrace is located in the suburb of Perth (refer to Attachment 1).  The street currently comprises 19 residences including 10 single houses, two duplexes and a block of seven town houses as well as two undeveloped blocks.  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.  As per Council Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits the residents on Brisbane Terrace are entitled to Residential Parking Permits due to a ‘No Stopping’ restriction along the entire southern side of the street and a 2P restriction between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday on the northern side of the street.  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. 

 

A petition titled ‘Protest Against Changes to Parking Permit Policy 3.9.3’ containing 22 signatures was received at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 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.”

 

Administration subsequently assessed the on-street parking occupancy at Brisbane Terrace over the period 9 to 18 March 2018 which identified the following:

 

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

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

·      Average occupancy when parking restrictions are in place (between 8am and 6pm Monday to Friday) was 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) was 63% leaving an average of 8 bays available; and

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

 

While this initial parking occupancy data did 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” it was acknowledged by Administration that the information gathered may not reflect the full extent of issues being experienced by residents.  On that basis, at the   Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 4 April 2018 it was resolved that Council:

1.            “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.”

Details:

Further surveying of parking occupancy on Brisbane Terrace, Perth was undertaken by the City’s Community Safety Team (Rangers) from Monday 9 April to Sunday 13 May 2018 to ensure informed decision making in response to the petition.  While the previous surveying was generally completed at 8.00am, 1.00pm, 5.00pm and 9.00pm these times were slightly amended based on advice from the lead petitioner.  As a result the recent surveying was completed at 8.00am, 2.00pm, 5.00pm and 8.00pm seven days a week for a five week period.  In addition, the Rangers documented the Residential Parking Permits sighted within vehicles parked on-street and noted whether the permit holder resides on Brisbane Terrace or elsewhere within Residential Parking Zone No.7.  The Rangers also completed parking enforcement while onsite with a total of 106 infringements issued during the five week survey period primarily for failure to display a valid permit and parking during a prohibited period. 

 

Brisbane Terrace Parking Occupancy Survey Overview

 

The parking occupancy survey data is provided within Attachment 2, however an overview is provided within the table below:

 

Date

Time

Vehicle Count

(Average)

On-Street Occupancy

(23 bays)

Comments

Monday

8.00am

8.4

37%

9 Infringements issued

2.00pm

11.6

50%

5.00pm

11.6

50%

8.00pm

11.8

51%

Tuesday

8.00am

7.2

31%

0 Infringements issued

2.00pm

12.6

55%

5.00pm

11.8

51%

8.00pm

11.2

49%


 

Wednesday

8.00am

7.8

34%

10 Infringements issued

2.00pm

14.4

63%

5.00pm

10.8

47%

8.00pm

11.6

50%

Thursday

8.00am

6

26%

0 Infringements issued

2.00pm

12.8

56%

5.00pm

10.6

46%

8.00pm

11.2

49%

Friday

8.00am

11

48%

26 Infringements issued

2.00pm

13.4

58%

5.00pm

12.6

55%

8.00pm

13.6

59%

Saturday

8.00am

8.6

37%

41 Infringements issued

2.00pm

12.4

54%

5.00pm

11.8

51%

8.00pm

14.6

63%

Sunday

8.00am

10.6

46%

20 Infringements issued

2.00pm

12.2

53%

5.00pm

10.3

45%

8.00pm

12

52%

AVERAGE

11.2

49%

106 Infringements issued

 

Based upon the parking occupancy surveying the following trends have been identified:

 

·       Average occupancy over the entire period (9 April to 13 May) was 49% or approximately 11 vehicles leaving 12 on-street bays available;

·       Average occupancy when parking restrictions are in place (between 8.00am and 6.00pm Monday to Friday) was 47% or approximately 11 vehicles leaving 12 on-street bays available;

·       Average occupancy when resident only permit restrictions are in place (after 6.00pm Monday to Friday and on weekends) was 51% or approximately 12 vehicles leaving 11 on-street bays available;

·       The highest number of vehicles observed on any given day during the survey period was 21 at 2.00pm on Wednesday 2 May 2018;

·       The highest average occupancy on any given day during the survey period was 63% or approximately 15 vehicles on Saturdays at 8.00pm;

·       A total of 68 unique Residential Parking Permits were sighted with 40 being issued to Brisbane Terrace residents, 26 permits being issued to residents within Residential Parking Zone No. 7, one permit being issued to a resident within Residential Parking Zone No. 5, and one permit being issued to a resident within Residential Parking Zone No. 9;

·       A total of 106 infringements were issued primarily for failure to display a valid permit and parking during a prohibited period with 61 of these infringements issued on a Saturday and Sunday; and

·       At no time during the survey period was Brisbane Terrace on-street parking fully occupied.

 

It is accepted that the survey data only provides a snapshot of the situation and there is likely times when on-street parking is at full capacity, however the parking occupancy data captured over a five week period does not substantiate the concerns that on-street parking is regularly at full capacity at night and on weekends.  While it is evident that some residents within the broader Residential Parking Zone No. 7 are at times parking on Brisbane Terrace, most likely to access the entertainment and hospitality businesses on William Street, the large majority of permits sighted were within vehicles associated with those who reside on Brisbane Terrace. 

 

Based upon the infringements issued it has been identified that non-permit holders are parking on Brisbane Terrace most often on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays and this may indeed be the main issue being experienced by residents.  While the parking occupancy data does not justify changes as requested through the petition the higher occupancy rates on Friday, Saturday and Sunday nights as well as illegal parking trends necessitates ongoing enforcement by the City’s Rangers to assist with the availability of on-street bays for residents.

 

Residential Parking Zones

 

As stated within the previous Council Report, Administration maintains that the Residential Parking Zones (Attachment 3) are a key element to ensure the successful management of Residential Parking Permits in accordance with Policy No. 3.9.3 – Parking Permits.  Although it is acknowledged that the extent of these Residential Parking Zones may require ongoing review in response to specific issues identified by residents, and Administration will continue to initiate parking occupancy surveys to investigate the extent of such issues and then recommend changes to Council (where relevant).  Such changes may relate to the Residential Parking Zones or specific on-street parking restrictions.

 

The previous Report identified four possible options in response to the issues raised within the petition from Brisbane Terrace residents:

 

1.         Introduction of Resident Only Parking Restrictions or Residential Parking Zone Exempt Streets through the establishment of specific criteria that could be applied in response to any future requests;

2.         Amendments to the Residential Parking Zones to exclude Town Centres and immediatley adjacent streets;

3.         Changes to the existing Brisbane Terrace Parking Restrictions to exclude non-resident parking after 6pm Monday to Friday and possibly at certain times on weekends; and

4.         No Change in recognition that increased density and activity throughout Vincent has led to increased demand for on-street parking.

 

Given the outcomes of the parking occupancy survey from 9 April to 13 May 2018 it is recommended that no changes are made with Brisbane Terrace to remain part of Residential Parking Zone No.7.  It is also recommended that Resident Only parking not be introduced.  The City’s Rangers will continue to proactively monitor and enforce parking restrictions in this area to assist with the availability of on-street bays for residents in response to the concerns raised through the petition, and given the large number of infringements recently issued for failure to display a valid permit.

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 provides a simpler, more contemporary approach to parking control and 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.  The recent implementation of Residential Parking Zones in accordance with this Policy is considered an important tool to assist with the management of these on-street parking demands.  Concerns raised by Brisbane Terrace residents through their recent petition 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 concerns raised through that petition have now been assessed through the completion of parking occupancy surveys on Brisbane Terrace across March, April and May 2018.  The findings do not support the concern that on-street parking is at full capacity at night and on weekends.  On that basis, it is recommended that no changes are made to the parking restrictions on Brisbane Terrace or the current extent of the Residential Parking Zones.  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                              22 May 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                               22 May 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                             22 May 2018

8.3          2018/19 Festivals and Events Sponsorship

TRIM Ref:                  D18/58569

Author:                     Alanna Curtin, Community and Civic Events Officer

Authoriser:                Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments:             1.       North Perth Local Application - Confidential  

2.       Beaufort Street Network Application - Confidential  

3.       Holmes a Court Gallery Application - Confidential  

4.       Leederville Connect Application - Confidential  

5.       Movies by Burswood Application - Confidential  

6.       Mt Hawthorn Hub Application - Streets and Lanes Festival - Confidential  

7.       Mt Hawthorn Hub Application - Youth Events - Confidential  

8.       Pride WA Inc. Application - Confidential  

9.       PVI Collective Limited Application - Confidential  

10.     Revelation Film Festival Application - Confidential  

11.     Rotary Club of North Perth Application - Confidential  

12.     Subiaco Football Club Application - Confidential  

13.     St Patricks Day WA Inc. Application - Confidential  

14.     WAM Application - Confidential  

15.     West End Arts Precinct Application - Confidential  

16.     WestCycle Application - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

 

1.       APPROVES an amount of $319,450 to be listed for consideration within the draft 2018/2019 budget for Festivals and Events Sponsorship as follows:

Festival/Event

Amount Requested

($)

Amount Recommended

($)

North Perth Local

North Perth Halloween

7,500

7,500

Beaufort Street Network

Building a Better Beaufort Street

107,000

45,000

Holmes a Court Gallery

Australiyaniality

50,000

30,000

Leederville Connect

LeedyPalooza

50,000

50,000

Movies by Burswood

City of Vincent Moving Pictures

30,500

25,000

Mt Hawthorn Hub

Mt Hawthorn Streets and Lanes Festival

50,000

45,000

Mt Hawthorn Hub

Mt Hawthorn Youth Events

7,250

7,250

Pride WA Inc.

Pride Fairday

20,000

10,000

PVI Collective Limited

Waster

10,000

Nil

Revelation Film Festival

Revelation Perth International Film Festival

30,000

20,000

Rotary Club of North Perth

Hyde Park Fair

45,000

20,000

Subiaco Football Club

City of Vincent Match

20,000

10,000

St Patricks Day WA Inc.

St Patricks Day Parade and Family Fun Day

40,000

20,000

WAM

WAMFest Laneways Gigs

50,000

30,000

West End Arts Precinct

Old Aberdeen Block Party

5,000

Nil

WestCycle

Leederville Super Crit

10,000

Nil

TOTAL

$532,250

$319,450

 

2.       NOTES that the allocation of all 2018/2019 Festival and Events Sponsorships remain subject to the recipient signing a Sponsorship Agreement with the City of Vincent identifying all related expectations and obligations; and

 

3.       APPROVES BY ABSOULTE MAJORITY in accordance with Section 6.8 (1) of the Local Government Act 1995 the expenditure of $20,000 for the sponsorship of the Revelation Film Festival to be held from 5 to 18 July 2018.

Purpose of Report:

To approve the proposed 2018/19 Festivals and Events Sponsorship and associated operating budget allocations.

Background:

The City of Vincent has adopted a contemporary, collaborative approach to place activation and vibrancy by partnering with community, not-for-profit and other creative organisations to deliver a range of activities through annual festivals and events sponsorship.  In 2017/2018, an amount of $263,000 sponsorship was allocated to festivals and events:

 

Festival/Event

Amount Requested

($)

Amount Recommended

($)

North Perth Local

·      6006 In The Park

·      Welcome to Angove Street Halloween Event

45,000

35,000

Beaufort Street Network

·      Artisan Markets

·      Beaufort Street Ball

·      Heritage Trail

·      Pop-up Cinema

·      Staged on Beaufort

·      Style Showcase

89,700

35,000

Aboriginal Health Council of WA

·      Close the Gap Day

19,342

10,000

Rotary Club of North Perth

·      Hyde Park Fair

50,000

20,000

Leederville Connect

·      Light up Leederville

65,000

45,000

Mt Hawthorn Hub

·      Mt Hawthorn Streets and Lanes Festival

60,000

45,000

Mt Hawthorn Hub

·      Mt Hawthorn Youth Event

12,000

6,000

WA Pet Project

·      Petfest

3,050

1,500

Pride WA

·      Pride Fairday

20,000

10,000

Revelation Film Festival

·      Revelation Perth International Film Festival

30,000

20,000

Secret Walls x Australia

·      Secret Walls

5,000

Nil

St Patricks Day WA Inc.

·      St Patricks Day Parade and Family Fun Day

40,000

20,000

Subiaco Football Club

·      Vincent Community Cup

12,500

10,500

TOTAL

$451,592

$263,000

A further $15,000 was allocated to Leederville Connect to support ‘Leedypalooza’ as part of the 2017 Fringe World Festival as well as the opportunity to utilise their Town Team grant for that purpose.  Overall, these festivals and events attracted approximately 330,000 people.

 

Applications for the 2018/19 Festivals and Events Sponsorship opened on 2 February 2018 with a call-out for community festivals, events, art activations, roving entertainment, concerts and pop-ups.  The availability of sponsorship was promoted through the City’s Facebook page, website, e-newsletter and direct correspondence to both previous and prospective event organisers.  Applications closed on 9 March 2018.

DETAILS

To ensure an equitable assessment process all applicants were required to respond to specific assessment criteria in order to demonstrate what value their festival/event adds to the Vincent community and how it aligns with current Council priorities and strategies.  This assessment criteria included:

 

·       Demonstrate how the event will aim to increase economic benefit to local businesses;

·       Demonstrate how the event will provide social benefit and consider community and cultural engagement;

·       Provide details on the target demographics and how this event will encourage their involvement and participation.  Consider how the project will have widespread appeal and actively engage local residents; and

·       Provide confirmation that you can deliver the event including history of previous work, evidence of funding sources, and evidence of capacity to deliver on commitments and outcomes.

 

Festivals and Events Applications Assessment

 

A total of 16 applications were received and have been included as Attachments 1 – 16.

 

1.         North Perth Local: North Perth Halloween, 31 October 2018

 

Angove Street will turn into a captivating picture of pumpkins, black cats, ghosts and goblins for a family friendly Halloween event delivered by North Perth Local. Following the success of this event last year it is proposed to introduce additional activations such as DJ, street performances and other family activities. A road closure will be in place on Angove Street for pedestrian safety and to encourage local businesses to activate the public realm.  

 

The assessment by Administration identified that there is strong community support for the event from both local businesses and residents given North Perth Local’s intent to bring vibrancy to the heart of North Perth.  There is a strong focus on families, children and young people.  The request for $7,500 is a decrease from the $35,000 sponsorship allocation in 2017/18 as North Perth Local aims to focus on delivering a highly successful Halloween event.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$7,500

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

2,500

Ranger Services

200

Health Services

1,000

 

TOTAL

$11,200

 

Please refer to the North Perth Local submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 1.

 

2.         Beaufort Street Network: Building a Better Beaufort Street, July 2018 – June 2019

 

The Beaufort Street Network has proposed a series of events to encourage activation in and around Beaufort Street. The series include:

 

·       Artisan Markets: These markets provide local artists, designers and craftspeople to display and sell their work at the Mary Street Piazza. The markets will take on different themes throughout the year such as ‘Twilight Christmas Market’ and ‘Mother’s Day Markets’.

·       Beaufort Street Scavenger Hunt: The hunt is a game suitable for families, friends and individuals to enjoy and explore what Beaufort Street has to offer. A map will be available online which provides clues, with answers at participating businesses where ‘players’ can receive rewards such as a discounts, or yoga passes. 

·       Heritage Trail: This trail is to recognise the Aboriginal history of the land, and to promote heritage buildings. Maps and walking trails would be downloadable via the Network’s website, plus self-guided tours. 

·       ‘Not’ The Beaufort Street Festival: A month long series of entertainment events curated by the Network and hosted at different venues throughout Beaufort Street.

 

The Beaufort Street Network are seeking to re-establish relationships with local traders and provide benefits to these businesses through various activations and community initiatives. All events are accessible to the public and provide a broad community appeal.

 

The assessment by Administration identified that the Beaufort Street Network are proposing a diverse range of activities spread across the year with a focus on place activation, economic development and community engagement.  However there are concerns regarding their capacity to deliver all of the events included within the $107,000 sponsorship request.  This is a large increase from the $35,000 sponsorship provided in 2017/18 and it is not considered financially viable to provide such significant sponsorship to a single event organiser.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$45,000

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

5,000

Park Hire

840

Health Services

2,500

2.      

TOTAL

$53,340

 

Please refer to the Beaufort Street Network submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 2.

 

3.         Holmes a Court Gallery: Australiyaniality, 3 – 25 November 2018

 

In March and October 2017, a group of 25 emerging and established artists from diverse cultures and varied artistic disciplines met to explore and challenge some of the dominant cultural, social and political paradigms underpinning the Australian identity. The initiative will include an art exhibition, artist talks, film programs and community events run in conjunction with local businesses including Soggy Bones, Linton and Kay Gallery, Friday Studio and the Backlot.  The exhibition and activities/events are targeted at people of all ages and cultural backgrounds.  Some events will be ticketed ($25 and $13) whereas the exhibition will be free.  

 

The assessment by Administration identified that the Holmes a Court Gallery has experience in delivering a range of exhibitions and events, and a number of key partners including artists and local businesses have been successfully engaged.  Australiyaniality also aligns with the City’s Reconciliation Action Plan as it provides a platform to bring together community members into important discussions about Australia’s cultural identity, reconciliation and building positive relationships between the wider Australian community and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. The Holmes a Court Gallery has requested $50,000 sponsorship although it is recommended that $30,000 be provided with the event organiser having the option to scale the event accordingly or seek other funding support.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$30,000

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

4,000

Health Services

1,500

 

TOTAL

$35,500

 

Please refer to the Holmes a Court Gallery submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 3.

 

4.         Leederville Connect: LeedyPalooza, 27 February, 3, 10, 17 March 2019

 

LeedyPalooza was successfully initiated in 2018 during Leedy Streets Open as part of Fringe World.  Leederville Connect aims to close Oxford Street to cars once again to deliver the UnFair Day, Cultural Food Fair and Vintage Fair with local businesses being encouraged to participate through street activation.  Leedy Palooza 2019 will again showcase the best of Leederville with priority being given to locally based stall holders, artists, entertainment.

 

The assessment by Administration identified that Leederville Connect has a proven track record in community event delivery, and proven capacity to deliver LeedyPalooza through the securing of additional sponsors and engagement of local traders.  The inclusion of LeedyPalooza within Fringe World significantly increases the profile of the event and ensures the attraction of both locals and visitors to Leederville Town Centre.  Leederville Connect are seeking $50,000 which is equivalent to previous funding for the Light Up Leederville Carnival which will not be taking place in 2018.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$50,000

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

5,000

Waste Services

4,200

Ranger Services

2,240

Health Services

2,000

 

TOTAL

$63,440

 

Please refer to the Leederville Connect submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 4.

 

5.         Movies By Burswood: City of Vincent Moving Pictures, December 2018 – March 2019

 

Moving Pictures are outdoor family focused movie screenings proposed to be held throughout Vincent to activate smaller parks and underutilised spaces.  All films will be free to attend, and will be aimed at all families and all ages.  Similar, highly popular events for the local community in Burswood, Bassendean, Stirling, Mandurah and Bentley.  Given the success of these events Movies By Burswood was encouraged to apply for sponsorship to deliver a new offering for the Vincent community.

 

The assessment by Administration identified that Moving Pictures has the experience, equipment and technical expertise to deliver quality events.  The family friendly focus in a picnic environment is a point of difference from other festivals and events.  The City has the ability to work with the organisers to select preferred dates and locations, and there is likely to be a focus on activating underutilised open spaces throughout the community.  While $30,500 sponsorship has been requested an amount of $25,000 has bene recommended with events to be scaled accordingly.

3.      

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$25,000

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

3,000

Waste Services

2,400

Park Hire

2,500

Health Services

1,500

4.      

TOTAL

$34,400

 

Please refer to the Movies by Burswood submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 5.

 

6.         Mt Hawthorn Hub: Mt Hawthorn Streets and Lanes Festival, 5 May 2019

 

The Mt Hawthorn Streets and Lanes Festival is in its fourth year and is a highlight on both the Mt Hawthorn and broader Vincent community calendar. The event is delivered by the Mt Hawthorn Hub with close collaboration with local businesses in the lead up to the event to encourage participation and activation.  The event attracts significant attendances from throughout the Vincent community and bring large numbers of visitors to the Mt Hawthorn Town Centre.  This bring direct economic benefits to local businesses.  The 2019 event will again feature a range of activities including yoga classes, a dog show, community group displays, rides, arts and culture, sports and games, and many other community initiatives. 

 

The assessment by Administration identified that Mt Hawthorn Hub has strong community support and established partnerships with local community organisations such as Vincent’s Mens Shed, Transition Town Vincent, ANZAC Cottage, Mt Hawthorn Primary School and Aranmore Primary School.  Mt Hawthorn Hub now has a proven track record in community event delivery, and proven capacity to deliver the Street and Lanes Festival through the securing of additional sponsors.  The event also delivers upon outcomes with the Mt Hawthorn Hub Action Plan.  While $50,000 has been requested the sponsorship has been retained at $45,000.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$45,000

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

6,000

Waste Services

5,400

Ranger Services

1,120

Health Services

2,000

5.      

TOTAL

$59,520

 

Please refer to the Mt Hawthorn Hub submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 6.

 

7.         Mt Hawthorn Hub: Mt Hawthorn Youth Events, August & November 2018, February & May 2019

 

With approximately 50% of the local Mt Hawthorn community being under the age of 18 Mt Hawthorn Hub has identified the importance of engaging with the local young people through pop-up events and social activities. The Youth Events program will see Coogee Street Carpark taken over with a pop-skate park, skate clinics, street hockey, dance, arts and crafts to actively engage local young people.

 

The assessment by Administration identified that Mt Hawthorn Hub has demonstrated community demand and support for such activities through their youth engagement day in December 2016 which attracted over 385 comments from participants. The delivery of activities specifically targeted at children and young people provides a point of difference amongst other festivals and events.  The Mt Hawthorn Hub has requested an increase in sponsorship from $6,000 in 2017/2018 to $7,250 in 2018/2019 and based on their submission this is supported.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$7,250

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

1,500

Ranger Services

400

Health Services

1,500

 

TOTAL

$10,650

 

Please refer to the Mt Hawthorn Hub submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 7.

 

8.         Pride WA Inc: Pride Fairday, 4 November 2018

 

Pride Fairday at Birdwood Square forms part of the overall Pride Festival which celebrates the diversity of Perth’s LGBTIQ+ community. The family friendly event will feature live entertainment, community stalls, food stalls, a licenced bar and the Pride WA Dog Show.  The event also aims to make visible the positive contribution that the Pride community makes to the local Perth and wider Western Australian community.

 

The assessment by Administration identified that Pride WA Inc. has appointed an event manager to ensure successful delivery of Pride Fairday.  The event aligns with Council’s ongoing commitment to community diversity and the application demonstrates a range of economic benefits for local businesses.  Pride WA Inc. are requesting $20,000 sponsorship which is an increase from the $10,000 provided in 2017/18 although the scale and community impact of the event generally remains the same when compared to previous years.

 

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$10,000

In-Kind Support

Marketing & Communications

2,500

Waste Services

1,000

Park Hire

2,090

Health Services

1,500

 

TOTAL

$17,090

Please refer to the Pride WA Inc. submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 8.

 

9.         PVI Collective Limited: Waster, 7 – 9, 14 – 16, 21 – 23 March 2019

 

Waster is a participatory art activation proposed by PVI Collective Limited with unique works installed in bins, titled ‘binstallations’, throughout Mt Hawthorn.  Waster is part treasure hunt, part survival guide where participants navigate via a map to open the bin to see and hear playful tasks for their mission. Binstallations are playful, interactive and informal ways to educate the community on environmental matters.  PVI Collective Limited will develop each ‘binstallation’ to align and compliment businesses and groups within Mt Hawthorn.

 

The assessment by Administration identified that this initiative aligns with Council’s renewed commitment to contemporary arts and culture, however funding support is more appropriate through the City’s Community Grants rather than Festivals and Events Sponsorship. Administration in collaboration with the Arts Advisory group will assist PVI Collective Limited with access to these community grants.

 

Please refer to the PVI Collective Limited submission for further information – Confidential Attachment 9.

 

10.        Revelation Film Festival:  Revelation Perth International Film Festival, 5-18 July 2018

 

The Revelation Film Festival is a two week film festival held at various locations throughout Vincent including Luna Cinemas, The Backlot, The Blue Flamingo, North Metro TAFE, Rosemount Hotel, The Old Laundry and Babushka. The Festival attracts approximately 35,000 attendees and targets film makers and enthusiasts as well as a broad cross-section of the community from seniors to young people.  Admission to the films are ticketed (full price $19.50, concession $16.50), however there are a number of free events including:

 

·       REV4FREE – a series of free children’s films held at Luna

·       REVSHORTS!, - free film shorts held at the Vincent Library

·       Free Seniors Filmmaking Workshop

 

The assessment by Administration identified that Revelation Film Festival is a well-established and well-run festival that successfully various locations in Vincent during the winter season.  The festival attracts film enthusiasts and independent cinema goers from across Perth but also targets local attendance through a number of free events focussed towards seniors and children.  The festival continues to develop positive relationships with the Leederville community.  Revelation are requesting $30,000 sponsorship which is an increase from $20,000 in 2017/18, and while the festival is strongly supported it is considered that other sponsors and partnerships will enable sponsorship to be retained at $20,000.

6.      

Sponsorship Recommendation

Financial Support

Cash

$20,000