AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

18 September 2018

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

Len Kosova

Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 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.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

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

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

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 7

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 7

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 7

8          Declarations of Interest 7

9          Development Services. 8

9.1             No. 73/288 (Lot: 73; STR: 67450) Lord Street, Highgate - Change of Use From Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) 8

9.2             No. 45/87 (Lot: 45; STR 65963) Bulwer Street, Perth - Proposed Amendment (Operating Hours) to Existing Development Approval for an Eating House. 129

9.3             No. 1 (Lot: 21; D/P: 1925) Muriel Place, Leederville - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House. 160

9.4             No. 3 (Lot: 47; D/P: 1177) Bulwer Avenue, Perth - Existing and Proposed Alterations to Single House. 185

9.5             Amendment to Trees of Significance Inventory - 209 Brisbane Street, Perth. 308

9.6             Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form.. 332

10        Engineering. 740

10.1           City of Vincent Greening Plan 2018-2023. 740

10.2           Draft Waste Strategy 2018-2023 Public Consultation Feedback. 816

10.3           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. 842

10.4           Response to Petition - Alma Road and Claverton Streets, North Perth Traffic Calming. 846

11        Corporate Services. 855

11.1           Transfer and dedication of lots as road - Intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth. 855

11.2           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 25 July 2018 to  21 August 2018. 864

11.3           Investment Report as at 31 August 2018. 884

12        Community Engagement 893

12.1           New Draft Policy No. 3.10.3 - Street Activation. 893

12.2           Adoption of Policy No. 4.1.30 - Recognition of Noongar Boodjar Culture and History through Welcome to Country and Acknowledgement of Country. 912

12.3           Minor Amendment - Policy No. 3.10.11 - Community Funding. 928

12.4           2018/19 Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grants Application - Leederville Oval Master Plan. 943

12.5           Review of Western Central Local Emergency Management Arrangements. 946

13        Chief Executive Officer 1087

13.1           Information Bulletin. 1087

14        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 1156

Nil

15        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 1156

Nil

16        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 1156

17        Urgent Business. 1156

Nil

18        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 1156

18.1           Chief Executive Officer's Annual Performance Review 2017-18. 1156

19        Closure. 1156

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

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

  (B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 21 August 2018

Special Meeting - 11 September 2018

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

9            Development Services

9.1          No. 73/288 (Lot: 73; STR: 67450) Lord Street, Highgate - Change of Use From Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar)

TRIM Ref:                  D18/100178

Author:                     Kate Miller, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Venue Management Plan

4.       Attachment 4 - Car Parking Assessment and Management Plan

5.       Attachment 5 - Acoustic Report

6.       Attachment 6 - Draft Rules and Regulations

7.       Attachment 7 - Draft Membership Form

8.       Attachment 8 - Administration's Response to Submissions

9.       Attachment 9 - Applicant's Response to Submissions

10.     Attachment 10 - 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 Change of Use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Club) at No. 73/288 (Lot: 73; STR: 67450) Lord Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, and advice notes contained in Attachment 10:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1     This approval only relates to the Change of Use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) as shown on the plans dated 1 May 2018. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2     A maximum of two staff and 60 patrons are permitted on the site at any one time;

1.3     The Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) shall operate in accordance with the Venue Management Plan dated 5 June 2018 (and all subsequent amendments). The terms and conditions outlined in the Venue Management Plan shall be provided to all members of the facility and also displayed in a prominent location within the entrance area of the venue;

1.4     The hours of operation for the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) shall be limited to the following:

·       Monday to Saturday: 10.00am to 12.00am (Midnight); and

·       Sunday: 10.00am to 5.00pm;

1.5     Prior to use of the development, the ventilation system is to be provided in accordance with the Venue Management Plan. The ventilation system is to operate at all times during the hours of operation of the venue;

2.       The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views to Lord Street and Windsor Street, to the satisfaction of the City. Darkened, obscured, mirror or tinted glass or the like is prohibited. Curtains, blinds and other internal or external treatments that obscure the view to Lord Street and Windsor Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of the venue’s operation;

3.       All off-street parking is to be available during business hours for all customers and staff. The parking bays are not to be used for storage purposes or the like;

4.       An acoustic report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for approval and the recommended measures of the approved Acoustic Report shall be implemented. Prior to first occupancy, certification from an acoustic consultant shall be submitted to the City, confirming that full compliance with all requirements arising from the acoustic report has been achieved;

5.       All signage is to be in strict accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising, unless further development approval is obtained; and

6.       Conditions that have a time limitation for compliance, and the condition is not met in the required timeframe, 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 Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) at No. 73/288 Lord Street, Highgate (subject tenancy).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to change the use of the subject tenancy, which is located within a mixed use development, from Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar). The venue will provide a private meeting place for members to purchase cigars, tobacco products and accessories. The smoking of the cigars and tobacco products is to be contained entirely within the premises and is subject to a separate license issued by the Department of Health under the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006. Air management systems are proposed to be installed within the premises to ensure regular cleanliness and purification of the air and will be released directly from the roof of the building. Specifically, the building contains an air management system that provides exhausts direct to the roof of the building, ensuring zero emissions in the venue. In addition, the applicant’s Venue Management Plan confirms an air management system will be installed inside the venue to purify the air for full air-recycling.

 

Entry to the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) will be strictly limited to members only via swipe card access. No casual admission to the general public is permitted. The premises will operate with two employees at any one time and accommodate a maximum of 60 patrons. The application proposes the following operating hours:

 

·       Monday to Saturday: 10.00am to 12.00am (Midnight); and

·       Sunday: 10.00am to 5.00pm.

 

No external alterations or additions are proposed to the existing building as part of this development application.

 

The building on the subject site and this tenancy have been designed to minimise noise and music impacts on surrounding areas including the strata complex, as demonstrated in the acoustic design report included as Attachment 5. The measures in the acoustic design report were implemented at the construction stage of the development. Music is proposed to be limited to ‘elevator music’ only as the operator intends to set an ambient style mood for the premises. The integrated music system will be designed for built in speakers acoustically shielded to ensure no impact to the surrounding tenancies and properties and no external speakers are proposed.

Background:

Landowner:

JNI Developments PTY LTD, Avalon Holdings (WA) PTY LTD and Land Surveys PTY LTD

Applicant:

John Italiano

Date of Application:

1 May 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Commercial        R Code: Not applicable

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Shop

Proposed Use Class:

Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar)

Lot Area:

2,095m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject tenancy is contained within the building located on the corner of Lord Street and Windsor Street at No. 288 Lord Street, Highgate, as shown on the location map included as Attachment 1. The site is occupied by a six-storey mixed use development comprising 68 multiple dwellings and five commercial tenancies. The site is bound by a mix of commercial uses to the west of Lord Street including offices (Nos. 285 & 287-293 Lord Street), a shop (Nos. 297-299 Lord Street), an eating house, an educational establishment (cooking studio) and unlisted use (catering business) (Nos. 301-307 Lord Street). To the south of Windsor Street, the site is bound by a six-storey mixed use development (No. 280 Lord Street) comprising commercial uses on the ground floor and residential dwellings on the upper floors and grouped dwellings and single houses (Nos. 39-41 and 37 and Nos. 37A Windsor Street). Directly to the north and east of the subject site, is an office building (No. 308 Lord Street) and a community gathering centre (No. 36 Windsor Street), respectively.

 

The subject tenancy is zoned Commercial under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The immediate surrounding properties provide a mix of zones including Commercial, Local Centre and Residential. The Residential density code of the properties on Lord Street and Windsor Street is R100 and R60, respectively.

 

On 1 May 2018, the City received a development application seeking approval to change the use of the site from Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar). The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2. In support of the proposal, the applicant has also provided a Venue Management Plan included as Attachment 3, a Car Parking Assessment and Management Plan included as Attachment 4, an Acoustic Report included as Attachment 5, Draft Rules and Regulations included as Attachment 6 and a Draft Membership Form included as Attachment 7.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the LPS2 and the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Parking & Access

 

ü

Bicycle Parking

ü

 

Signage

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

“P” use

 

 

Unlisted Use “A” use

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking requirements

 

Car bays

Unlisted Uses have no prescribed parking requirement under Table 1 of the City’s Non-Residential Parking Requirement policy.  Notwithstanding, it is considered the proposal will operate in a similar nature to a Club Premises. Therefore, the Club Premises ratio has been applied as follows:

 

Transit Corridor requires 0.25 car bays per person

 

Number of persons: 62 (maximum of 60 patrons and 2 staff)

 

Required car bays: 15.5 (rounds to 16)

 

 

 

 

The subject tenancy accommodates *two dedicated car bays, equating to a 14 car bay shortfall.

 

Note: The car parking management plan confirms bays annotated ‘E and ‘F’ are dedicated parking bays for the subject tenancy. Bays annotated A – D are dedicated bays for other tenancies.

 

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 21 days from 15 June 2018 to 5 July 2018. The method of consultation being a sign on site, an advertisement in the local newspaper and 305 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers surrounding to the site (as shown in Attachment 1), in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

A total of 17 submissions were received; four supporting the proposal and 13 objecting to the proposal.

 

The main concerns raised by the submissions are as follows;

 

·       The premises being used for smoking and the health implications associated with the use;

·       The appropriateness of the land use adjacent to residential areas;

·       Car parking and reliance of on-street parking;

·       The hours of operation;

·       The odour produced from the smoke affecting the amenity of the surrounding area; and

·       The management of the premises.

 

Administration’s and the applicant’s response’s to the submissions made are provided in Attachment 8 and Attachment 9, respectively.

 

In addition to the above, the proposal was referred to the Department of Health for comment. In summary, the Department advised that the business will operate in accordance with the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 and as the business will not be open to the general public smoking is permitted inside the venue.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            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. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement;

·       Public Health Act 1911; and

·       Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992.

 

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.


 

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development proposes a new Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar). The Chief Executive Officer has not been delegated the authority to determine Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) land uses. Additionally, the application received more than five objections through the community consultation undertaken.

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 tenancy is zoned Commercial and the surrounding area provides a mix of zones including Commercial, Local Centre and Residential with density codes of R100 and R60 on Lord Street and Windsor Street, respectively. The immediate vicinity surrounding the subject tenancy adjoins a mix of commercial uses and residential properties. For these reasons, it is considered the proposed Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) will add to the mix of commercial uses within the locality.

 

In considering the appropriateness of the use, Council shall have regard to the objectives of the Commercial zone, as follows.

 

·       To facilitate a wide range of compatible commercial uses that support sustainable economic development within the City.

·       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 maintain compatibility with the general streetscape, for all new buildings in terms of scale, height, style, materials, street alignment and design of facades.

·       To ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality.

 

The proposed Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) is considered to provide an alternative land use to the commercial area which is consistent with the LPS2 objectives for a commercial zone which states to facilitate a wide range of compatible commercial uses. Given the context of the subject tenancy and particularly, the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) being managed for strict entry to members only, the proposed land use is considered to not pose a detrimental impact on nearby residential and commercial properties. The land use is considered to be consistent with the objectives of a commercial zone, which seeks to facilitate a wide range of compatible commercial uses that support sustainable economic development within the City.

 


 

Hours of Operation and Management of Premises

 

A Venue Management Plan has been submitted to the City and is included as Attachment 3. The Venue Management Plan seeks to outline the general management procedures for the operation of the venue including but not limited to, patron management, noise and amenity management, cumulative impact assessment and waste management.

 

The Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) will operate with two employees (including a Venue Manager) and have a maximum capacity of 60 customers. The average venue attendance is proposed to be 50 patrons at any one time. The hours of operation are proposed to be:

 

·       Monday to Saturday: 10:00am to 12:00am (Midnight); and

·       Sunday: 10:00am to 5:00pm.

 

The proposed operating hours are comparable to the operating hours of nearby land uses including a restaurant at 305 Lord Street which operates until 11:00pm, Monday to Saturday. Although the subject tenancy is within close proximity to residential development, guest behaviour will be monitored by venue staff. Additionally, guests are requested to access and egress the venue in a quiet and peaceful manner.

 

Entrance to the building is via the Lord Street entrance and access will remain exclusive to members only, who will be provided with an individual swipe card upon joining the club. In addition, security protocols including a controlled digital camera will be in operation and monitored during the hours of operation of the venue. Should an issue arise, the following contacts will be available:

 

·       Venue Manager to be contacted using the business telephone;

·       Managing Director or representative are to be contacted via mobile phone, should an issue escalate;

·       On-call security company can be contacted via business telephone and/or mobile phone; and

·       Police, Ambulance or Fire Brigade are to be contacted in the case of an emergency.

 

As admission to the premises is restricted to club members only and there will be no sale or consumption of alcoholic beverages, the applicant considers the likeliness of anti-social behaviour to be minimal and on-site security is not necessary. Notwithstanding, a Venue Manager will be present on site at all times during operating hours to manage any complaints and/or incidents. Furthermore, any complaints and/or incidents can be escalated as necessary, noting an on-call security company will be contracted to provide additional support as required.

 

Prior to becoming a member of the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar), an application form and curriculum vitae is to be submitted. Accepted members are required to sign and accept a copy of the Rules and Regulations. A draft application form and draft rules and regulation is included as Attachments 6 and 7. A summary of the Code of Conduct, which forms part of the Rules and Regulations is as follows:

 

·       Being mindful on the rules of the community and neighbourhood;

·       Treat all associated staff with courtesy;

·       Respect other guests;

·       Encouraging a relaxed and enjoyable social environment; and

·       Anti-social behaviour will not be tolerated.

 

Should a member not adhere with the Rules and Regulations and/or associated Code of Conduct, members can be asked to leave the premises. Alternatively, memberships can be cancelled at the discretion of the Managing Director and/or the Membership Committee.

 

In support of the above, a complaints register will be maintained by the venue whereby complaints received will be logged and reviewed by management. The applicant has confirmed that management will continually adapt its operational procedures to minimise the likelihood of issues occurring and reoccurring. Anti-social behaviour, will be monitored with particular attention to respect the surrounding area. The venue management plan confirms anti-social behaviour will be referred to the Western Australian Police at the Venue Manager’s discretion. At the close of business, members will be advised by the Venue Manager to exit the premises and move on from the site in a quiet manner.

 

In summary of the above comments, it is recommended that conditions be imposed on any approval to ensure the development functions within the proposed scope of the Venue Management Plan.

 

Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 and Tobacco Products Control Regulations 2006

 

The Tobacco Products Control Regulations 2006 prohibit smoking in all enclosed public places, including licensed premises. In this regard, a ‘public place’ means:

 

“A place or vehicle that:

 

a)       The public, or section of the public, is entitled to use; or

b)       Is open to, or is being used by, the public, or a section of the public, whether on payment of money, by virtue of membership of a club or other body by invitation, or otherwise.”

 

Legal advice obtained from the State Solicitor’s Office confirms the proposed Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) would not constitute a ‘public place’ because it would be for the exclusive private use of members and would not be open to members of the public at large. The above has been is confirmed by the Department of Health.

 

In relation to the sale of tobacco products, the applicant has already obtained a ‘Licence to sell tobacco products’ from the Department of Health under the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006.

 

Health Act 1911 and Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992

 

Altogether separate from the public place definition in the Tobacco Products Control Regulations 2006 is the definition of a ‘public building’ under the Health Act 1911 as follows.

 

a)       a building or place or part of a building or place where persons may assemble for -

(i)       civic, theatrical, social, political or religious purposes;

(ii)      educational purposes;

(iii)     entertainment, recreational or sporting purposes; and

(iv)     business purposes; and

 

b)       any building, structure, tent, gallery, enclosure, platform or other place or any part of a building, structure, tent, gallery, enclosure, platform or other place in or on which numbers of persons are usually or occasionally assembled, but does not include a hospital.

 

As the premises will be a place where persons assemble for social purposes, it is considered to fall within the definition of ‘public building’ and is therefore subject to the provisions of the Health (Public Buildings) Regulations 1992, which requires buildings to be appropriately ventilated. In this regard, the applicant will be required to provide a Certificate from a Registered Mechanical Engineer certifying that the installed mechanical services will ventilate the premises in accordance with Australian Standard AS1668.2-2012 – The use of ventilation and air-conditioning in buildings. This standard specifies design and location requirements for natural ventilation systems and mechanical air handling systems that ventilate enclosed spaces and ensures that all mechanical ventilation systems prevent build-up of air contaminants within the building. This requirement is reflected in the recommended advice notes.

 

Air Quality Management

 

The application involves the provision of two air filtration systems (Model: Blueair 650E), which work by drawing in contaminated air which is then electrostatically filtered; removing 99.97 percent of airborne particles before releasing clean air back into the premises. The units contain filters which are specifically designed for environments with tobacco smoke, automotive exhausts, chemical fumes and odours. These filters use coal-based carbon to trap gases and fumes and remove them from the air. The system has a filter replacement indicator to notify users when the filter is to be replaced.

 

In addition, the tenancy will be required to have a mechanical ventilation system connected to the existing exhaust ducting, which runs to a discharge point at the roof of the building. Any air released from the exhaust outlet will contain minimal tobacco pollutants and be in such insignificant quantities that it is not expected to have any impact on the amenity of the local area.

 

Noise Impacts

 

The submitted application included an acoustic report from 2014, associated with the original development application for the site. The report is based on the use of the ground floor commercial premises o being for offices and eating houses only, and not for any club-type premises. Given the 2014 acoustic report did not account for any particular mechanical ventilation system, it is recommended that if the application is approved, that a condition be imposed requiring the submission of an updated acoustic report.

 

The Venue Management Plan states ‘background’ music will be played internally which will not be amplified. Additionally, no exterior speakers are proposed and the Venue Management Plan demonstrates how patrons will be managed in terms of behaviour management and complaint management.

 

Notwithstanding the above, an advice note has been recommended for inclusion to notify the applicant that if an increase in the level of music is proposed, a further acoustic report is to be submitted to the satisfaction of the City’s Health Services, which outlines how the development will comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 and the City of Vincent Sound Attenuation Policy.

 

Visual Impact

 

The application does not propose any material changes to the external façade of the building, with the exception of one window sign proposed to be attached to the external façade of the entrance door. The proposed window sign satisfies the deemed to comply requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising. For these reasons, it is considered the proposed development has no adverse impact on the appearance of the streetscape.

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 requires the air management systems to be screened from view from the street and from adjoining properties. A condition will be imposed to ensure the ventilation systems are screened accordingly so as to comply with the deemed to comply requirements of the Policy and minimise visual impact on surrounding development and the streetscape.

 

Car Parking

 

In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Development Parking Requirements, where a use is not listed, the requirement is to be determined by the City on a site specific management plan.

 

Administration considers the operation of the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) to be consistent with a Club Premises. A Club Premises located in a Transit Corridor requires 0.25 car parking bays per person. The application proposes a maximum of 60 patrons at any one time and two employees. The total car parking requirement for the site therefore equates to 15.5 (rounded to 16) car parking bays. The applicant has confirmed that the site accommodates two dedicated car parking bays for the premises. In considering the matter, the following is relevant:

 

·       The applicant has provided a Car Parking Management Plan which demonstrates alternative methods of transport to the subject tenancy.

·       The existing mixed use development provides four short term and 13 long term bicycle bays located within the development and available for use by the public.

·       The site is approximately 350 metres to a dedicated cycle path which is located on East Parade.

·       The subject tenancy is located approximately 250 metres from the East Perth train station.

·       The site is located on Lord Street which is a high frequency bus route and is approximately 100 metres from a bus stop.

·       The site is situated to allow for on street car parking which is available directly adjacent the subject tenancy from Windsor Street. The on-street car parking on Windsor Street is available at all hours and is regulated to allow for two hour car parking from 8.00am to 5.30pm, Monday to Friday which will ensure consistent movement and availability of car parking spaces for residents and customers in the area during this time.

·       The site is located in close vicinity to the East Perth Train Station public car park which is approximately 200 metres from the subject tenancy and accommodates 153 car parking bays. The public car park has a time limitation of four hours on weekdays between 7:30am and 5:30pm. Car parking is otherwise unrestricted outside of the mentioned hours.

·       The applicant has provided a Car Parking Assessment and Management Plan, which details the existing parking conditions and a survey of the car bays available as described above and is included as Attachment 4. The car parking survey was undertaken on Friday 3 August 2018 from 9:30am to 10:00pm. The car parking survey identifies there are 340 public car bays within 250m of the subject tenancy. The peak period was identified from 9:30am to 4:00pm, noting an average of 51 bays were available during this period. Off-peak parking was identified from 6:30pm to 10:00pm, noting an average of 239 car parking bays were available during this period.

·       The applicant’s Car Parking Assessment and Management Plan also identifies the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) is expected to attract fewer users between general business hours and higher attendance after business hours and on weekends. In light of the above information, it is considered sufficient public parking is available within the immediate locality to accommodate the proposed development.

 

The application demonstrates the subject tenancy provides various options and availability of both public transport facilities and alternate transport options. It is considered that the available car parking, bicycle parking and public transport options available is sufficient to manage the car parking requirements of the Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) whilst also promoting alternative modes of transport, which is consistent with the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement. The proposal is therefore acceptable from a car parking perspective.

 

Public Health Plan

The City’s Public Health Plan 2014-2017 is about implementing strategies to promote healthy and social wellbeing and mental health. The plan reflects the latest analysis of health and wellbeing data, as well as the health priorities of both the State and Federal Governments. Whilst a number of Key Actions advocate the cessation of smoking and the provision of smoke-free environments, Council is required to consider this application on its individual merits, having due regard for the potential impact of the use on the amenity of the local area.

 

Conclusion

 

On 1 May 2018, the City received a development application seeking approval for a Change of Use from Shop to Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) at No. 73/288 Lord Street, Highgate. The applicant submitted a supporting venue management plan and car parking management plan to ensure the safe operation and management of the proposed land use.

 

Council is required to exercise its discretion with respect to the proposed land use and car parking requirements for the site. The proposal will provide an alternative land use within the Commercial zone and it is considered to be consistent with the objectives of the Commercial zone as set out in LPS2. The venue management plan is considered to maintain residential amenity of nearby residents and ensure the surrounding area is not compromised by the use. The car parking management plan submitted for the site is considered to provide sufficient car parking and transport methods to the site without requiring additional parking facilities or a cash-in-lieu contribution. In light of the above, the proposed Unlisted Use (Cigar Bar) is supported, subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

9.2          No. 45/87 (Lot: 45; STR 65963) Bulwer Street, Perth - Proposed Amendment (Operating Hours) to Existing Development Approval for an Eating House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/113749

Author:                     Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Location Map and Previous Consultation Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Approval 2015

3.       Attachment 3 - Development Approval 2018

4.       Attachment 4 - Acoustic Report and Venue Management Plan  

 

 

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 the existing development approval for an Eating House at No. 45/87 Bulwer Street, Perth (5.2015.350.1), dated 17 November 2015, by modifying Condition 1 to read as follows:

1.       Hours of Operation

1.1     The Eating House is only permitted to operate between 7:00am and midnight, every day; and

1.2     The alfresco dining area is only permitted to operate between 7:00am and 10:00pm.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend the existing development approval for an Eating House at No. 45/87 Bulwer Street, Perth, as it relates to operating hours.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to amend the operating hours set by the existing development approval from 7:00am to 10:00pm every day to 7:00am to midnight, every day, which represents an increase of two hours every night.

Background:

Landowner:

Kien Ngo

Applicant:

Andy Ngo

Date of Application:

19 July 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Mixed Use     R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Mixed Use

Existing Land Use:

Eating House

Proposed Use Class:

Eating House

Lot Area:

1,404m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 45/87 Bulwer Street, Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject is located adjoining Shops to the east and a Restaurant to the west. A Service Station is located to the north on the opposite side of Bulwer Street and Grouped Dwellings are located to the south on the opposite side of Greenway Street. The broader area is characterised by a mix of commercial, residential and civic uses.

 

The subject site is zoned ‘Mixed Use’ with a density code of R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site comprises of a five-storey mixed-use building consisting of three commercial tenancies located on the ground floor and 44 Multiple Dwellings located on the upper levels. The construction of subject site was conditionally approved by Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) in January 2013. Tenancy No. 45 (the subject tenancy) was originally approved as an Office.

 

An application to change the use of the subject tenancy from ‘Office’ to ‘Eating House’ was approved by Council on 17 November 2015. A copy of this approval is provided in Attachment 2. The application proposed the following operating hours, which were reinforced by a condition of the development approval:

 

·       7:00am to 5:00pm, every day; and

·       Closed on Public Holidays.

 

The City received a development application in February 2018 seeking to amend condition 1 of the approval to increase the operating hours to 7:00am to midnight, every day. On 1 May 2018, Council resolved to conditionally approve the extension of the operating hours until 10:00pm only, on the basis that the applicant had not provided an acoustic report to address potential impact on the residential tenancies located above the site. Ultimately, the application provided insufficient information to demonstrate the Eating House was capable of complying with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997, which applies stricter acoustic requirements after 10:00pm where a venue is in proximity to residential development.

 

A copy of this approval is provided in Attachment 3. The approval was subject to a condition to provide an acoustic report and a venue management plan. The applicant has submitted an acoustic report and venue management plan to the City, which is provided as Attachment 4.

 

The subject site has been operating as an Eating House since being approved by Council. The City has no records of any complaints being received in relation to the use of the premise as an Eating house. The City has undertaken a site inspection confirming all the conditions of the current development approval have been satisfied.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the LPS2. In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Operating Hours

 

ü

 

The land use permissibility has previously been approved by Council.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation on the original proposal to increase the operating hours to midnight occurred for a period of 14 days from 24 February 2018 to 10 March 2018. The method of consultation involved a notification being placed in the Perth Voice newspaper and 87 letters being mailed out to all owners and occupiers surrounding to the site, as shown in Attachment 1, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

During this consultation, two submissions were received; one in support and one in objection. The submission received in support noted that the development should comply with the relevant noise requirements, whilst the objection did not provide specific comments as to the nature of the objection.

 

Administration has not undertaken additional advertising for this development application, given the application proposes the same operating hours that were advertised earlier this year.


 

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            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. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation.

 

The application to amend the aforementioned condition of development approval has been made in accordance with Clause 77(1)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, which enables an application to be made requesting a local government to amend or delete any condition to which a development approval is subject.

 

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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to amend an application previously determined 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:

The sole issue for consideration is the operation of the business between 10:00pm and midnight, particularly in relation to potential noise impacts on the residential tenancies located above the site.

 

The subject tenancy is located on the ground floor of a mixed-use building with Multiple Dwellings located directly above. The site is located in a mixed-use area containing Offices, a Service Station, Restaurants and Shops. The area surrounding the subject site contains some businesses that have extended operating hours. The Service Station that is located adjacent to the subject site operates on a 24 hour basis, the Restaurant located adjoining the subject site operates until 10:00pm and a nearby Tavern (Brisbane Hotel) operates until midnight.

 

To support this application, the proponent has submitted an acoustic report and a venue management plan. Administration has assessed these documents and is satisfied that the use is capable of meeting the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 during the proposed operating hours, subject to the alfresco area being used no later than 10:00pm.  It will therefore be recommended that the application be approved subject to a condition to that effect.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

9.3          No. 1 (Lot: 21; D/P: 1925) Muriel Place, Leederville - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D18/113743

Author:                     Emily Andrews, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Map

2.       Attachment 2 - Development Plans

3.       Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

4.       Attachment 4 - Applicant Justification

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 development application for Alterations and Additions to Single House at No. 1 (Lot: 21; D/P: 1925) Muriel Place, Leederville, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes contained in Attachment 5:

1.         This approval is for the proposed alterations and additions to single house as shown on the plans dated 3 August 2018.  No other development forms part of this approval;

2.         Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) wall adjoining No. 3 Muriel Place in a good and clean condition upon completion of the development. The finish of the walls are to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

3.         Stormwater

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

4.         Car Parking and Access

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

5.         Landscape and Reticulation Plan

5.1     A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge, to the satisfaction of the City, shall 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:

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

·       The provision of 39 percent canopy cover within the street setback area, at maturity;

5.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in condition 5.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to commencement of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

6.         Fencing

The fencing infill within the 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation area of the right of way and Muriel Place are to be 50 percent visually permeable; and

7.         External fixtures

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

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for alterations and additions to the existing single house at No. 1 Muriel Place, Leederville (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes additions and alterations to the rear of the existing single house at the subject site. The development incorporates a single storey addition immediately abutting the existing dwelling and extends to a two storey addition towards the rear lot boundary. The vehicular access to the site is proposed from the right of way to the east of the subject site.

Background:

Landowner:

R Edenburg

Applicant:

Urban Box Residential Design

Date of Application:

17 May 2018

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:    Zone: Residential         R Code: R60

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Dwelling (Single House)

Proposed Use Class:

Dwelling (Single House)

Lot Area:

331m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 2.7m wide, drained and sealed. Owned by J Holmes, however, there is an easement which enables the RoW to be used for access to the subject site.

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 1 Muriel Place, Leederville as shown in the location plan included as Attachment 1. The site is bound by Muriel Place to the north, a ROW to the east and residential properties to the north and south. The subject site and adjoining properties to the south and west are zoned Residential with a density coding of R60 pursuant to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), with the properties to the east on the opposite side of the ROW fronting Oxford Street zoned Mixed Use R100. The subject site has been identified as a Residential Built Form Area subject to the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

The locality predominantly consists of ‘cottage style’ single storey dwellings, however there are also two and three storey developments within the immediate vicinity, with a three storey mixed used development located to the south east of the subject site at Nos. 257- 261 Oxford Street. Although not all of the adjacent properties fronting Oxford Street are currently developed as mixed use developments, these properties are within the Activity Corridor of the Built Form Policy and are permitted a four storey building height.

 

On 21 May 2018, the City received a development application for alterations and additions to the existing dwelling at the subject site. The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the LPS2, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Residential Design Codes (R Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

ü

 

Building Setbacks

 

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

Setback of Garages and Carports

ü

 

Parking and Access

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Street Walls and Fences

ü

 

Sight Lines

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.1.3

 

Western boundary

Ground Floor porch to dining room requires a 2.0 metre setback

 

 

 

1.059 metres

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.1

 

Uncovered outdoor living area of 10.7 square metres

 

 

Uncovered area of 10.1 square metres

Site Works and Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.7 and 5.3.8

 

Fill and retaining to 0.5 metres above natural ground level within 1.0 metre of the lot boundary

 

 

Fill and retaining to 0.548 metres above natural ground level within 1.0 metre of the western boundary

Sight Lines

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.2.5

 

Walls, fences and other structures are to be truncated or no higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of vehicle access points where a driveway meets a public street and where two streets intersect

 

 

Fencing to 1.2 metres in height within 1.5 metres of vehicle access points and where a driveway meets a public street

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 12 July 2018 and concluding on 25 July 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, seven submissions were received comprising of two in support and five in objection, with one of the comments received in objection being received after the conclusion of the community consultation period. It is also noted that one of the submissions received in objection contained 10 signatures, with a number of these persons also providing a separate submission.

 

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

 

·       Loss of privacy from the proposal by way of windows to the upper floor;

·       The proposed building style is not sympathetic to the character of the area;

·       The impact of the development to the streetscape of Muriel Place and Bourke Street (to the rear) which currently consist of cottage style homes; and

·       Loss of access to sunlight to adjoining properties as a result of the development.

 

A summary of submissions received and Administration’s response to these is included as Attachment 3.

 

On 1 August 2018, the applicant, current and future property owners of Nos. 1 and 3 Muriel Place, four adjoining residents from Nos. 96 Bourke Street and 263 Oxford Street, Mayor Cole and City Officers attended a meeting to discuss the concerns of the adjoining residents that were raised during the community consultation period. Following this meeting, the applicant amended the plans to include additional landscaping to the rear boundary in order to assist with mitigating the impact of potential building bulk. It is noted that no other changes were made to the proposed plans. The applicant provided justification in response to the meeting which is included as Attachment 4. Following the additional information being provided regarding the proposal the City notified the adjoining residents of the changes made. No response has been received from these adjoining residents to date.

 

The applicant also provided a response to the submissions raised which are as follows:

 

·       There are examples of recently constructed additions which are virtually the same in the Leederville area so the design is in keeping with what is being approved and designed in the area;

·       The streetscapes of both Muriel Place and Bourke Street are not affected as the addition is not seen from either with the two storey portion at the rear of the property;

·       The scale of the development is smaller than what is allowed due to the R60 coding and can be greatly larger;

·       There are no overlooking issues to any of the neighbours with no windows that don’t comply with the R Codes;

·       There is no outdoor area or habitable rooms that are going to be shaded from natural sunlight and is drastically under the allowed 50 percent overshadowing of the rear property and complies with all aspects of the R Codes; and

·       The ROW is for the travel of cars so there is no issue with safety in the lane.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            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 has the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for 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 the WAPC’s draft Design WA suite of documents. As a result, the assessment will only have ‘due regard’ to these provisions.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal received a total of five objections, with one objection containing 10 signatures.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023 states:

 

Natural and Built Environment

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The development requires a 2.0 metre setback on the western boundary in accordance with Clause 5.1.3 of the R Codes, with 1.059 metres proposed. The portion of wall subject to the setback departure relates to the existing length of wall on the ground floor and to the north of the proposed boundary wall. The proposed setback departure is a result of the inclusion of a major opening within the existing wall length (Dining Room), which effectively increases how far the wall should be setback from the boundary.

 

In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

 

·      The setback departure of 0.94 metres is considered to be minor and will not create any additional adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property, with the proposed opening not adjacent to any major openings or the outdoor living area of the adjoining property.

·      The setback departure does not result in loss of access to direct sun and ventilation to this area.

·      Furthermore, the proposed opening complies with visual privacy requirements as the finished floor level of the dwelling adjacent to the window is less than 0.5 metres above natural ground level, with the proposed dining room opening adequately screened by a sufficient dividing fence.

·      The proposed length of wall incorporates various materials such as weatherboard cladding, glazing and timber stud walls which are considered to reduce the perception of building bulk to the adjoining landowners. These elements on the ground floor are consistent with the existing dwelling and the surrounding developments. 

·      The proposed setback departure does not result in any adverse overshadowing to the adjoining property as the orientation of the site ensures that the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply requirements relating to solar access.

 

Given the above, the proposed setback on the western boundary is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes.

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

Clause 5.3.1 of the R Codes requires properties with a density coding of R60 to provide a 16 square metre outdoor living area (OLA), with up to one-third of this area permitted to have a permanent roof cover. The development proposes a uncovered area of 10.1 square meters in lieu of 10.7 square metres permitted.

 

The increase of 0.6 square metres to the permitted covered area of OLA is considered to be minor and a negligible impact on the overall site, with the open space area meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements for an R60 property and sufficient canopy coverage provided in accordance with the City’s Built Form Policy. The additional covered area allows for an OLA that is capable of use in various weather conditions and can be used in conjunction with a habitable room of the dwelling. As north is to the front of the subject site, the OLA making use of the northern aspect of the site would result in it being located within the front setback area. The proposed location of the OLA on the eastern boundary will allow for sufficient access to winter sun and ventilation.

 

In light of the above, it is considered that the proposal satisfies the design principles of the R Codes.

 

Site Works and Retaining

 

The development proposes fill and retaining to 0.548 metres to the western boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply standard of 0.5 metres, as set out by Clause 5.3.7 and Clause 5.3.8 of the R Codes.

 

The increase of 0.048 metres to the permitted fill and retaining on the western boundary is the result of the gradual slope in natural ground level increasing from west to east across the site. The fill is respective of the natural ground levels and existing development levels on site.

 

The development will have a negligible impact on the natural ground level as viewed from the street because the area of increased fill and retaining is greater than 10 metres away from the front lot boundary. The minor departure allows for more effective use of the land without compromising the amenity of the adjoining property.

 

Given the above, the proposed fill and retaining is considered to meet the relevant design principles of the R Codes.

 

Sight Lines

 

The development proposes fencing 1.2 metres high within visual truncation areas in lieu of 0.75 metres, as set out by Clause 5.2.5 of the R Codes.

 

The proposed fencing is to be 50 percent visually permeable and is therefore considered to provide for unobstructed sight lines both adjacent to the right of way access and the visitor bay located towards the front of the development. As there is a footpath adjacent to the dwelling, the fencing being visually permeable will allow for the safe movement of pedestrians and vehicles.

 

To ensure that adequate sight lines are maintained, it is recommend that a condition be applied requiring fencing within the 1.5 metre x 1.5 metre visual truncation area be 50 percent visually permeable.

 

Built Form

 

A number of the submissions received during the consultation period raised concerns regarding the built form outcome of the proposed upper floor addition at the subject site. The proposed colours, materials and height were considered by some submitters to be not in keeping with the Leederville character and are not aligned with the existing cottage style developments within the immediate area and surrounding streetscape.

 

Muriel Place is a predominantly intact streetscape which sees cottage style homes setback approximately 7 metres from the front lot boundary. A similar addition to that proposed has been constructed at No. 6 Muriel Place. The property at No. 6 Muriel Place has retained the original dwelling with a contemporary upper floor addition to the rear of the property and is not directly visible from the street. To the rear of the subject site (on Bourke Street) are similar cottage style developments with both single and two storey developments in close proximity to the subject site. The developments to the east along Oxford Street predominantly are single storey dwellings, with exception of the property at the corner of Bourke and Oxford Streets which is a three storey mixed use development.

 

The development does not propose to remove the existing cottage dwelling with the additions being to the rear of the existing house. The colours and materials of the dwelling are not restricted in accordance with City’s policies, however the proposed colourbond cladding to the upper floor is considered to be complimentary to weatherboard material of the existing dwelling. At ground level, the proposed colours and materials are to match the existing render and weatherboard cladding. The proposal is not considered to have a negative impact on the character of the area as the proposed upper floor addition is in accordance with the deemed-to-comply heights of the Built Form Policy. Additionally, the upper floor additions will not be directly visible from the Muriel Place streetscape given the 22 metre setback from the street and as evident with a similar development at No. 6 Muriel Place.

 

Although the rear (southern boundary) setback, overlooking and overshadowing are compliant with the R Codes, the development proposes the planting of two Flowering Plum trees to assist in mitigating the impact of building bulk and increasing the visual amenity to the adjoining properties.

 

Given the above, the proposed development is considered to be complimentary with the surrounding streetscapes and the City’s intent for development within this area, particularly as it is actively retaining the existing dwelling on site.

 

Landscaping

 

The R Codes do not have a requirement for landscaping to single houses, however the City’s Built Form Policy sets out a deemed-to-comply standard of 30 percent canopy coverage within the front setback area for alterations and additions to dwellings. These standards and relevant corresponding design principles are given due regard when assessing and determining this proposal. The proposal provides 39 percent (25.69 square metres) canopy coverage between the front lot boundary and the dwelling. An additional 6.3 square metres of canopy from the trees in the front setback area extend beyond the lot boundary into the verge area and ROW.

 

The proposal involves the planting of five Flowering Plum (Prunus Ceradifera) trees within the front setback area. The City’s Parks Team has advised that the proposed tree species is consistent with the City’s tree selection tool and is appropriate in the proposed locations. Following from the meeting on 1 August 2018 and in response to the concerns raised, the applicant has also indicated the planting of two Flowering Plum trees along the rear boundary in order to assist with reducing the impact of building bulk as viewed from the adjoining property to the south. In addition to the landscaping provided within the front setback of the property, the subject site allows for 74.9 square metres of deep soil area with 34.7 square metres of this area within the 6 metre front setback area. This area is capable of providing additional trees and canopy coverage across the site should the owners wish to provide additional vegetation in the future.

 

In light of the above, it is noted that the development complies with requirements of the Built Form Policy as in excess of 30 percent canopy coverage provided within the front setback area.

 

Conclusion

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to lot boundary setbacks, outdoor living areas, sight lines and site works and retaining. For the reasons outlined in the report, these aspects of the development are considered to satisfy the Design Principles of the City’s Built Form Policy and R Codes respectively. The proposal will not negatively impact the adjoining properties as the lot boundary setback departure incorporates a range of materials in order to mitigate building bulk, and as the proposed departures to the outdoor living area and site works and retaining are minor in nature and will not negatively impact on the streetscape or adjoining residents. Furthermore, the applicant has used contrasting materials and landscaping elements to reduce the impact of building bulk and scale to surrounding residents.

 

Given the above and as the proposal does not result in an adverse impact on the adjoining properties, it is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

9.4          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 retention of the replaced timber window frames in bedrooms one and three;

·       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;

7.       Within 28 days of Council approval, the applicant is to submit details as to how the existing moisture vents will be painted to match the original fabric 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. Within 28 days of the City’s approval of those details, the applicant is to paint the existing moisture vents, to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent; and

8.       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 completed works:

 

·       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 timber windows for bedrooms one and three;

·       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.

 

In addition, 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, the installation of new timber window frames in bedrooms one and three, 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, installation of timber window frames for bedrooms one and three 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, installation of timber window frames for bedrooms one and three 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, installation of timber window frames for bedrooms one and three 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, installation of timber window frames for bedrooms one and three 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, installation of timber window frames for bedrooms one and three 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 and the retention of the replaced decorative concrete, the following is relevant:

 

·       The render 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 and decorative concrete feature is are not compatible with the original fabric and alters the elements that contributes to the significance of the place;

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

·       The render of the façade and chimney stacks 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 rendered façade and chimney stacks, 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 not 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 timber window frames in bedrooms one and three;

·       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 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.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

9.5          Amendment to Trees of Significance Inventory - 209 Brisbane Street, Perth

TRIM Ref:                  D18/36743

Author:                     Amanda Fox, Strategic Planning Officer

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Trees of Significance Inventory - Current

2.       Attachment 2 - 209 Brisbane Street Request for Removal from Inventory

3.       Attachment 3 - 209 Brisbane Street - Arborist Report of Lacebark

4.       Attachment 4 - Trees of Significance Inventory - Proposed (Track Changes)

5.       Attachment 5 - Trees of Significance Inventory - Proposed (Final)  

 

Recommendation:

That Council AMENDS the City’s Trees of Significance Inventory by deleting the entry for “209 Brisbane Street, Northbridge – Brachychiton discolour (Lacebark)”.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider amending the Trees of Significance Inventory by removing the Lacebark (Brachychiton discolour) tree on Lot 209 Brisbane Street, Perth from the City’s Trees of Significance Inventory (the Inventory).

Background:

Trees of Significance Inventory

 

On 6 May 1997, TP Landscape Architecture was engaged by the City to compile an inventory of significant trees within the City of Vincent. The purpose of the Inventory was to provide a mechanism for the City to recognise valuable trees and to ensure the protection and management of these trees. The project included developing criteria to assess trees for significance and to make recommendations as to the suitability of trees to be included on a new Inventory.  At that time, the assessment was limited to sites/trees that had been identified by the City’s Administration or had been nominated by owners of land which accommodated potentially significant trees. As a result of the work, on 22 December 1997, Council resolved to adopt an Inventory which contained 25 sites, including the subject site at No. 209 Brisbane Street, Perth (listed as Northbridge).

 

Since being introduced, the Inventory has been amended to add two sites and remove two sites. The Inventory currently includes trees located on 25 sites, as shown in Attachment 1.

 

In 2001, a provision was included in the City’s (then) Town Planning Scheme No. 1 that required the City’s approval for any removal, destruction or interference with any tree listed on the Inventory. This provision has been carried into the City’s current Local Planning Scheme No. 2 by way of ‘Supplemental Provision’ Clause 61(1)(k). Clause 61(1)(k) requires that works to remove, destroy and/or interfere with any tree listed on the Inventory requires development approval.

 

In June 2013, Council adopted Policy No. 7.6.3 – Trees of Significance, which provides guidance on the nomination and management of trees on the Inventory. This Policy provides criteria as to when a tree may be considered to be significant and worthy of inclusion onto the City’s Trees of Significance Inventory including:

 

a)       outstanding aesthetic quality;

b)       outstandingly large height, trunk circumference or canopy spread;

c)       commemoration or association with particular historical or cultural events;

d)       association with a well known public figure or ethnic group;

e)       specimen of great age;

f)       outstanding example of a particular species;

g)       rare or unusual species;

h)       horticultural, genetic or propagative value; or

i)        likely to be a remnant or regrowth local native tree.

 

 

 

Tree Located on 209 Brisbane Street, Perth

 

The subject tree is situated adjacent to the rear and side lot boundary on the southern portion of the property and can be viewed from within the property and from the right of way to the rear. The tree was first included onto the City’s Trees of Significance Inventory in December 1997 as a result of a nomination by the owner of the property at the time. The tree underwent an assessment by consultant TP Landscape Architecture in 1997 and was found to meet the following criteria:

 

‘Aesthetic value:         Aesthetically appealing, complimenting other tree species in the rear garden, providing good contract in shape and form.

 

Historic value:            Important as a cultural feature in the development of the area.

 

Scientific value:          Relatively rare in such an urban environment, contributing a wider understanding of the natural and cultural history of the area.

 

Social value:              Providing excellent shade, colour texture, privacy and appeal to its users.’

 

In 1998, a three story grouped dwelling development was approved on the adjacent property at No. 207 Brisbane Street, Perth. Around this time, branches of the subject tree were significantly pruned along the fence line by the adjoining owner to accommodate the adjacent development.  Since this pruning occurred in 1998, before the adoption of Policy No. 7.6.3 in 2013, there was no requirement for Council approval for the pruning of this tree.

 

In October 2017, the City received an enquiry regarding the removal of the tree on No. 209 Brisbane Street, Perth from the Inventory. To support the application to remove the tree, the land owner was requested to provide justification and an arborist report in support of the application. The full application, including the arborist report was received by the City on 29 March 2018.

Details:

The following is a summary of the applicant’s justification for removal of the subject tree from the Inventory:

 

·       The tree has been significantly pruned to accommodate the adjoining three storey development at No. 207 Brisbane Street which has significantly compromised the structure of the tree;

·       The location and extent of canopy spread of the tree covers and shades much of the 6 metre wide backyard making it difficult to utilise the area;

·       The Lacebark species is not a native specimen, being native to NSW not WA, thus is not a significant species worthy of retaining in this area;

·       The trees flower pods contain irritant fibres which also carpet the entire backyard in the flowering season making the backyard unusable during part of the year.

 

The application from the owner which includes a comprehensive justification for the removal of the tree, addressing each of the criteria of Policy No. 7.6.3 is provided in Attachment 2.

 

The applicant has also provided an assessment of the subject tree from a qualified arborist in support of the application to have the tree removed from the Inventory. The arborist report indicates that the aesthetic form of the tree is somewhat diminished when viewed from the east due to past pruning that has occurred. Although the arborist report indicates that the tree may meet one of the required criteria to be considered for the Inventory, being Aesthetic Quality, it does not meet any of the other criteria that would be required for it to be considered for inclusion onto the Inventory. A copy of the full arborist assessment is provided in Attachment 3.

Consultation/Advertising:

Updates to the Trees of Significance Inventory do not require any advertising.

Legal/Policy:

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

·       Policy No. 7.6.3 – Trees of Significance.

Risk Management Implications:

Amending the Trees of Significance Inventory is considered low risk.

Strategic Implications:

Nil.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The City’s Administration has undertaken an assessment of the subject tree in accordance with the Trees of Significance Policy. This included a site visit and visual assessment. The assessment indicated that although the subject tree is considered to be a relatively large specimen in its current location, the original structural shape and form of its canopy has been significantly compromised by pruning on the eastern side.

 

This pruning has resulted in the tree growing multiple, soft immature branches which is commonly referred to as epicormic regrowth. This has resulted in the new regrowth of the subject tree being generally weaker and more prone to tearing away from the tree resulting in branch failure.

 

The subject tree has been significantly pruned on the eastern side and lacks good branch and canopy structure.  The pruning has resulted in a reduction in the significance of the aesthetic value of the tree, which is a matter that, under the Policy, must be considered. Furthermore, the tree is not considered to meet other criteria which would make it worthy of inclusion onto the Inventory, as follows.

 

Assessment Criteria

Assessment

Outstanding aesthetic quality

Somewhat meets criteria

Outstandingly large height, trunk circumference or canopy spread

Does not meet criteria

Commemoration or association with particular historical or cultural events

Does not meet criteria

Association with a well known public figure or ethnic group

Does not meet criteria

Specimen of great age

Does not meet criteria

Outstanding example of a particular species

Does not meet criteria

Rare or unusual species

Does not meet criteria

Horticultural, genetic or propagative value

Does not meet criteria

Likely to be a remnant or regrowth local native tree

Does not meet criteria

 

Based on the above assessment is it considered that, had the tree not already been on the Inventory, it would not be appropriate to add it. As such, its removal from the Inventory is supported.

 

Conclusion

 

The Lacebark situated within the lot boundary of No. 209 Brisbane Street, Perth has been assessed by the City’s Administration against the criteria of Policy No. 7.6.3 – Trees of Significance. The tree is a relatively large example of its species, however the tree has undergone significant pruning which has compromised its structural form and canopy spread, reducing its aesthetic significance. The tree is not considered to meet the criteria included in Policy No. 7.6.3 for a tree to be deemed as significant and worthy of retention.

 

On this basis, it is recommended that Council removes the Lacebark (Brachychiton discolour) tree situated within the lot boundary of No. 209 Brisbane Street, Perth from the City’s Trees of Significance Inventory.

 

In assessing the abovementioned nomination the City has identified a number of issues with the current approach to identifying and protecting trees of significance, and trees on privately owned land more broadly. The City will further investigate these issues and identify potential methods to address these issues. A report on the matter will be presented to the Council Meeting in November 2018.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

9.6          Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

TRIM Ref:                  D18/107299

Authors:                   Tim Elliott, Strategic Planning Officer

Stephanie Smith, Manager Policy and Place

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

2.       Attachment 2 - WA Planning Commission Determination

3.       Attachment 3 - Schedule of Modifications

4.       Attachment 4 - Draft Amended Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form

5.       Attachment 5 - Draft Amended Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form (Clean)

6.       Attachment 6 - Draft Amended Appendix No. 16 - Design Guidelines for Perth

7.       Attachment 7 - Draft Amended Appendix No. 18 - Design Guidelines for William Street  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       PREPARES:

1.1     Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form included as Attachment 4 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of advertising for public comment, subject to the following changes;

1.1.1  Clause C1.5.2 is to read: ‘Flat roof structures that are not visible from the street or adjacent properties shall have a maximum solar absorptance rating of 0.4’; and

1.1.2  Clause C1.5.3 is to read: ‘Pitched roof structures or roof structures that are visible from the street or adjacent properties shall have a maximum solar absorptance rating of 0.5, unless an alternative is identified in the Urban Design Study’;

1.2     An amendment to Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth included as Attachment 6 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of advertising for public comment;

1.3     An amendment to Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street included as Attachment 7 pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of advertising for public comment; and

2.       NOTES:

2.1     That the amendments to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, Appendix No. 16 – Design Guidelines for Perth and Appendix No. 18 – Design Guidelines for William Street will be advertised for a period of 28 days pursuant to Clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Item 4.2 of Appendix 3 of Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

2.2     That Administration will give notice of the proposed amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission pursuant to Clause 4 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider preparing Amendment 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Background:

The Built Form Policy was adopted by Council on 13 December 2016 (Item 9.1.11) and came into effect on 21 January 2017. A copy of the current Built Form Policy is included as Attachment 1.

 

As part of the December 2016 resolution, Council noted that Administration would forward a number of provisions relating to landscaping and setbacks to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for approval pursuant to Clause 7.3.2 of State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes (R Codes). On 8 January 2018, the WAPC resolved to approve the City’s provisions, subject to the City making a number of modifications to the provisions to better align with the provisions of the State Government’s draft Apartment Design Policy. A copy of the WAPC’s decision is included as Attachment 2.

 

As the City is not required, or able, to make the modifications recommended by the WAPC without an amendment to the Built Form Policy, it is now proposed to broadly address the WAPC’s recommendation through Amendment 1.

 

In addition, since being adopted by Council, the current Built Form Policy continues to be used to determine development applications. As a result of the implementation of the Built Form Policy, Administration has identified a number of opportunities to clarify the intent of several policy provisions and make a number of administrative modifications to improve the operation of the Policy. Administration is now proposing Amendment 1 to the Built Form Policy to address both the decision of the WAPC and the improvements that have been identified in implementing the Policy.

 

A draft Amendment was presented to the Council Briefing Session on 14 August 2018 but was withdrawn by the CEO from the 21 August 2018 Council Meeting Agenda. The proposed Amendment was subsequently referred to the Design Review Panel (DRP) for comment. As a result of questions raised during the Briefing Session and feedback received from the DRP, a number of further modifications to the draft Policy have been proposed, as follows:

 

·       Increasing the Deep Soil Area requirement from 10% to 12%, so as to align with draft Design WA;

·       Amending the incentive associated with the retention of mature trees which contribute to 30% or more of the required canopy cover on site (to be 10% rather than 8%), so as maintain the previous position of a two percent reduction to the required deep soil area, as related to the above dot point.

·       Reducing the Planting Area requirement from 5% to 3%, so as to reflect the increase in Deep Soil Area, while still retaining the overall requirement of 15%;

·       Increasing the car park canopy cover requirement from 40% to 60%. The increase factors in the canopy cover generated from the 1.5m planting strip which was previously omitted from the calculation;

·       Consolidated the requirements for corner sites, ground floor design, awnings, verandahs and collonades and building design into one set of requirements (Building Design) that applies to all Built Form Areas;

·       Including a new requirement for all Built Form Areas for key design elements of the streetscape to be identified by an Urban Design Study, with those elements to be integrated and acknowledged in the development;

·       Changing the deemed to comply provision relating to tenancy width from 7.5m-9m to a maximum of 9m. to allow traditional shop front width, fine grain detail and variety in the town centres;

·       Providing a maximum awning height of 4m, to ensure awnings are at a suitable height to provide weather protection to pedestrians.

·       Increasing the doorway depth range from 0.5m-1m to 0.5m-1.5m, to allow traditional shop entrances;

·       Including a new Objective in each Built Form Area to advocate that privacy be addressed through design rather than screening;

·       Including a requirement for roof structures that are pitched or visible, to have a maximum solar absorptance rating of 0.6, unless an alternative approach is identified in the Urban Design Study; and

·       Changing the Environmentally Sustainable Design requirements to apply as deemed-to-comply provisions and requiring development to achieve an environmental performance rating, rather than only demonstrating that it is capable of achieving that rating.

Details:

1.       Canopy Cover

 

The current Built Form Policy Deemed to Comply Clause C1.7.3 requires 80 percent of rear and side setback areas to be provided as canopy coverage at maturity and Deemed to Comply Clauses C4.10.4 and C5.14.3 require 30 percent of the site area to be provided as canopy coverage at maturity.

 

The City applied for approval of these requirements from the WAPC under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes. The WAPC proposed a modification that the provision be reworded to require Deep Soil Area to be located to enable canopy coverage over the site to be maximised at maturity. The justification for this was that the change is more consistent with draft Design WA, which does not have canopy cover requirements, but focuses on a minimum Deep Soil Area being provided.

 

This modification is not supported, as it does not add any value to the existing requirement for 15 percent Deep Soil Zone over the site, and it does not directly link to the City’s canopy cover targets. It is important that the original intent of the Built Form Policy is maintained to ensure that new developments have an appropriate amount of canopy coverage to screen large scale development, provide a high amenity environment for neighbouring properties and residents and contribute to broader greening aspirations.

 

Through implementing the Built Form Policy, Administration has identified a number of improvements that are recommended to be made to the policy provisions including:

 

·       C1.7.3 should apply to lot boundary setback areas at the ground level only. Lot boundary setbacks can be stepped back at higher levels and it would be impractical to require those higher levels to provide canopy coverage due to the difficulty of maintaining appropriate soil depth/quality.

·       All percentage canopy cover requirements should be a minimum, whereas currently they are written as an exact requirement.

 

In reviewing the Policy, the WAPC advocated for a provision that required a minimum number of trees within that Deep Soil Area, depending on the lot size. The justification for this was that the change is more consistent with draft Design WA, which does not have canopy cover requirements, but focuses on a minimum number of trees being provided.

 

Administration does not support the requirement to move towards specifying the number and size of trees as it would result in a reduced canopy coverage requirement compared to the Built Form Policy. The extent of the variance depends on the size of the lot, the tree types selected and the location of planting. In addition, the method of calculation is significantly more complex than the Built Form Policy’s canopy coverage percentage requirement and does not directly and demonstrably link to the City’s intent of achieving a measurable canopy cover target.

 

The resulting canopy coverage depends on the specific tree selection and lot size, so the impact of replacing the City’s canopy coverage requirements with requirements for tree planting will differ in each development application. In addition, there is no requirement for the trees to be planted in such a way to maximise canopy coverage of the site so trees may be planted with their canopies overlapping, therefore reducing the overall canopy coverage of the site. This is not an issue with the percentage-based canopy coverage requirement.

 

The City recommends maintaining the percentage-based canopy cover provisions as they have been successfully implemented and have demonstrated they are able to achieve the desired canopy coverage, with a simpler method of calculation and assessment, than the proposed draft Design WA provisions.

 

2.       Deep Soil Areas

 

The definition of Deep Soil Zone in the current Built Form Policy does not align with the definition of Deep Soil Area in draft Design WA. The City’s definition specifies a minimum depth of 1m whereas the definition in draft Design WA requires there to be no development above or below. Under the definition of Deep Soil Area in draft Design WA planting on structure would not contribute to the required percentage of site coverage.

Despite this difference it is considered appropriate to align the definition of Deep Soil Zone with draft Design WA’s definition of Deep Soil Area, to be consistent with the draft state planning policy.

 

As the new definition of Deep Soil Area removes the ability to consider on-structure planting and there may be instances where on structure planting is desirable such as in large scale development where it contributes to the amenity for residents, it is recommended that a new definition and provision be introduced into the Built Form Policy to require this.

 

Deemed to Comply Clauses C1.7.1, C4.10.1 and C5.14.1 require all properties to provide 15 percent of the development site as Deep Soil Zone. The City applied for approval of this requirement from the WAPC under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes. The WAPC proposed a modification to this provision to require 12 percent Deep Soil Area which is supported. To recognise the change in definition and need to provide guidance on the amount of space dedicated to soft landscaping (such as on structure landscaping) it is recommended a new Planting Area requirement be introduced. It was also identified that both a minimum area and minimum dimensions should be specified for both Deep Soil Areas and Planting Areas.

 

The City also identified that the new definition of Deep Soil Area is more onerous than the definition of Deep Soil Zone, and therefore supports including the 12% Deep Soil Area requirement in accordance with draft Design WA.

 

3.       Tree Retention

 

While there are existing requirements for providing canopy coverage and incentives for retaining trees, there is no requirement in the Deemed to Comply provisions to retain existing mature trees.

 

A Deemed to Comply requirement would provide the ability for the City to require the retention of existing trees, and this would provide a beneficial outcome in line with the City’s targets and objectives of the Policy. It is recommended that this be included in the draft Policy.

 

4.       Additions and Alterations

 

Deemed to comply provision C5.14.10 requires the replacement of lost canopy cover, due to additions or alterations, in the front setback area.

The City applied for approval of this requirement from the WAPC under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes.

The WAPC proposed modifications to this provision to require deep soil area in the front setback to maximise canopy coverage at maturity unless an existing mature tree with equivalent coverage was retained anywhere on site.

The City does not support this change as the canopy coverage is not stated within the provision, making the outcome unclear, and will vary depending on the tree species proposed.

It was considered appropriate that where an addition or alteration affects the deep soil area, canopy cover or trees on a site that all landscaping provisions should be complied with to ensure the loss landscaping is suitably offset.

 

5.       Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

Deemed to Comply Clauses C1.2.5 and C4.3.6 require the following lot boundary setbacks where development is within the non-residential built form areas and adjoins a property which is within the Residential Built Form Area and coded R50 and below:

 

·       6.5 metres for the ground floor, second and third storey; and

·       12.5 metres setback for the fourth storey and above.

 

Deemed to Comply Clause C5.3.3 requires the following rear boundary setbacks where development is within the residential built form area and adjoins a property coded R50 and below:

 

·       6.5 metres for the ground floor, second and third storey; and

·       12.5 metres setback for the fourth storey and above.

 

The City applied to the WAPC for approval of these clauses under Clause 7.3.2 of the R Codes, with the WAPC proposing to modify this provision to base the required setback on the height of the proposed development, the type of room in the proposed development and the type of room on the adjacent property.

The difference between the current setback requirement and the WAPC’s proposed setback requirement depends on the specific development proposed. As an example, a four-storey development in a Town Centre adjoining an R60 property would require a ground, second and third storey setback of 4.5 metres and the fourth storey setback would be 6.5 metres. Under the WAPC’s proposed provision the setback requirement would range from between 6 metres and 9 metres depending on the type of room it faces on the adjoining property. The modification states that it applies where adjoining properties are coded “R50 and below or R60 and above”. Since there is no R-Code between R50 and R60 this requirement will apply to every property that abuts a residential site, rather than providing specific requirements according to the code of the adjoining property. This approach is not supported as it considered that an R80 development next to an R60 site requires a different setback to an R100 development next to an R40 site.

 

The proposed approach for determining the setback requirement is more complex than the current Built Form Policy as it relies on knowing what sort of room is in the building/s adjoining the development site. In some cases, this information may be unavailable or difficult to obtain. It would also result in a disparity in setbacks based on which site is developed first and the manner in which it is developed. The WAPC’s proposed setback methodology appears to be based on the building separation distances in draft Design WA rather than the setback distances in draft Design WA. Building separation is measured from the wall of the building on an adjoining lot whereas a setback distance is measures from the lot boundary. The result of this is that the proposed setbacks are approximately double those required in draft Design WA, and in most instances greater than those proposed by the City.

 

The City also identified that where a subject site is a lower or equal coding to an adjoining site the large setback distances apply. It is considered unnecessary for large setback distances to apply as it reduces the development potential of the subject site in order to protect the adjoining site which may be of a higher coding. This would result in a large building separation for the subject site whilst the adjoining site has greater density potential and may impact the lower density subject site. It is recommended that the setback assessment be simplified into a table to clearly convey the applicable setbacks and remove the unintended consequence of large setback distances for similarly coded land.

 

5.       Built Form Area Objectives

 

The Built Form Policy contains five built form areas, with each area having specific Design Principles and Local Housing Objectives to guide development elements. However, there are no overall objectives for each built form area that explain the intended development outcomes for each area. It is important to guide the overall style of development, as well as providing advice for applicants and the determining authority when using the policy and making design principle assessments. It is recommended that new objectives for each Built Form Area be introduced into the Policy.

 

6.       Building Design, Materials & Finishes

 

Design Principles P1.6.1, P1.6.2 and P1.6.3 in the current Built Form Policy contain guidance on building design and architectural elements for developments. In addition, Clauses 1.3, 1.4 and 1.5 provide guidance on development on corner sites, ground floor design and development that includes awnings, verandahs and collonades. These requirements require certain building design elements to be included in a proposed development.

 

The City, on advice of the Design Review Panel, identified that these requirements do not clearly articulate the outcome the City is seeking to achieve as they do not require the development to respond to its unique local context.

 

To resolve this issue, it is considered appropriate to require that certain information and detail be provided with an application for development approval. This additional information would consist of an Urban Design Study that identifies characteristics of existing development and recommends the incorporation of those characteristics by using a variety of materials, finishes and architectural elements to reduce its impact on adjoining properties and appropriately complement the local area. This method enables the City to conduct a more informed assessment of the building design, rather than simply assessing compliance with Deemed to Comply criteria. It also places a greater onus on applicants to provide sufficient information and to justify the quality of building design, which is considered likely to deliver improved built form outcomes. This is intended to ensure that development complements the local characteristics of an area through appropriate use of materials, finishes and architectural elements to reduce its impact on adjoining properties.

 

It is also recommended to consolidate the various building design requirements into one section of the Policy on Building Design and apply these design elements to all Built Form Areas.

 

7.       Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

Clause 1.8 provides Design Principles and Local Housing Objectives requiring development to demonstrate that the proposed development is capable of achieving a number of sustainable design outcomes, however, the current provision does not require the development to actually deliver the recommended sustainable design measures. It is recommended that the City strengthen the current policy provisions to require developments to deliver the relevant sustainable design measures.

 

Further to this Clauses 4.23.1 and 5.30.1 require the Environmentally Sustainable Design provisions of Clause 1.8 to apply to all development in the Transit Corridor and Residential Built Form Areas, except single houses or grouped dwellings. The City determined that it would be appropriate for these provisions to apply to single houses and grouped dwellings. The review provides landowners with information on how their development may be improved to reduce energy consumption, which is relevant for all new buildings of any scale.

 

In addition to the abovementioned technical changes to the Built Form Policy there are also a number of minor editorial and administrative changes proposed. A tracked change version of the draft Built Form Policy showing all of the proposed changes is included as Attachment 4 and a clean version of the draft Built Form Policy is included as Attachment 5.

 

Design Guidelines

 

The City has a suite of Design Guidelines that outline specific, location-based requirements for development in nine separate planning cells. Where there is an inconsistency between the Design Guidelines and the Policy, the ‘Relationship to Other Documents’ section states that the Design Guidelines prevail. This means that the building heights stated within the Design Guidelines are deemed to comply in these areas and override the building heights stated in the Policy.

 

Of the nine Design Guidelines, there are two where the heights are inconsistent with the Policy; William Street and Perth. In the remaining seven, the building heights are consistent.

 

The building height requirement in the William Street Design Guidelines is four storeys and the building height requirement in the Policy is a maximum of six storeys. There is also an inconsistency within the Policy itself between Figure 2 (the building heights map), which refers back to the Design Guidelines being four storeys, and Table 1 (the table describing the building heights), which prescribes a maximum height of six storeys.

 

The building height requirement in the Perth Design Guidelines is three storeys (six storeys where a site has dual frontage) and the building height requirement in the Policy is a maximum of six storeys. There is also an inconsistency within the Policy itself between Figure 2 (the building heights map), which refers to the Design Guidelines, and Table 1 (the table describing the building heights), which prescribes a maximum height of six storeys for development along the Fitzgerald Street Activity Corridor and Mixed Use Area.

 

The City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 came into effect in May 2018, rezoning a number of properties within the two Design Guidelines areas. The William Street area was rezoned from Commercial to District Centre and the Perth area was rezoned from Residential/Commercial R80 to Mixed Use R160. Due to the inconsistencies between the Policy and the Design Guidelines, and the rezoning, it is considered suitable to review the heights in these areas to align with the Built Form Policy maximum height. It is also recommended to modify the guidance in the Design Guidelines which indicates that development at three storeys is suitable. Instead it is proposed to encourage development up to four storeys to ensure that there is continuity with the design guideline area and development in the immediately surrounding properties which is permitted to a maximum of four storeys.

 

For the remaining seven Design Guideline areas, it is proposed to remove reference to ‘Design Guideline Areas’ in Figure 2 and prescribe the same building heights as contained within the Design Guidelines. This will consolidate all building heights for the City of Vincent within the Policy.

 

It should be noted that the above recommended modifications are not a result of a comprehensive review of the guidelines. Administration have undertaken a brief review and consider that the Guidelines satisfactorily respond to the local context, remain relevant and do not require immediate review, as part of this current project. Administration will consider further, more detailed, review of the existing Guidelines as part of the preparation of the 2019/20 Corporate Business Plan.

Consultation/Advertising:

The formal advertising period is pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Regulations). The Regulations outlines a minimum period of advertising of 21 days. The City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation outlines a comment period of 28 days. To satisfy the requirements of the Regulations and the City’s Policy the advertising period will be 28 days and include:

 

·       Written notification to:

o   Surrounding local governments;

o   Relevant State Government agencies;

o   Previous submitters on the City’s Built Form Policy;

o   Key industry organisations;

·       Written notification to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Department of Planning; Lands; and Heritage regarding the specific departures from the R Codes in accordance with the Regulations;

·       Notice in the Perth Voice and Guardian Express once per week for four weeks;

·       Notice on the City’s website and social media; and

·       Referral to the City’s Design Review Panel.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

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

·       Draft Apartment Design State Planning Policy;

·       Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

Risk Management Implications:

It is considered a lot risk to propose an amendment to the local planning policy for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Strategic Implications:

Council Priorities 2018/19:

 

Sensitive Design – Design that ‘fits in’ to our neighbourhoods is important to us. We want to see unique, high quality developments that respect our character and identity and respond to specific local circumstances.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of advertising and implementing this proposal will be met through the existing operational budget.

Comments:

The proposed amendment provides clarity in the policy provisions and resolves issues identified during implementation. Further to this, the draft amendment proposes landscaping and setback provisions which align closer to Design WA whilst maintaining Council’s intent and are considered suitable for the endorsement of the WAPC. Administration recommends that Council adopts the draft amended Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

10          Engineering

10.1        City of Vincent Greening Plan 2018-2023

TRIM Ref:                  D18/111110

Author:                     Sarah Hill, Project Officer - Parks & Environment

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Survey Report - Draft Greening Plan Consultation

2.       Draft Greening Plan 2018 - 2023 - with track changes  

 

Recommendation:

That Council;

1.       NOTES the community submissions received in relation to the Draft Geening Plan 2018-2023 as shown in Attachment 1;

2.       ADOPTS the Greening Plan 2018-2023 with minor amendments as shown in Attachment 2; and

3.       ADVISES all respondents of its decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the results of the recent community consultation and to seek Councils adoption of the City of Vincent Greening Plan 2018-2023.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) held on 20 December 2011, a Notice of Motion was put forward to investigate the development of a City wide “Greening Plan” in line with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2011-2021 and the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016.

 

The Vincent Greening Plan was subsequently developed and formally adopted at the OMC 8 July 2014. Comprising of six key objectives with specific targets and actions within each, the Greening Plan is a pathway for the City to deliver on our responsibility to protect, enhance and effectively manage our natural and built environment.

 

Council, at its meeting on 26 June 2018 approved for advertising the Draft Vincent Greening Plan 2018-2023.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s decision at its 26 June 2018 meeting and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, the Draft Greening Plan 2018-2023 was advertised public comment for a period of 21 days between 3 July and 1 August 2018.

 

A survey was carried out using the City’s Engagement HQ (EHQ) website and this was promoted to the wider community through the City’s social media channels and under the consultation section of the City’s website.

 

At the close of the consultation period, a total of six responses were received through the EHQ website. In addition, three external submissions were also received. A detailed summary of the EHQ survey responses and external submissions is included in Attachment 1.

 

Administration is not proposing any changes to the Draft Greening Plan 2018-2023 based on the feedback received from the community. However, specific suggestions received to assist in achieving targets and actions within the Plan have been noted and will be investigated further.

 

In addition to the community consultation, Administration has further reviewed the proposed Five Year Implementation Plan and is proposing to make several modifications to the Implementation Plan for Objective 4. These changes recognise and incorporate recent policy work being undertaken by the Development Services directorate since the Draft Greening Plan was adopted for advertising as well as incorporating the need for investigation for certain initiatives/tasks.

 

Details of these changes are provided in Attachment 2.

Consultation/Advertising:

The consultation was undertaken in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.   A detailed summary of the responses is included in Attachment 1.

Legal/Policy:

Nil

Risk Management Implications:

Low:  The Greening Plan has been successful in enhancing the design and cohesion of greening projects within the City. The plan assists and will continue to assist the City in taking steps towards environmentally sustainable practices and landscape installations. The revised plan represents a low risk to the City.

Strategic Implications:

In accordance with the City’s Strategic Plan 2013-2023, Objective 1.1 states:

 

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

 

1.1.3       Take action to reduce the City’s environmental impacts and provide leadership on environmental matters.

 

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

 

1.1.6       Enhance and maintain the City’s parks, landscaping and the natural environment”.

 

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

In accordance with the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016, Objective 6 states:

 

“Re-establish, conserve and enhance floral and faunal biodiversity, native vegetation, green spaces and green linkages within the City”.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no financial implications arising directly from this report.

Comments:

The review of the Greening Plan has allowed for a holistic overview of its success since adoption in 2014. The review has identified that good progress has been made towards achieving some of the targets and action in the original document, but also that there are a number of areas that require further investigation and action.

 

These areas have now been identified and included in the draft Greening Plan 2018-2023. In addition Administration has sought the expertise of the Environmental Advisory Group as well as the input of Elected Members on a number of occasions.

 

It is therefore recommended that Council adopts the draft Greening Plan 2018-2023, as shown in Attachment 2.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

10.2        Draft Waste Strategy 2018-2023 Public Consultation Feedback

TRIM Ref:                  D18/117962

Author:                     Kylie Hughes, Coordinator Waste and Recycling Strategy

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments:             1.       Survey Report - Draft Waste Strategy Consultation

2.       Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023 - with track changes  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the community submissions received in relation to the Draft Waste Strategy 2018-2023 as shown in Attachment 1;

2.       ADOPTS the Waste Strategy 2018-2023 with minor amendments as shown in Attachment 2; and

3.       ADVISES all respondents of its decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the results of the recent community consultation on the City’s Draft Waste Strategy 2018-2023 and to seek Council’s adoption of the Strategy.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 June 2018, Council approved the Draft Waste Strategy 2018-2023 for public comment for 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s decision at its 26 June 2018 meeting and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, the Draft Waste Strategy 2018-2023 was advertised for public comment for a period of 21 days between 2 July and 31 July 2018. A survey was carried out using the City’s Engagement HQ website and this was promoted to the wider community through the City’s social media channels and under the consultation section of the City’s website.

 

Administration is not proposing any changes to the Draft Waste Strategy based on the feedback received from the community.

Consultation/Advertising:

The consultation was undertaken in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation and a detailed summary of the responses are included in Attachment 1.

 

The City's Waste Strategy consulted on the three underpinning components of the Waste Strategy:

 

1)    City Aims

2)    City Approaches

3)    City Vision

 

The Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 had four responses and a summary of the responses were as follows:

 

City Aims:

The Draft Strategy proposed the following aims and feedback was invited from the community on the extent of agreement with the below responses required:

AIM

RESPONSE

Achieve zero waste to landfill

50% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat agree

25% Strongly disagree

 

Increase community engagement

50% Strongly agree

50% Somewhat agree

 

Improve long-term planning

75% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat agree

 

Provide cost effective, sustainable, and contemporary waste services

75% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat agree

 

Work in collaboration, both locally and regionally

75% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat agree

 

 

City Approaches:

 

The Draft Strategy proposed four overarching approaches and feedback was invited from the community on the extent of agreement with the following preferential rankings resulting based on the responses received:

 

 

APPROACHES

RESPONSE

1.

Application of the “Waste Hierarchy” in all projects

50% Somewhat agree

25% Strongly agree

25% neither agree or disagree

 

2.

Working towards zero waste to landfill throughout the implementation

25% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat agree

25% Somewhat disagree

25% Neither agree or disagree

 

3.

Investigating opportunities for Circular Economy (local solutions for waste management)

50% Neither agree or disagree

25% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat agree

 

4.

Considering the carbon emissions which result from the management of waste in the City

50% Neither agree or disagree

25% Strongly agree

25% Somewhat disagree

 

 

City Vision:

 

75% of respondents agreed with the Waste Strategy’s Vision of sending zero waste to landfill by 2028, with the balance not agreeing.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   The Waste Strategy will establish a plan for increasing resource recovery whilst reducing waste sent to landfill as well as overall waste generation.  The strategy will assist the City in taking steps to achieve cost-effective, sustainable and contemporary waste services.

 

Strategic Implications:

 

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 6 March 2018, Council endorsed six key priorities derived from the Imagine Vincent Strategic Community Plan (SCP) management exercise. These priorities were subsequently included in the Draft SCP adopted by Council for advertising on 24 July 2018. One of those key priorities is ‘Enhanced Environment’, as the City aims to make the best use of our natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations. The proposed Waste Strategy will contribute to the achievement of this priority.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Finalisation and implementation of the Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023 will provide guidance to the City for implementation of waste minimisation measures that will support the City to achieve its vision of sending ‘Zero Waste to Landfill’.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no financial implications arising directly from the report.

Comments:

The results of the public consultation support the City’s approach to managing its waste.  It is therefore recommended that Council adopts the Draft Waste Strategy 2018 - 2023 as shown in Attachment 2.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

10.3        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:                Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

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.’


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

10.4        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:

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;

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

4.       AUTHORISES the Director Engineering to determine the precise location and extent of the works described in 3.1 and 3.2 above, in consultation with affected adjacent landowners; and

5.       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 resident’s 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.  The 85th percentile is the max speed that 85% of vehicles are travelling at.

 

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.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

11          Corporate Services

11.1        Transfer and dedication of lots as road - Intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth

TRIM Ref:                  D18/52776

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Property Leasing Officer

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Plan of portion of Lot 230 (No. 566) Charles Street to be dedicated as road

2.       Aerial Plan of Lots 231-234 (No. 568) Charles Street

3.       Plan 2672 showing lots and road intersection

4.       Plan of proposed local government boundary realignment  

 

vgbRecommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the request from Main Roads Western Australia dated 26 June 2018 and RESOLVES to request the Minister for Transport; Planning; Lands to dedicate the 12.19m x 3.7m portion of Lot 230 (No. 566) Charles Street, North Perth adjoining Charles Street, as shown in Attachment 1, as a road pursuant to section 56(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997;

2.       NOTES that lots 231 - 234 (No. 568) Charles Street, North Perth are owned in freehold by the City and form part of the Charles, Green and Walcott Street intersection;

3.       APPROVES the transfer of Lots 231 - 234 (No. 568) Charles Street, North Perth to the Crown (State of Western Australia) for the purpose of dedication as road, pursuant to section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

4.       AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director Corporate Services to affix the common seal and execute the Transfer of Land in 3. above;

5.       REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to review and present a report back to Council on the prospective realignment of the City’s boundary at the intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the following issues, relating to the intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth:

 

·       the dedication of a portion of Lot 230 (No. 566) Charles Street, North Perth, as shown in the plan attached at Attachment 1, as a road, to enable the realignment of the Charles, Green and Walcott Street intersection; and

 

·       the transfer of lots 231 - 234 (No. 568) Charles Street, North Perth, which comprise road and verge, to the Crown (State of Western Australia) so that the lots are dedicated as road and form part of the Charles, Green and Walcott Street road reservations, as shown on the plan included as Attachment 2.

 

Administration notes that each of these issues should be considered separately, and that the dedication of a portion of Lot 230 has no impact on the realignment of the City of Vincent district boundary.

Background:

The background to each of the issues is discussed in turn below.

 


 

Background to Lot 230 Charles Street, North Perth and Main Roads’ request

 

Lot 230 is privately owned and comprises a brick and tile home with a rear carport which is accessible via a right of way. Main Roads is proposing to upgrade the Charles, Green and Walcott Street intersection in accordance with the Wanneroo Road, Wiluna and Charles Street Intersection Improvement project. In order to realign and upgrade the intersection Main Roads has confirmed that it is necessary for the 3.7m x 12.19m front portion of Lot 230, as shown in Attachment 1, to be compulsorily acquired by Main Roads pursuant to section 161 of the Land Administration Act 1997. The portion proposed to be acquired is within PCA 125. Once compulsorily acquired the land will be issued with a separate lot number and Certificate of Title and can then be dedicated as a road pursuant to section 56(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997. Section 56(1) requires that the local government which the acquired land is within resolves to make the request for the land to be dedicated as road.

 

Background to Lots 231 – 234 Charles Street, North Perth

 

The details of the Lots, which are all owned by the City in fee simple, are as follows:

 

Lot

CT – Vol Fol

LPS No. 2 Zoning

MRS Zoning

Current use

Area

231

1574 - 095

R60-R100

Other regional road reservation

Road verge

414m2

232

1566 - 298

R60-R100

Other regional road reservation

Road

256m2

233

1566 - 298

Parks and Recreation

Urban

Road verge

9m2

234

1566 - 298

Parks and Recreation

Urban

Road verge

313m2

 

Lots 231-234 were created in 1904 by Plan 2672, which was the subdivision of a portion of Swan Location 707. The lots were privately owned. In 1946 lots 232, 233 and a portion of lot 234 were compulsorily taken and set aside for the purpose of ‘extension of Green Street, Mount Hawthorn’. The compulsory acquisition was gazetted on 11 January 1946, with the gazette providing that the ‘land shall vest in the City of Perth for an estate in fee simple in possession for the public work herein expressed.’ A new Certificate of Title was subsequently issued showing that Lots 232-234 were in the ownership of the City of Perth.

 

Lot 231 was privately owned until 1952 when it was sold to the City of Perth for the sum of 350 pounds. There is no record of the reason the City of Perth acquired Lot 231.

 

The extension of Green Street and realignment of the Charles, Wanneroo, Green and Walcott Street intersection did not occur until 1980. The realignment resulted in portions of lots 231- 234 being dedicated as road, as shown in the portion of Plan 2672 attached at Attachment 3. The portions of these lots not dedicated remained in the freehold ownership of the City of Perth, and are now in the freehold ownership of the City of Vincent.

 

The Lots are currently used in connection with the intersection and therefore it is appropriate that the remaining portions of these lots are also dedicated as road, so that they form part of the Charles, Green and Walcott Street road reservation.

 

Lots 231 and 232 are zoned ‘Residential R60-R100’ while lots 233 and 234 are currently reserved ‘Parks and Recreation’ pursuant to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2. If these lots are dedicated the City will remove the ‘Residential R60-R100’ and ‘Parks and Recreation’ reservation through an amendment to the Local Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

In 1995 Charles Street was by proclamation declared a highway in accordance with section 13 of the Main Roads Act 1930. The declaration as published in the Government Gazette 11 August 1995 provided that the footpaths were excluded from the proclamation, and therefore pursuant to section 13(2) of the Main Roads Act 1930 Main Roads is responsible for the care, control and management of the road area, while the City is responsible for the footpath and verge areas adjacent to Charles Street. The section of Charles Street between Green and Carr streets is currently reserved ‘urban’ pursuant to the Metropolitan Region Scheme. However, since its proclamation as a highway in 1995, the Western Australian Planning Commission has resolved that this section is declared a Planning Control Area (PCA 125). PCA 125 ensures that no future development occurs on the land until it is reserved as a ‘primary regional road reservation’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

 

The section of Charles Street at the intersection of Green and Walcott Streets is reserved ‘other regional road reservation’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. Charles Street becomes Wanneroo Road at this intersection, and is reserved under the Metropolitan Region Scheme as ‘urban’ until the intersection with London Street, from which point it is ‘primary regional road reservation.’ Notwithstanding the reservation, due to the proclamation of Charles Street and Wanneroo Road as highways Main Roads is responsible for the road area, and the City is responsible for the footpath and verge areas.

 

Local Government boundary realignment

 

In connection with the above processes, it has come to Administration’s attention that the local government boundary does not currently align with the road intersection, and therefore management of the footpaths and verge of Charles Street (Wanneroo Road) on the City of Stirling side of the Green, Walcott and Charles Street intersection is the responsibility of the City, which is anomalous. If the local government boundary is aligned with Green Street, as shown marked in yellow in the plan attached at Attachment 4, this would formalise control and management of the road reservations. Realigning the local government boundary with Green Street would not impact local government rates as the land is not rateable (currently City’s freehold land and road reserve).

 

A separate formal process will need to be initiated to consider and pursue any changes to the City’s local government boundary and this is reflected in recommendation 5.

Details:

The details of each of the issues is discussed in turn below.

 

Compulsory acquisition and dedication of portion of Lot 230

 

Administration has reviewed Main Roads’ Wanneroo Road, Wiluna and Charles Street Intersection Improvement project and has no issues with the proposed realignment and upgrade of the Charles, Green and Walcott Street intersection. The proposed acquisition of the portion of Lot 230 adjacent to Charles Street is consistent with the intersection realignment and PCA 125.

 

Administration notes that Main Roads has the delegated power to acquire land pursuant to the Land Administration Act 1997, but cannot request land to be dedicated as a road. An alternative means of land being acquired as a road is a freehold subdivision process pursuant to section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Pursuant to section 168(5) the land becomes road upon the registration of the plan of subdivision depicting a portion of the lot as road. This process is not practical for Main Roads due to the scale, timing and nature of the proposed intersection upgrade and realignment.

 

Consequently Main Roads will be acquiring a portion of Lot 230 in accordance with its power under the Land Administration Act 1997.  Once the portion of Lot 230 is compulsorily acquired for inclusion as part of the road reserve the land can be dedicated as road pursuant to section 56(1)(a) of the Land Administration Act 1997. Section 56(1) provides that the relevant local government must resolve to request the Minister that the portion of land acquired for use as road be dedicated. Upon dedication the land will form part of the Charles Street road reservation and will be the responsibility of Main Roads as it is within PCA 125. 

 

In its letter dated 26 June 2018. Main Roads has requested that Council resolve to make this request at its next Council Meeting, as this will enable the acquisition and subsequent dedication of the land to proceed. Main Roads has confirmed that it will manage the acquisition and dedication process and indemnify the City against any costs and charges that may arise as a result of the dedication. As Main Roads is managing the processes, and the City is only required to resolve to make a request for the portion of Lot 230 to be dedicated as road, it is not anticipated that the City will incur any costs or charges.

 

Transfer and Dedication of Lots 231-234

 

Main Roads contacted the City in early 2018 in respect to the dedication of lots 231-234 as road reserve on the basis that the lots currently form part of the road intersection. In order to dedicate the lots as road pursuant to section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 a Transfer of Land needs to be prepared and registered at Landgate. No consideration is payable, and note 4, which refers to the consideration, of the Transfer of Land will provide:

 

No monetary consideration. In order that the above land be dedicated as road pursuant to section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005.”

 

As Charles Street is under the responsibility of Main Roads and Main Roads has delegated authority to sign documents on behalf of the State of Western Australia in respect to road reserves within their care, control and management, Main Roads can sign the Transfer of Land.

It will be necessary for the City to provide the Certificate of Titles for the Lots and complete a Verification of Identity in order to effect the transfer. The State Solicitors Office, on behalf of Main Roads, will prepare the required Transfer of Land and arrange lodgement at Landgate. Pursuant to the City’s Policy No. 4.1.10 ‘Execution of Documents’ the Mayor and Director Corporate Services are required to execute the Transfer of Land and affix the City’s common seal. Therefore the Mayor and Director Corporate Service’s signatures will need to be verified in accordance with the Landgate requirements. Administration engaged suitably qualified lawyers, HLW Ebsworth, to verify the Mayor and Director Corporate Service’s identity on 20 July 2018. This verification can be used in future land transactions that occur within two years of the date of the verification.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration has discussed and reached consensus with Main Roads and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Department) in respect to the proposed transfer and dedication of the Lots.

 

As the proposed transfer is to the Crown (State of Western Australia) there is no requirement for the City to advertise or provide public notice of the disposition.

Legal/Policy:

Dedication of land acquired for use as a road:

 

Section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 sets out the process for dedicating land as road and provides:

 

          “(1)     If in the district of a local government –

(a)      land is reserved or acquired for use by the public, or is used by the public, as a road under the care, control and management of the local government; or

(b)      in the case of land comprising a private road constructed and maintained to the satisfaction of the local government –

(i)     the holder of the freehold in that land applies to the local government, requesting it to do so; or

(ii)    those holders of the freehold in rateable land abutting the private road, the aggregate of the rateable value of whose land is greater than one half of the rateable value of all the rateable land abutting the private road, apply to the local government, requesting it to do so;

or

(c)      land comprises a private road of which the public has had uninterrupted use for a period of not less than10 years;

and that land is described in a plan of survey, sketch plan or document, the local government may request the Minister to dedicate that land as a road.

 

Dedication of land by Transfer:

 

Section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005 sets out the process for transferring lots owned in freehold to the Crown and dedicating the land as road and provides at sub section 5:

 

“(5)     When a portion of land is transferred to the Crown or a local government for the purpose of extending or adding to a road, the transferred portion is to be taken –

(a)   to be dedicated to the public use; and

(b)   to form part of the road,

as and from the date of registration of the transfer.”

 

Signing of Transfer of Land:

 

The City’s Policy No. 4.1.10 ‘Execution of Documents’ provides the following in respect to Category 1(A) documents:

 

Category 1(A) documents require a specific resolution of Council to sell, lease or enter into an agreement as well as an authority to affix the seal. These documents will be executed be having the common seal affixed under authorisation of Council with the affixing of the common seal in the presence of and being attested to by the Mayor and CEO or pursuant to section 9.49A(3)(b) of the Local Government Act, the Mayor and a senior employee authorised by the CEO to do so.

 

Risk Management Implications:

Medium:      Lots 231-234 currently comprise road and verge and are treated as if they are part of the road reserve, which is under the care, control and management of Main Roads. The lots are currently owned in freehold by the City, which creates uncertainty in respect to the repair, maintenance and upgrade of the lots, as well as liability for any damage arising in connection with the use of the Lots. Transferring the lots to the Crown so that they are dedicated as part of the road resolves these issues.

                  

The proposed acquisition and dedication of a portion of Lot 230 will be managed by Main Roads and does not raise any risks for the City.

Strategic Implications:

The City’s Strategic Community Plan 2013-2017 includes the following as strategic objectives:

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

N/A

Financial/Budget Implications:

The State Solicitors Office will arrange for the preparation and registration of the Transfer of Land on behalf of Main Roads. Administration will review and arrange execution of the Transfer of Land and therefore the only costs payable by Administration will be those associated with the Verification of Identity process. The cost for HLW Ebsworth to verify the Mayor and Director Corporate Service’s identity, which occurred on 20 July 2018, and provide a letter confirming identification, was $100. This verification can also be used in future land transactions that occur within two years of the date of the verification. 

 

No consideration is payable for the transfer of the Lots to the Crown (State of Western Australia). There are also no cost implications associated with Council resolving to request that the Minister dedicate a portion of Lot 230 as road pursuant to section 56(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Comments:

Compulsory acquisition and dedication of portion of Lot 230

 

Administration recommends that Council resolve that the portion of Lot 230 adjacent to Charles Street, as shown in the plan attached at Attachment 1, is dedicated as road pursuant to section 56(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997. This will enable the compulsory acquisition and dedication of the land to proceed, which is required for the intersection realignment and upgrade.

 

Transfer and Dedication of Lots 231-234

 

The realignment of the Charles, Wanneroo, Green and Walcott street intersection in 1980 resulted in portions of lots 231-234 being dedicated as road. The remaining portions currently comprise road and verge and therefore it is appropriate for these remaining portions of the lots to also be dedicated as road pursuant to section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The dedication will formalise the repair, maintenance and upgrade of the road intersection, including the verge areas, and facilitate future road widening.

 

Realigning district boundary

 

Administration recommends that a review be undertaken into realignment of the City’s district boundary to align with the road intersection, as it will formalise control and management of the road reservations. Administration will need to consult with the City of Stirling prior to providing a report to Council on the matter.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

11.2        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 25 July 2018 to
21 August 2018

TRIM Ref:                D18/123473

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT and BPAY August 18

2.       Payments by Cheque August 18

3.       Payments by Credit Card August 18  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 25 July 2018 to 21 August 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

Cheque Numbers 82406 - 82415

 

$3,821.58

Cancelled cheques

 

$0.00

EFT and BPAY Documents 2277 - 2291

 

$2,717,263.65

Payroll       

 

$1,205,422.50

 

 

 

Direct Debits

 

 

·      Lease Fees

$385.00

 

·      Loan Repayments

$148,536.27

 

·      Bank Fees and Charges

$26,805.76

 

·      Credit Cards

$5,257.63

 

·      Superannuation

$11,930.22

 

Total Direct Debit

 

$192,914.88

Total Accounts Paid

 

$4,119,422.61

 

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 25 July 2018 to 21 August 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 25 July 2018 to 21 August 2018, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

PAY PERIOD

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

Cheques

82406 - 82415

$3,821.58

Cancelled Cheques

 

$0.00

EFT and BPAY Payments

2277 - 2291

$2,717,263.65

Sub Total

 

$2,721,085.23

 

 

 

Transfer of  Payroll by EFT

26/07/18 Ad hoc

$1,569.47

 

07/08/18

$594,656.78

 

21/08/18

$609,196.25

 

August 2018

$1,205,422.50

 

 

 

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits

 

Lease Fees

 

$385.00

Loan Repayments

 

$148,536.27

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$26,805.76

Credit Cards

 

$5,257.63

Superannuation

 

$11,930.22

 

 

 

Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)

$192,914.88

 

 

Total Payments

 

$4,119,422.61

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 which establish satisfactory controls, supported by the internal and external audit functions.

Strategic Implications:

Strategic Plan 2013-2023:

 

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

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

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

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                              18 September 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

11.3        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.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                18 September 2018

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                              18 September 2018

12          Community Engagement

12.1        New Draft Policy No. 3.10.3 - Street Activation

TRIM Ref:                  D18/55558

Author:                     Karen Balm, Senior Community Partner

Authoriser:                Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Current Policy No. 2.2.7 - Street Parties

2.       Attachment 2 - Draft Policy No. 3.10.3 - Street Activation  

 

Recommendation:

That Council;

1.       RECEIVES the new Draft Policy No. 3.10.3 – Street Activation;

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to advertise the new Draft Policy No. 3.10.3 – Street Activation for public comment for a period of 21 days inviting written submissions in accordance with Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

3.       NOTES that a further report will be submitted to Council at the conclusion of the public comment period in regards to any written submission being received.

 

Purpose of Report:

To receive the new Draft Policy No. 3.10.3 – Street Activation and seek authorisation to advertise for public comment.

Background:

The City’s policies are reviewed at regular intervals to ensure that they refl