AGENDA

Late Reports

 

Council Briefing

 

11 September 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                11 September 2018

Order Of Business

 

5          Development Services. 4

5.4             LATE REPORT: No. 3 (Lot: 47; D/P: 1177) Bulwer Avenue, Perth - Existing and Proposed Alterations to Single House. 4

6          Engineering. 127

6.3             LATE REPORT: Trees located on Private Property - Consideration of introducing a limited local law to impose obligations on an owner to prune trees overhanging a neighbour's property. 127

6.4             LATE REPORT: Response to Petition - Alma Road and Claverton Streets, North Perth Traffic Calming. 131

7          Corporate Services. 140

7.2             LATE REPORT:  Investment Report as at 31 August 2018. 140

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                11 September 2018

5             Development Services

5.4          LATE REPORT: No. 3 (Lot: 47; D/P: 1177) Bulwer Avenue, Perth - Existing and Proposed Alterations to Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/112084

Author:                     Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Municipal Heritage Inventory Listing

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Plans

4.       Attachment 4 - Written Submissions

5.       Attachment 5 - Heritage Impact Statement

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 existing and proposed alterations and additions to the single house at No. 3 (Lot: 47; D/P: 1177) Bulwer Avenue, Perth, in accordance with the plans included as Attachment 3 subject to the following Conditions and associated Advice Notes as included in Attachment 6:

1.       This approval relates only to the following as shown on the approved plans and contained within the written submission dated 5 September 2018:

·       replacement of the gutter;

·       the installation of the downpipes;

·       the retention of the installed moisture vents;

·       the replacement of the cornice with Federation Style fiberglass;

·       the retention of the installed ceilings throughout the dwelling;

·       the retention of the ceiling rose in bedroom one;

·       the installation of skirting boards in the lounge room;

·       the replacement of the side gate;

·       the replacement of glass in the front door (facing Bulwer Avenue); and

·       the replacement of pathway tiles;

No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       Prior to the commencement of works, the applicant is to submit details demonstrating that the proposed side gate matches the original fabric of the existing gate, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent;

3.       Prior to the commencement of works, the applicant is to submit details demonstrating that the proposed glass and lead lighting within the front door facing Bulwer Avenue reflects the original Federation Style of the Single House, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent;

4.       Prior to the commencement of works, the applicant is to submit details demonstrating that the proposed tiled pathway reflects the original Federation Style of the single house in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent;

5.       Prior to the commencement of works, the applicant is to submit details demonstrating that the proposed skirting boards match the original fabric and Federation Style of the single house, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent

6.       The applicant is to provide decorative ceiling features throughout the dwelling so as to reflect the original Federation Style of the Single House, in   accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties. The applicant is required to submit details/plans of the features prior to the commencement of works, to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent; and

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for existing and proposed alterations to the existing Single House at No. 3 Bulwer Avenue, Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

This application seeks approval for various existing and proposed additions and alterations to the existing single house, which relate to both the internal and external features of the single house.

Background:

Landowner:

Justin Mortley

Applicant:

Justin Mortley

Date of Application:

16 May 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

369m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes, privately owned, 3.0 metres

Heritage List:

Yes

 

The subject site is located on the southern end of Bulwer Avenue, with the closest intersection being that of Bulwer Avenue and Bulwer Street, as shown in Attachment 1. The subject site is bound by a privately owned right-of-way to the west, Bulwer Avenue to the east, and single houses to the north and south. To the east of the subject site is Highgate Primary School.

 

The existing single house forms part of both the City’s Scheme Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), with the latter recommending the highest level of protection for the site. The MHI listing is titled ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’ and includes houses Nos. 3-19 Bulwer Avenue, Perth. The MHI listing can be found in Attachment 2.

 

On 13 December 2017, the City received an anonymous complaint that alleged that the façade of the dwelling on the subject site had been rendered. Administration undertook a site inspection, which revealed that white render had been applied to elevations of the dwelling over the existing painted, tuck-pointed brickwork and lower limestone base. This form of alteration requires development approval as it is not exempt by way of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. On 15 December 2017, a request was made to the landowner to immediately cease all building works affecting the single house, and to either reinstate the original façade or seek development approval for alterations. The applicant claims to have rendered the façade to repair the water damage that had occurred to the limestone. On 9 January 2018, another site inspection was undertaken by Administration revealing that a pale blue-grey paint had been applied over the render since the initial site inspection. Administration contacted the landowner to reiterate the request to cease all works.

 

The landowner did not want to the remove the render from the façade and on 16 May 2018, lodged an application for development approval for the alterations, seeking approval for the following:

 

·       The retention of the existing (unauthorised) rendering of the external walls and two chimney stacks;

·       The retention of the replaced gutter and the installed six additional downpipes;

·       The retention of the installed external moisture vents;

·       The retention of the replaced windows for bedrooms one and three, which were replaced with new glass and frame materials (metal in lieu of original wood);

·       The retention of the replaced decorative concrete on the façade of the building;

·       The retention of the replaced internal ceilings throughout the dwelling;

·       The retention of the installed ceiling rose in bedroom one;

·       The retention of the replaced cornice, which was replaced with Federation Style fibreglass in lieu of the existing wood cornice; and

·       The removal of skirting boards in lounge room, which are proposed to be replaced.

 

The proposed alterations and additions to the existing house that form part of this application are as follows:

 

·       The installation of skirting boards in the lounge room;

·       The replacement of the existing gate;

·       The replacement of the glass in the front door with decorative glass and lead lighting; and

·       The replacement of the concrete pathway with federation style tiles.

 

The development and floor plans are included in Attachment 3, the written statement and building inspection report are included in Attachment 4 and the submitted Heritage Impact Statement is contained as Attachment 5. The works require development approval on the basis that the alterations and additions go beyond ‘repairs and routine maintenance that demonstrate replacing material with like for like that do not change the appearance of a heritage place, such as general repainting, re-decoration, re-roofing and repair of existing roof covers’, as stipulated by the City’s Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy.

 

The applicant paid a fee that is three times that of a standard application fee, which encompasses the processing fee of the development application and a penalty for commencing development prior to approval being issued.

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), and the City’s Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy. 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

Heritage Management

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Heritage Management

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Building Scale, Bulk and Mass

 

A.2.1 The additions and alterations:

 

1.     do not alter the original facade(s) or roof pitch;

2.     are clearly distinguishable from the original part of the heritage place to be conserved;

3.     are based on research that can identify the elements, detailing and finishes already used;

4.     do not obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the place;

5.     maintain an existing vista or view lines to the principal facade(s) of a heritage place; and

6.     are positioned and sized to ensure that the prominence of significant parts of the heritage listed place are retained.

 

 

The application involves numerous discrete elements, some of which affect the heritage value of the site.

 

The proposal does not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standard and is discussed in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 5 June 2018 and concluding on 18 June 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1, and a notice being published on the City’s website. In response, one submission was received; objecting to the proposal due to the loss of heritage value as a result of the render.

 

The applicant sough to address this concern within the submitted HIS included in Attachment 5. This concern is discussed in the Comments section of this report.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:                      Yes

 

The application was referred to the DRP on 2 August 2018 to seek comments on the heritage considerations of the proposal. The comments provided from the DRP can be summarised as follows:

 

·       The Bulwer Avenue Group has a management category A, meaning the place has been identified as requiring the maximum level of protection and that conservation of the place is essential;

·       The significance of No. 3 Bulwer Avenue is the place’s materials, including its masonry elements, overall form (including the projecting front bays), its aesthetic values and contribution as a single storey house constructed in the Federation Arts and Crafts style;

·       The rendering of the front façade has resulted in the previous brick finish, details such as brick arches to the window heads and textured finish to the parapet, no longer being evident;

·       The impact of the render has considerable impact to the place and has diminished the cultural heritage values of the individual place and the Bulwer Avenue Group; and

·       Due to the cultural heritage values, and the place requiring the highest level protection, the cement render to the front façade of No. 3 Bulwer Avenue should be removed.

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. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement; and

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being presented to Council for determination at the request of the landowner.

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:

Cultural Significance and Heritage Management

 

The City’s Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy requires any alteration to a heritage listed place to conserve the characteristics identified in the statement of significance. The subject site forms part of the ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’ on the City’s MHI, along with house nos. 3-19 Bulwer Avenue, Perth. This listing is Management Category A – Conservation Essential, which provides the highest level of protection. The MHI listing for the subject site is included in Attachment 2. The MHI listing includes the following statement of significance for the Bulwer Avenue Group:

 

Notable and intact turn of the twentieth century development of detached houses in the Federation Anglo Dutch and Arts and Crafts styles, which occupies the length of the whole street block opposite the Highgate Primary & Infants Schools.

 

The Acceptable Development Criteria within the City’s Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy are as follows:

 

·       Development within zones, spaces and fabric of the place identified as significant is conserved and/or adapted in a manner that protects the significant heritage values;

·       The alterations and additions that do not alter the original façade or roof pitch;

·       are based on research that can identify the elements, detailing and finishes already used;

·       Do not obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the place;

·       New doors or windows in the principal facades(s) visible from the street are avoided, or if openings are visible, they are proportionally related to those of the heritage place, unless concealed from view from the principal street frontage;

·       Walls, roof and fences are complementary to the heritage place in terms of materials, finishes, textures and paint colours and are appropriate to its architectural style.

 

The corresponding Performance Criteria states that any alterations should be respectful and compatible with the fabric and should not alter or obscure fabric that contributes to the historical significance of the site.

 

Based on the MHI listing, it is considered that the primary characteristics of the existing house are its Federation style of architecture which includes brickwork facades, pitched rooves, bay windows and verandahs. As such, all existing and proposed works must be considered in the context of how they contribute to this Federation Style and the Design Principles of the City’s Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy.


 

Existing (Unauthorised) Alterations and Additions

 

In considering the replacement of gutter, installed downpipes and moisture vents, replaced cornices (with Federation Style fiberglass in lieu of the existing wood), installation of new ceilings throughout the dwelling and installation of the ceiling rose in bedroom one, the following is relevant:

 

·       The replacement of the gutter and the six additional downpipes, and installation of the external moisture vents are considered to assist with the ongoing preservation and maintenance of the heritage listed building.

·       The colours chosen for the gutters and downpipes reflect the existing colours of both this single house, prior to the render, and other houses within the ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’. As such, they are not considered to compromise the cultural heritage of the building.

·       The cornices, whilst not being replaced with the original fabric are considered to replicate the original Federation Style of the single house, and therefore, not compromise the cultural heritage or character of the single house.

·       The replacement of gutter, installed downpipes and moisture vents, replaced cornices with Federation Style fiberglass and installation of the ceiling rose in bedroom one does conserve, and is sympathetic to the original Federation Style of the single house, which distinctly contributes to the historical and cultural significance of the place.

·       The replacement of gutter, installed downpipes and moisture vents, replaced cornices with Federation Style fiberglass and installation of the ceiling rose in bedroom one is compatible with the original fabric and does not alter the elements that contributes to the significance of the place.

·       The replacement of gutter, installed downpipes and moisture vents and installation of the ceiling rose in bedroom one respects the cultural heritage significance, with respect to materials used, and the Federation Anglo Arts & Crafts architectural style.

·       The replacement of gutter, installed downpipes and moisture vents, replaced cornices with Federation Style fiberglass and installation of the ceiling rose in bedroom one promotes and encourages the retention of characteristics that contribute to, and promote the significance of the heritage place.

·       The replacement of gutter, installed downpipes and moisture vents and installation of the ceiling rose in bedroom one ensures the prominence of the significant original materials and colours are retained.

·       Whilst the external moisture vents are not considered to compromise the cultural heritage of the building due to the size and location, they have been painted to reflect the colour of the existing (unauthorised) render of the single house. As such, should Council approve the moisture vents and not approve the unauthorised render, it would be recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the colour to reflect the original fabric of the building.

·       The previous skirting boards have been removed but not yet replaced, and as such, there is opportunity to install skirting boards that reflect the existing character of the cultural significance of ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’. As such, should Council approve the removal of the skirting boards, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to ensure that new skirting boards will be installed that reflect the Federation Style, as detailed in the written submission that forms Attachment 4.

·       The replaced ceilings throughout the dwelling (with the exception of bedroom one) are flat, white ceilings which do not contribute to the Federation Style of the single house. Administration does not support this current state, but it would be open to support the retention of the ceiling, subject to the imposition of a condition to require the provision of decorative features in the original Federation Style, such as the decorative rose in bedroom one.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that the works generally align with the both the intent and the performance criteria of the Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy, or can be made to be way of appropriate conditions. It will therefore be recommended that they be approved.

 

In considering the external alterations and additions, in the form of render of the external façade and two chimney stacks, the retention of the replaced decorative concrete, the retention of the replaced windows, the following is relevant:

 

·       The render, windows and decorative concrete feature does not restore or conserve, and is not sympathetic to the original face brick of the single house, which distinctly contributes to the historical and cultural significance of the place;

·       The rendering of the façade and chimney stacks, replacement of windows and decorative concrete feature is not compatible with the original fabric and alters the elements that contributes to the significance of the place;

·       The render façade and chimney stacks and replacement of windows does not respect the cultural heritage significance, with respect to materials used, and the Federation Anglo Arts & Crafts architectural style;

·       The render, replacement of windows and decorative concrete feature does not promote and encourage the retention of characteristics that contribute to, and promote the significance of the heritage place;

·       The render façade and chimney stacks, and replacement of windows does not ensure the prominence of the significant original materials are retained;

·       The submitted HIS notes that “the rendering works diminishes the heritage significance of the Bulwer Avenue Group through the uses of materials and surface finishes which are not appropriate to the original fabric and do not complement the architectural style of the Bulwer Avenue.”;

·       The works do not contribute to the federation style of the dwelling and are considered to significantly compromise the cultural significance of the building and character of the entire ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’.

·       The submitted building inspection report does not make reference to the condition of this decorative portion of concrete and as such, it is clear whether this portion of the external works were necessary to repair.

 

Based on the above, it is considered that this aspect of the application does not align with the intent nor the performance criteria of the Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy.

 

It will therefore be recommended that Council approve only some components of the application.

 

Proposed Alterations and Additions

 

The proposed alterations and additions include:

 

·       the installation of new skirting boards in the lounge room;

·       the replacement of the existing side gate;

·       the replacement of the glass door that faces Bulwer Avenue with decorative glass and lead lighting;

·       the replacement of the pathway from concrete to federation style tiles.

 

Based on the information provided, the above elements are considered to be sympathetic to the original federation style of the development and appropriately conserve the cultural significance of the ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’. Should the works be undertaken in a similar fabric, colours and style, the works will contribute to the historical and cultural significance of the place and be consistent with the intent and the performance criteria of the Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy.

 

As such, it is recommended that the above works are approved, subject to the imposition of conditions to ensure an appropriate heritage outcome for the site.

 

Heritage Rectification and Conservation

 

It is noted that, should any existing (unauthorised) works not be approved, Administration will formally direct the landowner to rectify these works by reinstating the existing single house to the condition prior to the works being undertaken, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement.

 

The HIS provides some information regarding the impact of render to the original fabric. The HIS states that it is recommended the applicant “ensure future building maintenance does not remove or damage the original fabric of the building, or the use of new materials; and ensure any cleaning to the original fabric is low-pressure, non-abrasive and non-chemical”. As the concrete render and acrylic paint is intrusive to the original stone and masonry wall, the removal of the render may lead to further damage to the original limestone and masonry. As such, it is vital that any removal / rectification works are undertaken using non‑abrasive and non-chemical techniques generally in accordance with the recommendations contained within the HIS.

 

In this regard, Administration has contacted plasterers and stonemasons that specialise in heritage management and protection, regarding the removal of render from masonry heritage buildings. Based on the advice received, it is noted that the render may lead to moisture becoming trapped under the render, and will result in the breakdown of the original fabric, although the painting of the original limestone and masonry façade will assist in mitigating the impact of removing the render. Any damage caused can be rectified through replacement of like-for-like materials or repointing with suitable lime mortar.

 

Conclusion

 

The application seeks approval for both existing and proposed works associated with an existing heritage dwelling. Some of the works are considered to comply (or are capable of complying) with the statement of significance, the Federation Style character of the ‘Bulwer Avenue Group’, reflect the existing materials used   and align with the intent and performance criteria of the Heritage Management – Development Guidelines Policy, whilst some do not, as follows.

 

It is considered that the following works do not compromise the cultural significance of the heritage listed building and are supported.

 

·       The retention of the replaced gutter and the installed six additional downpipes;

·       The retention of the installed external moisture vents;

·       The retention of the replaced cornice, which was replaced with Federation Style fiberglass in lieu of the existing wood cornice;

·       The retention of the installed ceiling rose in bedroom one; and

·       The removal of skirting boards in lounge room, which are proposed to be replaced.

 

It is considered that the following works do compromise the cultural significance of the heritage listed building and are not supported.

 

·       The retention of the existing (unauthorised) rendering of the external walls and two chimney stacks;

·       The retention of the replaced windows frames for bedrooms one and three, which were replaced with metal in lieu of original wood;

·       The retention of the replaced decorative concrete on the façade of the building; and

·       The retention of the replaced ceilings throughout the dwelling, in their current condition.

 

As such, it will be recommended that Council approve the application, but limit the scope of the approval to those elements that are considered acceptable or that would be acceptable subject to conditions. The other, unacceptable, elements would not form part of the approval and would, in effect, be refused.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                11 September 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                11 September 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                11 September 2018


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                11 September 2018

6             Engineering

6.3          LATE REPORT: Trees located on Private Property - Consideration of introducing a limited local law to impose obligations on an owner to prune trees overhanging a neighbour's property

TRIM Ref:                  D18/768

Author:                     Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Authoriser:                Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council DOES NOT PROCEED with the introduction of a limited local law for the management of nuisance trees located on private property for the following reasons:

1.    the creation of a limited local law transfers the responsibility for solving what is currently a civil dispute between neighbours, from the neighbours to the City; and

2.    the City would require additional resource to enforce a new limited local law.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the introduction of a limited local law which imposes obligations on an owner to take action in respect to trees on private property that are considered to be a nuisance to neighbours.

Background:

Council at its meeting on 7 March 2017 considered a report relating to a review of the City of Vincent Local Laws under Section 3.16 of the Local Government Act 1995 and resolved as follows (in part):

 

“REQUESTS Administration to prepare a report for Council to consider the introduction of a limited local law which imposes obligations on an owner to cut and remove branches overhanging a neighbour’s property or to ensure a tree does not interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land, to be presented to Council in the 2017/18 financial year.”

 

The matter for consideration by Council is whether and to what extent the City wishes to intervene in matters relating to trees on private property. Powers already exist for the City to deal with trees that are deemed unsafe, while residents have access to common law provisions to deal with nuisance trees.

 

In terms of approaches available to the City, Council could:

 

1.       Continue with its current position on private trees (provide guidance with no intervention);

2.       Create a mechanism for a resident to serve notice on a neighbour in relation to a nuisance tree; and/or

3.       Create a mechanism for the City to take action in relation to a nuisance tree

 

The level of enforcement that the City would wish to undertake in relation to options 2 and 3 is also something that would need to be considered.

Details:

Administration receives requests on a weekly basis in regard to private tree issues and many of the queries relate to what owners can, and cannot, undertake with regard to ‘nuisance’ issues and/or pruning of a neighbour’s tree(s).

 

Any queries are typically dealt with over the phone, with staff explaining what can and cannot be undertaken in regards to the pruning of private trees or otherwise, with residents and they are then referred to the Legal Aid W.A. website for further information.

 

Legal Aid W.A. provides a comprehensive guide on what problems may arise with neighbouring trees, how to get help to resolve these issues, and it also provides mediation services (subject to qualification) in respect to property matters.

 

Administration has considered the Council resolution and explored options for the introduction of a limited local law which imposes obligations on an owner to prune trees overhanging a neighbour’s property. Legal advice received indicated that it was unlikely that local laws would be allowed to empower the City to serve notice on an owner in respect to a nuisance tree or empower the City to enter land and carry out the work to remove a nuisance. However, it may be possible for the City to justify a limited local law provision which imposes an obligation on a tree owner to ensure that a tree does not cause a nuisance thereby creating an offence should a landowner not comply.

 

Therefore, the first option considered was a possible local law which introduces a mechanism to allow a neighbour to give notice to a tree owner to remove any branch that overhangs the neighbour’s property. The City’s role would be confined to issuing infringements where a tree owner has not complied with the requests.

 

The benefits of this option are:

 

1)    It sets out a clear and measurable responsibility (i.e. cut back the tree) along with a simple framework for resolving issues between neighbours; and

 

2)    It limits the City’s initial role in the process to determining whether or not a tree is overhanging and whether a notice has been complied with.

 

The risks with this option are:

 

1)    It does not address the issue of “nuisance” trees where there is no overhanging e.g. trees with excessive leaf litter etc;

 

2)    It is potentially contrary to the City’s efforts to encourage tree ownership and increase tree canopy, due to the perceived additional responsibilities placed on tree owners; and

 

3)    It creates an expectation that the City will enforce the requirement through infringement notices and prosecutions. This introduces an additional compliance role for the City to deal with and to resource.

 

The second option considered was a possible local law that sets up a more general responsibility for a tree owner to ensure that their tree does not cause a nuisance. It is modelled on a similar clause relating to smoke, dust, fumes etc (clause 55) in the City’s Health Local Law. The key clause proposed might be as follows:

 

“A tree owner shall not cause or permit the escape of leaves, bark, needles, twigs, nuts, seeds and other plant litter from their tree in such quantity or of such a nature as to cause or to be a nuisance or such that it interferes with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land.”

 

The benefits of this option are:

 

1)    The responsibility that is imposed is general enough to apply in a range of circumstances where genuine loss of amenity might be incurred by a neighbour.

 

The risks with this option are:

 

1)    It is difficult to define and reach consensus on what may constitute “a nuisance” or whether a particular tree truly does interfere with a person’s use or enjoyment of their land;

 

2)    It obligates the City to be the arbiter of disputes arising from 1);

 

3)    It creates an expectation that the City will enforce the requirement through infringement notices and prosecutions. This introduces an additional compliance role for the City to deal with and to resource; and

 

4)    It is potentially contrary to the City’s efforts to encourage tree ownership and increase tree canopy, due to the perceived additional responsibilities placed on tree owners.

Consultation/Advertising:

Should Council approve the introduction of a limited local law to deal with this matter, it will require advertising in accordance with the City’s Policy 4.1.05 – Community Consultation and Local Government Act 1995, Section 3.12.

Legal/Policy:

Local Governments have existing powers to deal with dangerous trees located on private property under Section 3.27 and Schedule 3.2 (clause 7) of the Local Government Act 1995. However, it is not given any powers with respect to ‘nuisance trees’ other than where they ‘obstruct a thoroughfare’.

 

The Act empowers local governments to create Local Laws which are consistent with a Local Government’s functions, however they are subject to disallowance by the Joint Standing Committee for Delegated Legislation (JSCDL).

 

The JSCDL historically has placed considerable emphasis on whether Local Law provisions go beyond that which is authorised or contemplated by the Act. In respect to nuisance trees, it is considered likely from the existence of the Act provisions for dangerous trees, that Local Laws would not be allowed to empower the City to serve notice on an owner in respect to a nuisance tree or empower the City to enter land and carry out the work to remove a nuisance. However, it may be possible for the City to justify a limited local law provision which imposes an obligation on a tree owner to ensure that a tree does not cause a nuisance,  thereby creating an offence should a landowner not comply.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    There is currently a low risk to the City in relation to trees on private property as the City has adequate powers to deal with dangerous trees on private property and has exercised that power when appropriate and necessary.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

In accordance with the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011 – 2016, Objective 3 states:

 

“3.11  Require the retention of existing trees on street verges and encourage the retention of vegetation and trees on private lots.”

Financial/Budget Implications:

Currently there are no significant financial implications to the City in relation to trees on private property, other than the time officers spend discussing and/or providing a service to the community by inspecting and providing advice on private tree(s).

 

If the City were to introduce a limited local law and exercise the powers provided there would likely be increased budget implications arising from investigation, enforcement and legal costs.

Comments:

The City already has powers to deal with trees that are unsafe and residents have common law provisions to deal with nuisance trees.

 

The introduction of a limited local law would place the City in a central position in neighbour disputes about nuisance trees by potentially creating an offence for what is a recognised civil issue. The introduction of a local law would inevitably create an increased expectation that the City would intervene and exercise its powers transferring the responsibility for solving a neighbour dispute from the neighbours to the City. Intervention in these disputes will likely require additional resource depending on the number and complexity of issues raised.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council does not proceed with the introduction of a limited local law to impose obligations on an owner to prune trees overhanging a neighbour’s property that may be deemed to represent a ‘nuisance.’


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                11 September 2018

6.4          LATE REPORT: Response to Petition - Alma Road and Claverton Streets, North Perth Traffic Calming

TRIM Ref:                  D18/120920

Author:                     Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Engineering

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Plan No. 3480-CP 01 - Layout 1

2.       Traffic Data

3.       Plan No. 3481-CP-01  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the report on the City’s response to the Petition tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 1 May 2018 in regards the volume, speed and composition of non-local traffic using the local road network bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets, North Perth;

2.       NOTES:

2.1       that average daily traffic volumes and 85% speed are generally within the operating criteria in accordance with the Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy; and

2.2       that there are two locations (Claverton Street and Leake Street) where intervention to reduce speed could be considered;

3.       APPROVES in principle:

3.1       a mid-block single lane slow in Claverton Street, between Camelia and Alfonso Streets, as shown on Plan No. 3481-CP-01, Attachment 3, subject to consulting with the affected residients; and

3.2       changing the on-road parking to the eastern side of Leake Street, between Grosvenor and Chelmsford Roads, subject to consulting with affected residents; and

4.       NOTES that Adminstration will inform the petitioners of the Council’s decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of results of a traffic study undertaken in the area bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets, North Perth, in response to the petition tabled at the Ordinary Meeting of Council of 1 May 2018.

Background:

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council of 1 May 2018 a 42 signature petition was tabled outlining, in general terms, residents’ concerns about the speed, volume, composition and origins of traffic using the local road network bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets.

 

All of the streets within the ‘cell’ including that of Leake Street, are classified as Access Roads under the Metropolitan Functional Road Hierarchy.  Access Roads, as are Local Distributors, are subject to the 50 kph urban speed.  Access Roads have a maximum desirable volume of 3,000 vehicles per day while Local Distributors have a maximum desirable volume of 6,000 vehicles per day.

 

View Street is classified as a Local Distributor Road for which the maximum desirable traffic volume is up to 6,000 vehicles per day and is subject to a speed limit of 50 kph.  Charles Street (Main Roads WA Primary Distributor) and Vincent Streets (District Distributor A), in accordance with their classification, both carry in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day and are subject to a 60kph speed limit.

Details:

The residents petition spoke of their concerns about ‘excessive volume and speed of some vehicles, including regular, daily (and night) use of some of our streets (particularly Alma Road) by heavy commercial vehicles.’

 

They also raised concerns about ‘rat runners’ indicating that in their view is has been ‘exacerbated by traffic network changes, such as turning restrictions on major roads.’

 

In response to the petition the City has collected data in the following streets:

 

Access Roads:

 

·       Leake Street, View Street to Vincent Street, in four midblock locations.

·       Alma Road, Charles Street to Glebe Street, in five mid-block locations.

·       Claverton Street, Charles Street to Leake Street, in three midblock locations.

·       Camelia Street, Vincent Street to Alma Road, in two midblock locations.

·       Alfonso, Persimmon and Vine Streets, in one midblock location.

 

All of the above streets were well within the 3,000 vehicles per day.  The peak commercial traffic volume recorded was 3.4% of the daily total traffic in Camelia Street*, Claverton Street to Vincent Street, while the majority, including that of Alma Road, were below 3%.

 

*This equates to 12 vehicles of the total of daily average of 353 vehicles.

 

Given that the urban speed limit is 50kph, and on the understanding that an 85% speed of 50kph or greater is the accepted trigger to consider any intervention measures, there were only two locations within the cell that met the criteria, as discussed in detail below.

 

Local Distributor Road:

 

·       View Street, Charles Street to Fitzgerald Street, in six midblock locations.

 

As would be expected given its classification, function and connectivity between Charles and Fitzgerald Streets the View Street daily traffic volume is on average three times that of the other streets but was still well within the 6,000 vehicles per day operating criteria for its classification.  As per the majority of the Access Roads the percentage commercial traffic volume did not exceed 3% of the daily total while the 85% speeds were within the 50kph speed limit.

 

In addition, View Street has a 40kph school zone and School Crossing Guard at the corner of View Street to enhance road safety in the vicinity of the North Perth Primary School.

 

An overview of the average daily traffic volumes, 85% speed and % commercial vehicles for the aforementioned streets, is shown in Attachment 1, Plan No. 3480-CP 01, while more detailed table of traffic data is shown in Attachment 2.

 

Note:  The only street within the cell that was not assessed in this round of data collection was Sekem Street, as it’s a cul-de-sac.

 

Commercial Vehicles Accessing the North Perth Plaza via Alma Road:

 

The Alma Road traffic data, as detailed in Attachment 2, has remained relatively stable over the past three years with a slight reduction in the % commercial traffic in some sections that may be attributable to the closure of Vastese’s Bakery on the corner Alma Road and Persimmon Street.

 

Alma Road has in the past, and continues to be, used by commercial delivery vehicles as a convenient route to and from the North Perth Plaza via Charles Street.  This has led to residents raising concerns about the appropriateness or size of the vehicles using their street.  That said the trucks in question are legally allowed to use Alma Road.

 

Early on the 7 August 2018 a semi-trailer was photographed on the wrong side of the road at a stop controlled intersection as it crossed over Leake Street.  The operators were notified on the same day and took immediate action including standing down the driver pending an investigation.  Further, the Police were advised and similarly are investigating the matter.

 

In addition, a number of measures have subsequently been put in place to ensure that large vehicles servicing the North Perth Plaza only use the section of Alma Road between Glebe and Fitzgerald Street and it is very unlikely that there will be a repeat of the same illegal manoeuvre.  Further, to improve the egress from the loading dock for the larger trucks the City is in the process of removing the on-road car parking space closest to exit point.  Currently, if either a commercial vehicle is parked in this location, or car parked inconsiderately (not within the bay) trucks can find it difficult turning left out of the loading dock.  By removing the first bay it alleviates this problem and gives the driver less cause to turn right into Alma Road.

 

However, it should be noted that independent transport operators, albeit delivery (including supermarket home delivery), construction or waste management (other than the City’s services) vehicles are not bound by these measures.

 

Locations where 85% speed exceeded 50 kph:

 

Of the twenty-two (22) data collection sites there were only two locations where the 85% speed exceeded 50kph, one in Leake Street and one in Claverton Street.  That said there were a number of locations where the 85% speed was in the order of 48-49 kph.

 

·       Leake Street, Grosvenor Road to Chelmsford Road, 51.1kph, a southbound decline on approach to Vincent Street.  While this section of road has residential properties on both sides of the street on-road parking is restricted to the western side only allowing an unobstructed run down to Vincent Street.

 

A simple measure to address speeding at this location would be to ‘flip’ the parking to the eastern side of Leake Street, between Grosvenor and Chelmsford Roads, so that the parking alternates and the parked cars act a passive traffic calming measure.

 

·       Claverton Street, Camelia Street to Alfonso Street, 55kph, a decline westbound on approach to Charles Street.  There are residential properties on the northern side and a long open section of verge the rear of the Redemptorist Monastery on the southern side.  As a result, there is little on-road parking so visually it’s a straight unobstructed run down to Alfonso Street (heading towards Charles Street) enabling higher speeds.

 

To address the speeding at this point it is recommended that rather than to install a speed hump, the City’s standard response in the past, that a ‘single lane slow point’ be considered instead, as shown on Plan No. 3481-CP-01, Attachment 3.  The device is similar to that has been used in the Safe Active Street – Bike Boulevard projects and does not require any road widening while accommodating tree planting.  It does however result in the loss of some on-road parking bays on the northern or residential side of Claverton Street.  However, it has been located so as to minimise the impact upon the residences.

 

40 kph Speed Limit trial for the area south of Vincent Street:

 

While some of the residents within the study area are seeking immediate actions to address their concerns the City, in conjunction with the Road Safety Commission, has recently commenced public consultation on a proposed large scale 40kph urban speed limit trial in the area south of Vincent Street.

 

If the trial proceeds and proves successful it has the potential to be a ‘game changer’ and could be extended to cover the entire City of Vincent area if not the greater metropolitan area.

 

A 40 kph speed limit, while largely self-governing until it becomes normalised behaviour, would alleviate many of the residents’ concerns and therefore it would be premature to introduce significant traffic calming and diversion within the study area at this time.

Consultation/Advertising:

Where required consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Public Consultation Policy.

Legal/Policy:

The roads, other than Charles Street, as discussed in this report, come under the care and control of and management of the City.

Risk Management Implications:

Low/Medium:     The study has shown that, other than two locations, as discussed in the body of the report, the operating speeds and volumes within the study area are within the operating criteria for the respective streets in accordance with their classification.

Strategic Implications:

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective 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:

To construct a single lane slow point is the order of $7,000, which, if approved, can be funded from the Miscellaneous Traffic Management budget.  However, if Council were to approve additional traffic calming measures over and above those that have been recommended then it is suggested that it listed for consideration in the mid-year budget review, if not the 2019/20 ‘draft’ budget.

 

In respect of the suggested changes to the parking in Leake Street they would cost in the order of $600 and can be funded annual lime-marking and signage budgets.

Comments:

As discussed in the body of the report the data does not support the contention that there are significant traffic issues within the study area bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets.

 

Further, if the 40kph urban speed limit trial to the area south of Vincent Street proves successful it has the potential to significant change driver behaviour and be implemented across the remainder of the City if not the metropolitan area.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                11 September 2018

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                11 September 2018

7             Corporate Services

7.2          LATE REPORT:  Investment Report as at 31 August 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/130475

Author:                     Sheryl Teoh, A/Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Investment Report  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 August 2018 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of investments and the interest earned to date.

Background:

Funds surplus to day to day operational requirements are invested in bank term deposits for various terms, to facilitate maximum 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.

 

There are still a number of 2017-18 year end transactions and adjustments that need to be completed before the year end accounts will be finalised and audited.  Whilst the overall balance of investments and interest earned is not likely to change, the allocations between Municipal, Trust and Reserve funds may need to be adjusted.

Details:

Total funds held for the period ended 31 August 2018 including on call in the City’s operating account were $44,327,708; compared to $30,161,860 for the period ending 31 August 2017. The increase in total funds is largely due to issuing of rates notices for 2018/2019 a month earlier when compared to the prior year.

 

Total term deposit investments for the period ending 31 August 2018 were $37,499,275 compared to $23,990,516 for the prior month end, and $27,714,651 for the period ending 31 August 2017.

 

Funds under management comparison table:

 

Month

2017/18

2018/19

Ended

Total funds held

Total term deposits

Total funds held

Total term deposits

July

$23,433,728

$21,212,649

$26,826,861

$23,990,516

August

$30,161,860

$27,714,651

$44,327,708

$37,499,275

September

$40,305,364

$37,944,911

 

 

October

$41,087,462

$38,947,823

 

 

November

$41,716,473

$39,482,047

 

 

December

$38,768,084

$37,065,389

 

 

January

$39,498,741

$36,147,499

 

 

February

$39,217,278

$36,665,928

 

 

March

$36,377,700

$34,622,001

 

 

April

$33,647,074

$31,177,278

 

 

May

$30,338,407

$28,712,736

 

 

June

$28,409,157

$24,687,341

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on Investments as at 31 August 2018 is:

 

 

Adopted Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$420,000

$66,814

$51,344

76.85%

Reserve

$246,060

$94,804

$45,768

48.28%

Sub-total

$666,060

$161,618

$97,112

60.09%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$24,157

N/A

 

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust were not included in the 2018/19 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%

21.3%

30%

Nil

90%

61.4%

A1

25%

1.1%

30%

Nil

80%

1.1%

A2

20%

14.9%

n/a

Nil

60%

37.5%

 

*As per subtotals on Attachment 1

Risk Management Implications:

Moderate:      Funds are invested with various financial institutions with high long term and short term ratings (Standard & Poor’s or equivalent), after obtaining three quotations for each investment. Investment funds are spread across various institutions and invested as term deposits of between one and twelve months, to spread 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 Administration concludes that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets and to ensure the accountability of management.

Comments:

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

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.46% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.68% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for August 2018 is 1.96%.

 

As at 31 August 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income is lower than the year to date budget estimate by $64,506 (39.91%). This negative variance is expected to be temporary and based on timing of interest realised.

 

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”. The City uses Marketforce.com to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investment in fossil fuel related entities. 27.32% of the City’s investments were held in institutions considered non-fossil fuel lending by Marketforce.com as at 31 August 2018.

 

Administration notes that Sustainable Platform has been engaged to undertake an accreditation assessment of the City’s sustainability practices and policies and will be providing a high level review of the City’s investments in non-fossil fuel and other relevant industries. This work is expected to trigger a review of the City’s investment policies in the last quarter of this calendar year.

 

This investment report (Attachment 1) consists of:

 

·       Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

·       Investment portfolio;

·       Investment interest earnings; and

·       Current investment holdings.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                  11 September 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator