Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.1 No. 16 (Lot: 13; D/P: 613) Wellman Street, Perth - Amendment to existing Approval for Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility)

TRIM Ref: D18/166535

Author: Fiona Atkins, Urban Planner

Authoriser: Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward: South

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

2. Attachment 2 - Extract of Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 30 June 2015 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Development Plans ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to amend the development approval (5.2014.638.1) granted on 30 June 2015 for an Industry – Light Use (Meat Packing Facility) at No. 16 (Lot: 13; D/P: 613) Wellman Street, Perth, subject to the following condition:

1. All conditions and advice notes continue to apply to this approval, with exception of Condition 10 which is deleted.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend the existing development approval for a Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility) at No. 16 Wellman Street, Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to amend the conditions of approval so as to extend the term of approval for an additional five years.

Background:

Landowner:	Galaxy Group Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Raymond Dong
Date of Application:	16 August 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: District Centre R Code: N/A
Built Form Area:	Town Centre
Existing Land Use:	Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility)
Proposed Use Class:	Light Industry
Lot Area:	462m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located on the eastern side of Wellman Street, which is characterised by other similar light industry uses on the same side of the road and the rear of residential properties (facing Brookman Street) on the western side. The location of the site is included as Attachment 1. Under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the subject site and those adjoining it are zoned District Centre, with the residential area to the west is zoned Residential R25.

At its meeting of 11 June 2013, Council resolved to grant a development approval for the subject site to operate as Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility), subject to a 12 month time-limitation. This time limit was applied to the approval as a cautionary measure as the City received numerous objections during the community consultation period. The time limit was intended to give the City a further opportunity to assess the impact of the use on the locality.

At its meeting of 30 June 2015, Council resolved to approve the use for a further three years after the date of issue of the approval letter, on the basis that it had not had a negative impact on the surrounding locality. The time limitation was imposed due to the potential for the Light Industry use to be a prohibited use within the District Centre zone under the (then) future LPS2. A copy of the approval including the approved development plans is included as Attachment 2.

The existing approval on the site lapsed on the 23 July 2018. Administration advised the business operator of this fact and on 16 August 2018, the City received an application to amend Condition 10 of the existing development approval, so as to extend the operating timeframe for the business.

Details:

The use is operated by Westco Food Pty Ltd, and incorporates the processing, storage and packing of meat products. The work process is that a delivery truck from a supplier arrives with meat carcasses three to five times a week. The carcasses are then processed on site, which includes the cutting up and mincing of the meat products. The meat is then packaged and distributed, by delivery vans, directly to restaurants throughout the central Perth area.

The application seeks to amend the previous development approval issued by Council by amending Condition 10 which relates to the term of approval of the Light Industry (Meat Packing Facility) use, but does not propose to change the nature of the use in any way. As such, all remaining conditions (including hours of operation), included in Attachment 2, are proposed to remain unchanged.

The development plans and applicant’s supporting letter are included as Attachment 3.

It should be noted that in terms of car parking the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements requires the use to have two bays available on site, with four being provided. The proposal involves a surplus of four bays.

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of 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	Previously approved	Requires Discretion
Land Use			ü
Parking & Access	ü
Bicycle Facilities	ü
Hours of Operation		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

“A” Use

Industry – Light (Meat Packing Facility)

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation for the proposal occurred for a period of 14 days from 12 October 2018 to 26 October 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by a means of 19 written notifications being sent to all adjoining landowners as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice in the local newspaper. At the conclusion of the community consultation period, no submissions had been received.

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. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes to amend an application previously determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Thriving Places

· We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

The use includes the processing, packing and storage of meat products, and is considered an Industry –Light for the purposes of LPS2.

The subject site is zoned District Centre Zone under LPS2, which has the following objectives:

· To provide a community focus point for people, services, employment and leisure that are highly accessible and do not expand into or adversely impact on adjoining residential areas.

· To encourage high quality, pedestrian friendly, street orientated development that responds to and enhances the key elements of each District Centre, and to develop area for pubic interaction.

· To ensure levels of activity, accessibility and diversity of uses and density is sufficient to sustain public transport and enable casual surveillance of public spaces.

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

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

· To provide a broad range of employment opportunities to encourage diversity and self-sufficiency within the Centre.

· To encourage the retention and promotion of uses including but not limited to specialty shopping, restaurants, cafes and entertainment.

· To ensure that the City’s District Centres are developed with due regard to State Planning Policy 4.2 – Activity Centres for Perth and Peel.

The use contributes to the broad range of employment opportunities and retention of diverse uses and is complementary to the surrounding uses on Wellman Street, which include commercial and light industry uses including food packing and processing, shoe care products and other food industries. The use is consistent with the objectives of the District Centre zone.

Council must consider the compatibility of the use with its setting, which in this case, is the residential zoned land to the west. The following is relevant:

· Between June 2015 and February 2017, the City received complaints from surrounding residents in regards to noise and delivery trucks arriving outside of the hours of operation. No complaints have been received since February 2017, indicating that the business has rectified these matters and is operating within their conditions of development approval.

· The traffic is not considered to have a detrimental impact on the amenity of the area. Wellman Street is used only as a vehicle access point by the residential properties facing Brookman Street and as an access road for the other commercial and light industry businesses along Wellman Street.

· The use will continue to operate between the hours of 8:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Friday, which includes any truck movements to and from the site.

· The use contributes to the diverse uses within the zone, and contributes to passive surveillance of the residential properties backing on to Wellman Street.

· No objections were received from the nearby residential properties.

The use can be operated in a manner that mitigates any external impacts. A further time limitation is not necessary. It is open to Council to impose a time limitation on any approval.

Conclusion

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed use of the site. The continuation of the Industry – Light (Meat Packing Facility) use is appropriate and in accordance with the objectives of the District Centre zone of LPS2.

It is recommended that the application be approved.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.2 No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Cafe

TRIM Ref: D18/170571

Author: Fiona Atkins, 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 - Parking Management Plan ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES a minor parking restriction amendment to convert the existing on-street adjacent to No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth, from Loading Zone to 1/4P At All Times; and

2. in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for the proposed Change of Use from Shop to Restaurant/Café at No. 342 (Lot: 101; D/P: 43048) William Street, Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

2.1 Use of Premises

2.1.1 The area shown as ‘Restaurant/Café’ on the approved plans shall be used in accordance with the definition of ‘Restaurant/Café’ as defined by the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

2.1.2 The maximum of 63 people shall be on site at any one time;

2.2 Car Parking and Access

The Parking Management Plan approved as part of this application shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City prior to the use or occupation of the development;

2.3 Cash in Lieu

A cash-in-lieu contribution of $6,750 shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of 1.25 car bays, based on the cost of $5,400 per bay as set out in the City’s 2018/2019 Schedule of Fees and Charges. prior to the commencement of development or by entering into a written agreement to the City to pay the cash-in-lieu over an agreed period up to five years;

2.4 Bicycle Facilities

A cash-in-lieu contribution of $800 shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of three bicycle bays;

2.5 Signage

Any new signage that does not comply with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising shall be subject to a separate Planning Application and all signage shall be subject to a Building Permit application, being submitted and approved prior to the erection of the signage; and

2.6 General

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

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from a Shop to a Restaurant/Café at No. 342 William Street, Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the use of the subject tenancy as a dine-in and take-away restaurant, employing up to two staff members and accommodating up to 56 dine in customers at any one time, with five additional chairs to be provided for takeaway customers.

The proposed hours and days of operation are Tuesday to Sunday from 11:00am to 2:00pm and 5:00pm to 10:00pm.

Background:

Landowner:	Lon Tran and My Linh Lam
Applicant:	Lon Tran and My Linh Lam
Date of Application:	22 August 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: District Centre R Code: N/A
Built Form Area:	Town Centre
Existing Land Use:	Shop
Proposed Use Class:	Restaurant/Cafe
Lot Area:	248m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located near the intersection of William Street and Newcastle Street and is currently vacant. The site accommodated no car or bicycle parking.

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). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment in the following section.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use	ü
Car Parking		ü
Bicycle Facilities		ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

Car bays

9.45 car bays required based on 0.15 bays per person

Bicycle Facilities

1 short term bicycle bay required

2 long term bicycle bays required

The site accommodates no vehicle or bicycle parking and the proposal does not involve the provision of any such parking.

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The City’s application was required to be advertised as the proposal does not meet the parking minimum parking requirements imposed by the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements. This variation is required to be advertised to the surrounding land owners, as per the requirements of Policy No. 4.1.5 - Community Consultation. The application was advertised from 18 October 2018 to 31 October 2018, with the method of consultation being letters mailed to surrounding owners and occupiers, the extent of which is shown on Attachment 1.

A total of two submissions were received, both being objections to the proposal. The main concerns raised within the submissions are:

· that the proposal erodes the diversity of uses in the area;

· the impact that the lack of parking may have on the area;

· the pressure that the take-away component of the restaurant may have on parking, in terms of short term parking requirements, and the illegal parking that may be caused by this;

· whether the proposal includes alfresco seating, and that the applicant had not, at the time of advertising, provided a Parking Management Plan.

A summary of submissions and officer’s comments can be found at Attachment 4.

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. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Parking Requirements.

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:

In accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register approved at Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 June 2018, this application for development is being referred to Council as it proposes a parking bay shortfall greater than five bays.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Thriving Places

· We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Car and Bicycle Parking

Car parking requirements for a restaurant/café are determined by Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Parking Requirements. Under the Policy, the proposed use requires the provision of 9.45 parking bays. As the proposal does not involve the provision of any bays, the applicant was required to submit a Parking Management Plan. The submitted Parking Management plan is included as Attachment 3. In considering the matter, the following is relevant:

· The subject site was granted development approval as a Shop in October 1985. Whilst it is not clear what specific parking concession was granted at the time, based on the current Policy requirements, the existing Shop would require the provision of 8.2 bays. The site accommodates a nominal credit of that number of bays, meaning that the current proposal represents a further variation of only 1.25 bays.

· On-street parking is available along William Street, subject to a 2 hour time limitation between 8:00am and 7:00pm, every day.

· There are approximately 25 existing bicycle bays in the surrounding area which can provide for standard short term bicycle parking in the area.

· As the subject site is located on William Street, with no rear access or room available on the site that is not occupied by the building, there is no opportunity to provide further parking bays on site.

· The applicant has indicated that they expect many customers to utilise public transport or walk to their premises. The subject site is located 700 metres from Perth train station, and the Blue Cat runs along Aberdeen Street with the closest stop approximately 240 metres from the subject site. Transperth bus numbers 16, 60, 64, 67, 68, 653 and 950 all run along Beaufort Street, with services running every 5 to 10 minutes during peak periods. The closest bus stop, located adjacent to Weld Square, is approximately 400 metres away from the subject site.

· Given the central location of the site, it is expected that at least some of the customers to the restaurant will also visit other sites in the local area, which would reduce the impact of the parking shortfall.

· A loading zone (with a 15 minute maximum time limit) is located directly in front of the subject tenancy, providing easy access to the site for delivery vehicles. It is open to Council to convert this bay to a 15 minute pick up and drop off bay, so as to maintain access for loading/unloading purposes but also providing opportunities for takeaway delivery drivers.

· Existing scooter and motor cycle parking (for up to approximately 10 vehicles) is provided in front of the Moon Café at No. 323 William Street, which is located in close proximity to the subject site and will be able to be used by delivery drivers.

In terms of the required bicycle facilities, there is inadequate space to accommodate any additional bicycle facilities directly adjacent to the restaurant. There is the ability to accommodate such facilities in close proximity to the subject tenancy, which will enable use by visitors to the restaurant. Council’s Policy requires the provision of one short-term facility and two long-term facilities. A condition could be imposed to that effect, given the nature of the use, visitors and employees are not likely to visit the site for extended periods of time. Long-term bays are unlikely to be utilised for that purpose. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to require the payment of cash-in-lieu for two short term facilities so as to provide short term alternative transport options. Whilst the facilities only accommodate short-term parking, the provision of two facilities would provide parking for up to four bicycles; which would provide a greater capacity than the standard Policy requirement.

The proposal is acceptable, subject to the imposition of relevant conditions.

Activation of the area

The immediate surrounding locality is characterised by a range of uses including shops and restaurants/cafes, including a wide range of Asian restaurants and grocery stores, which have created a precinct that attracts both tourists and locals to an area that is easily accessible by public transport and walking. The proposed use is considered to be consistent with both the character of the local area and the various objectives of the District Centre zone. The City’s Place Management team has indicated that the subject area is currently experiencing issues with businesses closing down and that commercial uses that results in foot traffic and activity on the street should be encouraged.

Conclusion

Council is required to exercise its discretion regarding this development application for a change of use to a restaurant/café in terms of the provision of car parking.

The proposed land use and associated car parking is appropriate for the subject site and would not have a negative impact on the amenity of the locality.

It is recommended that the application be approved.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.3 No. 47 (Lot: 502; D/P: 50409) Jugan Street, Mount Hawthorn - S.31 Reconsideration - Proposed Five Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref: D18/165733

Author: Fiona Atkins, Urban Planner

Authoriser: Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward: North

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

2. Attachment 2 - Extract of Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council 24 July 2018 and Refused Development Plans ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Current (amended) Development Plans ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Acoustic Report ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That the Council, in accordance with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, SETS ASIDE its decision of 24 July 2018 and APPROVES the application for the proposed Five Grouped Dwellings at No. 47 (Lot: 502; D/P: 50409) Jugan Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 3, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

1. Boundary Walls

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

2. External Fixtures

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

3. Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area, to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. The Construction Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction and include traffic and parking management requirements during construction. Construction on and management of the site shall thereafter comply with the approved Construction Management Plan;

4. Stormwater

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

5. Schedule of External Finishes

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

6. Verge Tree

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

7. Clothes Drying Facility

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

8. Landscape and Reticulation Plan

8.1 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;

· The provision of a minimum 30 percent canopy cover at maturity; and

· The provision of three new street trees along the verges of Jugan and Leeder Streets at the full cost of the applicant; and

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

9. Car Parking and Access

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

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

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

10. Acoustic Report

All recommended measures in the Acoustic Report submitted as part of this development application shall be undertaken in accordance with the report to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the occupation or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

11. Street Walls and Fence

The infill panels of the front fencing shall be 75 per cent visually permeable, in accordance with the requirements of the Residential Design Codes; and

12. General

The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

Purpose of Report:

To reconsider an application for development approval for five grouped dwellings at No. 47 Jugan Street Mount Hawthorn (subject site) at the invitation of the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of five, two-storey grouped dwellings facing Leeder Street. The vehicle access/egress for the grouped dwellings will be via a shared common driveway along the rear of the subject site accessible from Jugan Street. The plans can be viewed in Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:	Lucia Anna Stott
Applicant:	New Country Dev Pty Ltd
Date of Application:	4 April 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R100
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Grouped Dwellings (5)
Lot Area:	891m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is a corner lot, located at the intersection of Jugan Street and Leeder Street, which terminates at a cul-de-sac. The site abuts a single storey dwelling to the north, and a church is located across Leeder Street to the south. The church is the only other development on Leeder Street. The subject site abuts vacant land to the west which is privately owned, zoned R100 and has no previous or current development applications or approvals. The subject site and the neighbouring sites along Jugan Street are zoned R100, however the sites along the opposite side of Jugan Street are zoned R60. The site and surrounding area are characterised by a mix of single and grouped dwellings developments ranging from one to three storeys in height. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

At its Ordinary Council Meeting on 24 July 2018, Council resolved to refuse the development application for five grouped dwellings at the subject site as it was considered to lack the provision of visitor bays, had inadequate space for outdoor living areas and had insufficient provision of stores.

The previous determination and plans are included as Attachment 2.

Following Council’s refusal, the applicant submitted an application for review with the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT). Administration attended a Mediation Session on 5 October 2018, where the City accepted reconsideration of the application, subject to amended plans being provided that addressed Council’s reasons for refusal.

Following mediation, the applicant submitted amended plans for reconsideration, which are included as Attachment 3. The main changes from the original plans are summarised as follows:

1. The size of the outdoor living areas for each dwelling have been increased so as to be compliant with the area requirements of the R Codes.

2. The storerooms for units 2, 3 and 4 have been relocated to the balcony, and now satisfy the deemed to comply requirements in terms of size. It should be noted that the store for units 1 and 5 remain in the garages and are also compliant.

3. Changes to the colours and materials used in this design, as follows:

· Timber detailing has been included within the gables of the dwellings.

· The infill panels for the front fencing have been changed to be vertical panels to match the vertical battens in the gables.

· The balustrading for the balconies have been changed to vertical infill to match the front fence and battens within the gables of the dwelling.

· Parts of the balcony have remained red brickwork rather than having all glass panels, resulting in the use of a variety of materials, and assisting in providing an element of privacy for the occupants of the dwellings.

· The provision of exposed eaves to the dwellings to enhance the character of the dwelling and provide visual interest.

· Parts of the grey render on the upper floor have been changed to white render.

· The white cladding on the upper floor has been changed to a light grey colour.

Council is now required to reconsider the proposal pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes. 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
Density/Plot Ratio	ü
Street Setback	ü
Front Fence	ü
Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall		ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Roof Form	ü
Open Space	ü
Outdoor Living Areas		ü
Landscaping	ü
Privacy	ü
Parking & Access		ü
Solar Access	ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls	ü
Essential Facilities	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Surveillance	ü
Outbuildings	ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Lot Boundary Setbacks and Walls Built on Boundary
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Clause 5.3 of Built Form Policy and 5.1.3 of the R Codes West Unit 5: Upper Floor Whole wall Setback Required = 2.2m Ground floor Kitchen to living room wall Setback Required = 1.5m	West Unit 5: Upper Floor Whole wall Setback Provided = 1.3m – 1.7m Ground floor Kitchen to living room wall Setback Provided = 1.017m – 1.5m
Outdoor Living Areas
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Clause 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas of the R Codes In accordance with Table 1 of the R Codes, each of the five grouped dwelling is required to have a 16 metre squared outdoor living area that must be: · Behind the street setback area; · Directly accessible from a habitable room of the dwelling; · Minimum length and width dimensions of 4m; · To have at least two-thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover.	Unit 1: Balcony Minimum dimension: 1.2m Unit 1: Courtyard Located within the street setback area. Unit 2: Balcony Area without permanent roof cover: Nil Unit 3: Balcony Area without permanent roof cover: Nil Unit 4: Balcony Area without permanent roof cover: Nil Unit 5: Balcony Area without permanent roof cover: Nil
Parking and Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Clause 5.3.3 Parking of the R Codes 1 visitor car bay provided on site provided by common access.	No shared visitor car bay provided on site.

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The proposal submitted for the reconsideration did not require additional community consultation as the development plans have not significantly changed from those previously considered by Council, and do not involve further departures from the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The original application was referred to the DRP for comments on the 27 April 2018. The comments received are summarised as follows:

· Consider more articulation between the dwellings so that they look more like individual dwellings.

· Consider tandem parking to reduce the bulk of garages, potentially from two crossovers at Leeder Street. This would allow for north facing outdoor living areas and allow the dwellings to have better frontage to the primary street.

· Consider bringing the brickwork to the ground to emphasise the townhouse look. The gable end design elements could be further developed and emphasised to provide rhythm and provide a sense of individual identity for each of the townhouses.

· Unit 1 is a prominent unit on the corner. It needs to be carefully considered, perhaps with its own design elements to depart from the repetition of the adjacent units.

· Fencing is continuous and repetitive. Consider how the fence could be more informed and altered by redesign of the proposal; potentially reduced in height and made more visually permeable.

· Concerns regarding the lack of response to the north facing aspect and Jugan Street, including an unattractive facade to the driveway.

· Reconsider the orientation of the outdoor living areas to face north. The dimensions of the outdoor living areas need to be revised and compliant with the requirements of the R Codes. Consider flipping the design to provide private, rear courtyards.

· The site does not allow for the planting of mature trees to achieve canopy cover. Increase canopy cover to enhance the amenity of residents. Consider using native tree and shrub species to enhance local biodiversity.

Subsequently, the applicant lodged amended plans on 29 May 2018 to address the above comments. On 25 June 2018, the applicant submitted further plans detailing amendments to the materials and landscaping. It was the later plans that were refused by Council on 24 July 2018.

The plans submitted for reconsideration were referred to the Chair of the DRP for comments. In respect of the impact on the streetscape, the Chair commented that whilst the built form and scale of the corner unit is poorly resolved, he is supportive of the simplicity of the building materials, brick render and the corrugated roof used in the development.

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.

The applicant has exercised their right to have Council’s initial decision to refuse the application reviewed by the SAT in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. The SAT has invited Council to reconsider the application based on a revised proposal. In accordance with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, Council in reconsidering the proposal may:

1. Affirm its decision;

2. Vary its decision;

3. Set aside the decision and substitute a new decision.

Should Council approve the application, the applicant may withdraw the appeal or alternatively, continue with the application for review in relation to one or more of the conditions imposed. If Council refuses the application, the applicant may request that the matter be determined by the SAT at a full hearing.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the proposal relates to a matter previously determined by Council, and as the development incorporates five grouped dwellings.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Sensitive Design

· Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Should the matter proceed to a full SAT hearing, the City may need to engage a consultant to assist. Such engagement would incur a cost for the City.

Comments:

The applicant has submitted amended plans to address the reasons for refusal. Some aspects of the proposal comply with applicable standards. The proposal maintains some departures to the requirements of the R Codes and Built Form Policy.

Lot Boundary Setbacks

The ground floor is set back 1.017 metres to 1.5 metres in lieu of the required 1.5 metres, and the portions of the upper floor are set back 1.3 metres to 1.7 metres in lieu of 2.2 metres.

In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

· The setback variation for the ground floor is relatively minor, and would be mitigated by the provision of a standard 1.8 metre residential dividing fence.

· The setback variation for the upper floor would not inhibit natural light and ventilation from reaching the neighbouring site, and would not present undue bulk to the adjoining property, which is currently vacant land adjacent to the Mitchell Freeway.

· The upper floor has no major openings facing towards the western boundary and would not result in a loss of privacy.

· No objections to the setback variation were received from the owners of the abutting property.

Based on the above, the setback variations are considered acceptable.

Outdoor Living Areas

One of the outdoor living areas for unit 1 involves a dimension less than 4 metres (balcony) and the other is located within the street setback area (courtyard). In considering these matters, the following is relevant:

· Unit 1 is provided is provided with both a balcony and a ground level courtyard. The combined area of those two spaces is 39.3 metres squared, well above the deemed to comply requirement.

· Both spaces are capable of use in conjunction with habitable rooms.

· Both spaces have a northern exposure and access to winter sun.

The outdoor living areas for units 2 to 5 have no portion that is uncovered, in lieu of the required minimum two-thirds of outdoor living area required to be uncovered. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

· The outdoor living areas are directly accessed from habitable rooms of the dwelling.

· The open nature of the balconies and their north facing aspect means that they will be open to winter sun and ventilation.

· The balconies being raised above the natural ground level allows them to optimise the full extent of the northern aspect of the site.

The proposed outdoor living areas meet the Design Principles and are acceptable.

Parking and Access

The proposal does not comply with the requirements of the R Codes for visitor parking, as no shared visitor parking is provided in lieu of the one bay required. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

· Due to the site’s proximity to Glendalough train station, the proposed development falls into Location A under the R Codes, with each dwelling requiring only one car bay. As each dwelling is provided with two car bays, the site is provided with 10 resident bays in excess of the 5 required. This is considered to assist in alleviating any pressure placed on the surrounding area through the lack of an on-site visitor bay.

· The subject site is located approximately 450 metres away from Glendalough train station and 600 metres away from the bus stop at Anzac Road before Powis Street, which is serviced by a bus every 8 to 10 minutes in peak hour. The subject site is well serviced by public transport which would assist in mitigating the lack of a shared visitor bay.

· Leeder Street provides no access to the bike path located adjacent to Mitchell Freeway. Access is provided from the south end of Jugan Street, approximately 150 metres from the subject site.

· There are a number of car parking bays constructed within the Leeder Street verge.

· Given the low volumes of traffic, Leeder Street is able to accommodate on-street parking, particularly given the only other development in the cul-de-sac is a church.

The lack of a shared visitor parking bay would not impact on the locality as a surplus of parking is provided on site. The variation is acceptable.

Landscaping

The proposal does not comply with the Built Form Policy’s requirements for landscaping, proposing 13.7 percent deep soil zone in lieu of the required 15 percent, and 25 percent tree canopy in lieu of the 30 percent canopy cover. The site could accommodate 30 percent canopy cover by incorporating appropriate tree species and distribution. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.

The development plans incorporate the provision of an additional street tree along Leeder Way. The applicant is willing to provide a further two street trees along Jugan Street in order to increase the tree canopy of the area and reduce the visual impact of the proposed two-storey development. It is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.

The proposed landscaping responds to the relevant design principles through the provision of tree canopy and deep soil zones that would contribute to the City’s green canopy and would reduce the impact of the development on the surrounding residential area. The proposal is acceptable from a landscaping perspective.

Design

The storerooms for units 2, 3 and 4 have been relocated to the balconies and have been reconfigured to meet the minimum dimension requirements. The proposed storerooms are an inferior outcome and would materially affect the use of the subject balconies.

The applicant has made very minor changes to the building treatments in an attempt to make the development more sympathetic to the streetscape and local area. The addition of the timber detailing and exposed eaves does reflect elements of the broader locality and are supported. The DRP Chair is supportive of the simplicity of the building materials, brick render and the corrugated roof used in the development. The built form and scale of the corner unit is poorly resolved but, the visual impact of the Jugan Street elevation would be effectively moderated by the provision of on-site landscaping as well as two street trees.

Acoustic Report

Due to the proximity of the subject site to the Mitchell Freeway, the applicant has provided an acoustic report prepared by Resonate Consultants, dated 2 July 2018, in accordance with the requirements of State Planning Policy 5.4 Road and Rail Noise.

An acoustic report was requested to ensure that any noise attenuation measures required to be implemented at Building Permit stage would not require changes to the design of the proposed dwellings. Some noise attenuation measures have been recommended such as thicker glazing on windows. The recommended measures would have no impact on the proposed design of the dwellings.

The noise attenuation requirements for the proposed dwellings would have no impact on the design and no impact on the recommendation for planning approval of this development.

Conclusion

The previous reasons for refusal related to the lack of a visitor bay, inadequate space for outdoor living areas and insufficient provision of stores. The amended proposal has increased the minimum dimension of the outdoor living areas and the stores, resolving these variations. The proposal has not included a visitor bay but the development provides 10 resident bays in lieu of the five required, which is ample parking for the development.

It is recommended that Council sets aside its previous decision and resolves to approve the application subject to conditions.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.4 No. 108 (Lot: 3; D/P: 3110) Vincent Street, North Perth - Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery)

TRIM Ref: D18/164405

Author: Stephanie Norgaard, 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 - Statement of Use ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Car Parking Management Plan ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a proposed Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery) at No. 108 (Lot: 3; D/P: 3110) Vincent Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1. Use of Premises

1.1 This approval relates to a Change of Use from ‘Single House’ to ‘Unlisted Use (Millinery)’ on the approved plans dated 9 May 2018. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2 A maximum of one employee and three customers shall occupy the building at any one time; and

1.3 The hours of operation for the ‘Unlisted Use (Millinery)’ shall be limited to between 9:00am and 5:00pm, Monday to Friday;

2. Car Parking and Access

A minimum of one car bay shall be provided for the exclusive use of the Unlisted Use (Millinery);

3. Signage

A maximum of one external sign is permitted, which shall not exceed 0.5 square metres in area; and

4. General

The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery) at No. 108 Vincent Street, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to change the use of the existing Single House on the subject site to an Unlisted Use (Millinery). The millinery business involves the design, sewing and sale of boutique hats. The applicant’s millinery business is currently operating at No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, as per a development approval for an Unlisted Use granted on 9 October 2013.

The Unlisted Use (Millinery) is proposed to operate Monday to Friday from 9:00am to 5:00pm. The business would operate with a single employee and the majority of the business sales occur through the website. A maximum of three customers are expected to be on the site at any one time. Customers are not expected to be on the site on a regular basis.

The application does not propose any physical works to the exterior of the building. The applicant’s development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant has also provided a statement of use and parking management plan (Attachments 3 and 4).

Background:

Landowner:	Julie Mitcheson-Low and Mark Mitcheson-Low
Applicant:	Julie Mitcheson-Low and Mark Mitcheson-Low
Date of Application:	6 July 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R40
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single House and Ancillary Dwelling
Proposed Use Class:	Unlisted Use (Millinery)
Lot Area:	597.1m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Yes – 5.0 metres in width, sealed and owned by the City of Vincent
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located on the corner of Vincent Street and comprises a Single House and an Ancillary Dwelling. The site is bound by a Right of Way (ROW) to the north, Norfolk Street to the east, Vincent Street to the south and two Grouped Dwellings to the west (currently under construction).

The application was originally lodged as a change of use from Single House to Office to facilitate the use of the Single House as an architectural firm. Prior to the application being advertised, the applicant amended the development application to change the purpose of the proposed Office from an architectural firm to a millinery business.

The activities would most appropriately be classed as an Unlisted Use, despite the applicant requesting the application be assessed as an Office. Following community consultation, the applicant was advised that Administration was not supportive of approving an Office use on the subject site due to the flexibility the Office land use provides for future tenants and the car parking shortfall provided on the site. The applicant subsequently amended the application to change the use of the site from Single House to Unlisted Use (Millinery).

The subject site contains both a Single House and an Ancillary Dwelling. The existing dwelling on the subject site is a federation style home which it is not listed on the local or State heritage register. The federation style home has been maintained in a good condition and contains many of the traditional federation features. The proposal would re-use the existing building on the site with no modification proposed to the external façade. Should the current application use be approved, the Ancillary Dwelling would be considered as a Single House. The conversion of the Ancillary Dwelling to a Single House is exempt from development approval as the building meets the deemed-to-comply requirements for car parking and outdoor living areas under the Residential Design Codes. The applicant has indicated that the Ancillary Dwelling is currently vacant.

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 Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking 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
Land Use		ü
Car Parking		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 is considered an “A” use in accordance with Clause 18(4)(b) of LPS2
Car Parking
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Parking Requirement Unlisted Uses have no prescribed parking requirement under Table 1 of the Parking Policy, with parking to be determined by the City based on a site specific parking management plan.	The application proposes one on-site parking bay and is supported by a parking management plan.

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 for the original proposal (change of use to an Office) was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 21 days from 11 August 2018 to 1 September 2018. The method of consultation included a sign being placed on site, a notice being placed in the local newspaper and ten letters being mailed to all the owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

During the community consultation, the City received three submissions neither supporting nor objecting to the change of use, but raising the following concerns:

· Appropriateness of an Office use within the Residential zone;

· Appropriateness of an Office use within a Single House with heritage character;

· The negative impact any future signage would have on the residential streetscape character;

· Inadequate provision of car parking relative to the size of the subject building; and

· Concerns that the development may operate at a more intense scale than proposed by the applicant.

The amended application for a change of use to Unlisted Use (Millinery) was re-advertised for a period of 14 days from 10 October 2018 to 24 October 2018. Ten letters were mailed to all the owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site (see Attachment 1).

Two submissions were received objecting to the proposal. The submissions raised the following key concerns:

· Inconsistency with the objectives of the Residential zone and potential impact of the development of the residential character and amenity of the area;

· Concerns regarding the lack of activity at the subject site outside of business hours;

· Concerns over the visual impact of any future commercial signage;

· Inadequate provision of car parking to service the development;

· Safety concerns regarding the nearby intersection at Vincent Street and Norfolk Street; and

· Concerns regarding the appropriateness of the Ancillary Dwelling.

Administration’s response to the summary of submissions is provided in Attachment 5.

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. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements; and

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes an Unlisted Use.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Thriving Places

· We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

The subject site is zoned Residential under the City’s LPS2. The nearby properties to the north, east and west are also zoned Residential and the land located to the south is reserved as Parks and Recreation under the Metropolitan Region Scheme.

The proposed ‘Millinery’ land use is not specifically identified in the land use table provided in LPS2 and does not fall within the interpretation of one of the land use definitions, particularly given that the operator of the business would not reside on the subject site. In accordance with Clause 18(4) of LPS2, Council is required to have regard to the objectives of the Residential zone in determining the appropriateness of an Unlisted Use. The LPS2 provides the following objectives for the Residential zone:

· To provide for a range of housing and a choice of residential densities to meet the needs of the community.

· To facilitate and encourage high quality design, built form and streetscapes throughout residential areas.

· To provide for a range of non-residential uses, which are compatible with and complementary to residential development.

· To promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

· To enhance the amenity and character of the residential neighbourhood by encouraging the retention of existing housing stock and ensuring new development is compatible within these established areas.

In considering the appropriateness of the proposed use, the following is relevant:

· The development proposes to operate at a low scale with one employee and up to a maximum of three customers at any one time. If the application is approved, it would be recommended that a condition is imposed to this effect;

· Customer visitation is infrequent with the majority of sales being processed online;

· The existing Single House has four bedrooms and could accommodate a similar or greater level of activity than that proposed by the Unlisted Use (Millinery) if it were used for residential purposes. The scale of development is compatible and complimentary with the residential area;

· If the application is approved, it would be recommended that a condition be imposed requiring any future signage to be of the same scale as the signage permitted for a Home Business. This would ensure the streetscape character is retained;

· The subject site will still serve a residential function by virtue of the existing Ancillary Dwelling which will effectively become a Single House; and

· The City has no records of receiving any complaints relating to the operations of the existing Unlisted Use (Millinery) at No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth.

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Residential zone.

Car Parking

In accordance with the City’s Parking Policy, Unlisted Uses are required to be determined on a case by case basis on a site specific management plan. The applicant has provided a parking management plan (see Attachment 4).

The parking management plan outlines that there are two onsite car bays. The second car bay is associated with the Ancillary Dwelling on the site which does not form part of this application. There is only one dedicated car bay available to the Unlisted Use (Millinery).

In considering the matter, the following is relevant:

· During the consultation period, a number of submissions were received objecting to the proposal and raising concerns regarding car parking and impact on the availability of on-street parking bays;

· The business has been operating with one car bay at No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth since 2013. The City has no records of any complaints being received in relation to car parking from this property. The development can operate at the proposed scale with one car bay without having a detrimental impact on the locality;

· There is currently on-street car parking available directly adjacent to the subject site along Vincent Street and Norfolk Street. These on-street car bays are subject to a three hour parking limit and are generally used by visitors to Hyde Park. The proposed operating hours are 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday, which is typically the off-peak period for visitors to Hyde Park;

· The subject site is located 350 metres from the Fitzgerald Street high frequency bus route and 375 metres from the William Street high frequency bus route;

· The parking management plan outlines that there would be a provision of bicycle parking facilities on the subject site, which would be supported by the existing end of trip facilities, including a bathroom, shower and storage room; and

· As part of the development approval for No. 323 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, the applicant paid a cash-in-lieu contribution of $5,837 for car parking. It is not necessary to require a further cash-in-lieu contribution, given a contribution has already been made for this business for another site in North Perth.

There is sufficient parking on the site and within the immediate locality as well as adequate public transport to service the development.

Conclusion

Council is required to exercise its discretion with respect to the acceptability of the proposed land use and car parking. The proposed Unlisted Use (Millinery) is a low intensity use that is compatible with the subject site and surrounding locality. The impact of the development can be appropriately managed through conditions of approval to ensure the development has no undue impact on the nearby residential properties. It is recommended that the proposal be approved subject to the recommended conditions.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.5 No. 157 (Lot: 17; D/P: 1509) Loftus Street, Leederville - Proposed Four Dwellings (Multiple)

TRIM Ref: D18/176382

Authors: Andrea Terni, Urban Planner

Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward: North

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

2. Attachment 2 - Development Plans ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Development Application Supporting Information ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Applicant's Response to Submissions ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - Department of Planning comments ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - Design Review Panel comments ⇩

8. Attachment 8 - Sustainable Design Assessment Report ⇩

9. Attachment 9 - 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 Four Dwellings (Multiple) at No. 157 (Lot: 17; D/P: 1509) Loftus Street, Leederville in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 9:

1. Landscaping

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

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

· Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

· The location of canopy cover at maturity equating to no less than 30 percent of the site;

1.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 1.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

2. Schedule of External Finishes

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

3. Boundary Walls

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

4. External Fixtures

All external fixtures and building plant, including air conditioning units, piping, ducting and water tanks, shall be located so as to minimise any 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;

5. Stormwater

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

6. Access

Prior to the first occupation of the development, the full length and width of the adjacent Right of Way shall be sealed and drained in accordance with the City’s specification at the full cost of the develop;

7. Acoustic Report

An Acoustic Report shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit application, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.21 relating to Sound Attenuation. The recommended measures of the acoustic report shall be implemented and certification provided by an acoustic consultant that the measures have been undertaken, prior to the first occupation of the development;

8. Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area, to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. The Construction Management Plan shall be prepared in accordance with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plans and include traffic and parking management requirements during construction. Construction on and management of the site shall thereafter comply with the approved Construction Management Plan;

9. Environmentally Sustainable Design

Prior to the issuing of an Occupancy Permit, the Applicant must implement the recommendations of the submitted Sustainable Design Assessment Report. All initiatives must be maintained for the duration of the development, to the satisfaction of the City; and

10. General

The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for four dwellings (Multiple) at No. 157 Loftus Street, Leederville (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of four two-storey multiple dwellings; consisting of three, three bedroom multiple dwellings and one, two bedroom multiple dwelling. Each dwelling will be provided with separate vehicle access from Austen lane and the right of way (ROW). A total of eight car parking bays have been included onsite with two car bays provided in tandem formation for each unit.

Background:

Landowner:	Kentville holdings Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Pindan Homes Pty Ltd
Date of Application:	26 September 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R60
Built Form Area:	Transit Corridor (Three storey height limit)
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Dwellings (Multiple)
Lot Area:	534m² (The property is subject to road widening and ROW widening)
Right of Way (ROW):	Yes, 4.0 to 5.0 metres wide, drained and sealed
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located at No. 157 Loftus Street, Leederville, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject site currently comprises of a single storey house.

The subject site is bound by Loftus Street to the east and Austen Lane to the south. The immediate adjoining properties adjacent Loftus Street are characterised by single storey houses and the surrounding properties adjacent Austen Lane are characterised by single and double storey houses. The property directly adjoining the northern lot boundary has undergone a survey strata subdivision and consists of an existing single storey grouped dwelling fronting Loftus Street and two vacant lots to the rear which have recently been approved for single storey grouped dwellings. Council has also approved an application for 10 multiple dwellings (across three storeys) at No. 161 Loftus Street. Development is currently in progress for the site.

Loftus Street is reserved as an Other Regional Road (ORR) in the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and is affected by a 1.1 metre portion of ORR reservation as per the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) Land Requirement Plan. The property is also subject to a one metre ROW widening requirement.

A copy of the development plans is included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s supporting information of the proposed development is included as Attachment 3.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, the Built Form Policy and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R Codes). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table. Administration has used a net site area of 504.65 square metres (the parent lot excluding the required road and RoW widening).

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Building Size		ü
Street Setback		ü
Front Fence	ü
Lot Boundary Setbacks		ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Roof Form	ü
Open Space		ü
Outdoor Living Areas	ü
Landscaping (R Codes)	ü
Visual Privacy		ü
Parking & Access		ü
Bicycle Facilities	ü
Solar Access	ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls		ü
External Fixtures	ü
Surveillance	ü
Environmentally Sustainable Design		ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Building Size
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.1.1 Plot Ratio: 0.7 (354.809m²)	Plot Ratio: 0.84 (425.7m²)
Street Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.1.3 Secondary street setback: 2.0m	Secondary street setback: 1.25m
Lot Boundary Setbacks
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.1.4 Western lot boundary Unit 4, Bedroom 3: 6.5m from the mid-point of the ROW Unit 4, Balcony: 7.5m from the mid-point of the ROW	Western lot boundary Unit 4, Bedroom 3: 6.4m from the midway point of the ROW Unit 4, Balcony: 6.6m from the midway point of the ROW
Open Space
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.1.5 Open space = 45%	Open space = 37.77%
Visual Privacy
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.4.1 Unit 1, dining room: 4.5m Unit 4, bedroom 2: 3.0m	Unit 1, dining room: 4.4m Unit 4, bedroom 2: 2.6m
Parking and Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.3.3 Visitor car parking bays: 1	Visitor car parking bays: Nil
Site Works / Retaining Walls
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.3.6 and 6.3.7 Excavation and retaining: 0.5m	Excavation: 0.8m along the northern lot boundary

The above elements of the proposal do not meet the specified deemed-to-comply standards and is 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 23 October 2018 and concluding on 5 November 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners within a 75 metre radius of the subject property, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. Four submissions were received by the City during the community consultation period. Two submissions were received objecting to the proposal and two submissions were received neither supporting nor objecting to the proposal.

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

· Concerns regarding the building size and lack of open space due to the over development of the site;

· The bulk and mass of the development creating a negative impact on the current and evolving streetscape of Austen Lane;

· The lack of landscaping proposed and the visual impact of a hardstand streetscape;

· The shortfall in car parking increasing the reliance on street car parking to Austen Lane and Galwey Street;

· Concerns regarding road safety on Austen Lane and how local traffic would cope and be impacted within a narrow and congested street; and

· Driveways should be orientated to exit onto Austen Lane rather than the ROW to avoid damage to the adjoining property.

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s responses is included as Attachment 4.

In response to the consultation process and the DRP referral (discussed below), the applicant provided responses to the submissions received (included as Attachment 5) and also lodged the following modifications:

· The removal of the visitor car parking bay which increases the open space and deep soil zone of the site;

· The setback to the Unit 4 garage being increased from 3.9 metres to 5.7 metres to provide for a second parking space in a tandem configuration;

· A context plan to portray the development within the existing streetscape;

· Sections of the development;

· An outline of the adjacent dwellings;

· An overshadowing diagram confirming shadow over Austen Lane; and

· A schedule of the materials and finishes to confirm the architectural features of the proposed development.

Administration subsequently provided the amended plans to the submitters who raised objections to the proposal to allow them to provide feedback on the amended plans. Administration did not receive any responses on the amended plans.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage

Administration referred the proposed development plans to the DPLH for comments. The comments received are included as Attachment 6 and are summarised as follows:

· The site is affected by a 1.1 metre portion of ORR reservation for Loftus Street and no permanent structures are permitted within the road widening area;

· The access arrangements are in accordance with WAPC’s Regional Roads (Vehicle Access) Policy which seeks to minimise the number of new crossovers onto regional roads;

· Given the proximity of the proposed development to the Other Regional Road, due considerations shall be given to State Planning Policy 5.4 - Road and Rail Transport Noise and Freight Considerations in Land Use Planning; and

· The DPLH has no objection to the proposal on regional planning transport grounds subject to the above recommendations.

To address the DPLH comments, Administration recommends the imposition of a condition requiring the submission of an acoustic report for approval by the City prior to the lodgement of a building permit.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

Administration referred the original development plans to the Chair of the DRP for comments. The comments received are included as Attachment 7 and are summarised as follows:

· The applicant should consider pitching the roof from the high point north to the low point south to enable northern light to penetrate the upper living areas and/or bedrooms. This would also improve the massing and aesthetics of the building from the two streets;

· The visitor bay is in an awkward location and the City should encourage its deletion as it impacts on the amenity of Unit 3;

· An elevation or 3D image showing the development in context;

· Provide north-south and east-west sections of the development from the right-of-way to Loftus Street;

· Provide plans of the northern lot and development west of the right-of-way;

· Show shadow diagrams; and

· Prepare external materials and finishes schedule.

The modified plans appropriately address the comments made by the DRP.

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;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

· Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation; and

· Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plans.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development incorporates more than three dwellings.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Sensitive Design

· Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Building Size

· The property is located in a Transit Corridor built form area permitting a maximum building height of three storeys. The development proposes two storeys which minimise the building bulk on adjoining properties and is consistent with the existing built form of the locality which is predominantly single storey and double storey dwellings;

· The design of the development incorporates multiple articulations and open style balconies to the street which provide visual relief and a significant reduction of building bulk to the streetscape;

· The development incorporates a number of design measures to reduce the impact of bulk and scale to the surrounding properties including feature face brickwork (Midland Brick Subiaco Red), feature cladding (James Hardie Primeline Cladding, Newport, Timber Look Stain) and multiple extensive major openings which assist in the breakup of solid wall dominating the streetscape. The provision of major openings and balconies provide an ‘open’ appearance to the building and significantly reduced the overall building mass to the street; and

· Landscaping has also been incorporated around the perimeter of the building. The landscaping proposed assists in softening the appearance of the built form and mitigating effects of the building to the street.

The proposed development retains elements of the existing character building onsite by incorporating the predominant building material of red brick. The development proposes elevations that are well articulated with contrasting materials, colours, openings and façade depths that moderate the visual impact of the built form. The proposal has been developed within the building envelope with regard to building height, street and lot boundary setbacks. The proposal meets the design principle of the R Codes and is acceptable.

Street Setback

In considering the acceptability of the secondary street (Austen Lane) setback proposed, the following is noted:

· The design of the proposal has incorporated balconies to the secondary street and the support structures of the balconies protrude into the secondary street setback area only with the main building line setback greater than required;

· The proposal provides an articulated façade to the street together with contrasting materials and finishes and numerous significant glazed major openings to the external walls of the building;

· The design provides articulation of the building on the secondary street and minimise the impact of building bulk on the adjoining properties from Austen Lane; and

· The street setback proposed is an appropriate distance as the area between the development and the street boundary has allowed significant landscaping to the secondary street façade which reduces the impact of development on adjoining properties and contributes to a desirable streetscape.

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

Lot Boundary Setback

The application involves an upper floor setback of 6.4 metres from the main building line and a 6.6 metre setback from the balcony, both measured from the mid-point of the Right of Way.

In considering the acceptability of the lot boundary setback proposed, the following is noted:

· The development has been designed to incorporate a courtyard area between the main building and the ROW which will allow the provision of considerable landscaping at ground level. This includes three 45 litre Magnolia Little Gem Trees and a 100 litre Gleditsia Sunburst which are positioned immediately between the ROW and the proposed dwelling. The trees assist in minimising the impact of the development from the neighbouring property and provide a sense of open space between the subject dwelling and the dwelling on the other side of the ROW;

· The development has been designed to not present excessive bulk to the adjoining property from the western lot boundary as the proposal incorporates various materials and finishes, including;

o Subiaco Red feature face brick work which is incorporated to the ground floor design of the building and to the boundary fence which has been selected to maintain the character of the existing dwelling onsite;

o Timber look stain feature cladding material to the upper storey portion of the wall between the white rendered brickwork and the roof line of the building which has been selected as a distinctive character material of the local area; and

o Multiple large glazed openings including an open balcony to minimise the solid visual aspect of the development to the neighbouring properties;

· The setbacks proposed from the ROW are appropriate in maintaining adequate ventilation and sunlight to the proposed development and the existing dwelling on the other side of the ROW; and

· The City did not receive comments regarding the lot boundary setback provision.

The proposal meets the design principles of the Built Form Policy with regards to lot boundary setbacks and is supported.

Open Space

· The proposal has been designed to allow for considerable open space surrounding the development which minimises the visual aspect of the building to the street and allows for deep soil vegetation including 13 trees that address Austen Lane, three trees that address Loftus Street and four trees that address the ROW;

· Courtyard space has been proposed for each of the units on the northern lot boundary in addition to the balconies for each individual unit. The courtyard space provides further opportunities for residents to use space external of the building, reduces the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property and allows for further tree canopy;

· The building has been designed to provide multiple articulations and setbacks from the street and particularly to the northern lot boundary which maintains direct sun and ventilation and overall amenity to the surrounding properties; and

· The proposal effectively sets aside approximately 30 square metres of land for road widening. Inclusion of that area as part of the calculation would increase open space to approximately 42 percent.

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

Visual Privacy

In accordance with the R Codes, major openings to bedrooms require a 3 metre setback from the lot boundary and major openings to dining rooms require a 4.5 metre setback. Bedroom 2 to Unit 4 would be setback 2.6 metres from the northern lot boundary and the dining room of Unit 1 would be setback 4.4 metres from the northern lot boundary.

In considering the acceptability of visual privacy proposed, the following is noted:

· The setback of the Dining Room is only 0.1m from being Deemed-to-Comply.

· A major opening is proposed to the upper floor, abutting the stair case of Unit 1 which is proposed to soften the extent of solid wall on the northern elevation by providing glazing and a means of northern light to the upper storey areas of the dwelling. The small portion of overlooking extends into the adjoining property’s pedestrian access way and would not overlook any active habitable space;

· Bedroom 2 of Unit 4 proposes a major opening on the west elevation which overlooks the adjoining property of No. 159A Loftus Street within the cone of vision. The cone of vision is subject to overlooking of the proposed (approved) roof cover over the front entry and car parking bay. The overlooking would not pose an undue impact on the neighbour’s outdoor active habitable area; and

· The City did not receive comments regarding the visual privacy provision.

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

Car Parking

In considering the acceptability of the lack of a dedicated visitor bay, the following is noted:

· The development has been designed to provide two exclusive car parking bays in a tandem formation for each unit. The resident car parking provided onsite exceeds the requirement in accordance with the R Codes by three bays.

· The application involves the provision of bicycle facilities which are located directly in front of the entry to each unit which is appropriate and convenient to the occupants and visitors. The bicycle facilities provided onsite exceed the requirement of the R Codes which requires one bicycle facility to each three dwellings and one bicycle facility to each ten dwellings for visitors;

· The property is located on a high frequency bus route and is directly adjacent a bus stop on Loftus Street. The property is located in an area that provides alternate transport options given its location on a major bus route;

· The existing single dwelling on site does not accommodate any visitor parking;

· There are opportunities for on-street parking within Austen Lane on the development side (north) between the ROW and Loftus Street; and

· On-street parking in Austen Lane occurs currently and any occasional visitor parking resulting from the subject development would not have a significant impact on the local area.

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

Site Works and Retaining Walls

The development proposes portions of excavation and retaining walls of up to 0.8 metres along the northern lot boundary at its maximum point before tapering down to be consistent with the natural ground level.

In considering the acceptability of the site works and retaining walls proposed, the following is noted:

· The excavation is proposed to provide a consistent finished floor level for the dwellings and the courtyards that will be of benefit to the residents specifically to Units 2 and 3;

· The retaining walls are proposed at a height of 0.8 metres at its maximum height before tapering down toward the street as the site becomes level. The retaining walls are required to provide support of the proposed different ground levels between the subject property and the neighbouring property;

· The proposed site works and retaining walls would be below natural ground level and do not pose an undue impact on the locality; and

· The City did not receive comments regarding the site works and retaining walls.

The proposal meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

The applicant provided an ESD Report which forms part of the application to satisfy the requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy. The ESD Report is included in Attachment 8.

As per the requirements of the Built Form Policy, the ESD Report demonstrates that the development:

1. Maximises passive solar heating, cooling, natural ventilation and light penetration;

2. Is capable of recovery and re-use of water run-off;

3. Installation of climate moderation devices can be incorporate into the building design; and

4. Is capable of achieving a 5 star Green Star rating in accordance with the Green Building Council of Australia’s Green Star rating system.

The ESD Report outlines the following features that will be considered during construction, including:

· Indoor environment quality;

· Energy efficiency;

· Water efficiency;

· The use of high durable materials;

· Minimal emissions; and

· Building innovation.

The report demonstrates that the development has been designed to achieve the ESD outcomes which are equivalent to a 5 Star Green Star building. The proposal satisfies the environmentally sustainable design requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy and is acceptable. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the submitted ESD report to be implemented.

Landscaping

The application provides for 14.43 percent deep soil zone and 31.74 percent tree canopy cover at maturity. Given that the site is capable of accommodating over 30 percent canopy, the proposed deep soil zone (being 14.43 percent rather than a deemed-to-comply 15 percent) is considered acceptable, although a detailed landscaping plan is required to confirm the acceptability of the tree species and the reticulation details. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed for a Landscape and Reticulation Plan to be submitted and approved prior to completion of the development.

Conclusion

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to building size, street setback, lot boundary setback, open space, landscaping, car parking, site works, retaining walls and visual privacy for this development. The proposed development has been designed to reduce impact on the surrounding properties and the streetscape of Loftus Street and Austen Lane. The applicant has proposed appropriate landscaping of the site, varying materials and finishes and major open style glazing of the dwellings which would reduce impacts of building bulk and provide additional amenity for the locality. It is recommended that the application be approved subject to conditions.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.6 No. 5 (Lot: 14; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville - Two Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref: D18/159387

Authors: Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Mitchell Hoad, 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 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for two Grouped Dwellings at No. 5 (Lot: 14; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reason:

1. The development does not satisfy the design principles of Clause 5.4.2 (Solar Access for Adjoining Sites) as it will result in the overshadowing of major openings to the existing dwelling on the abutting No. 3 Scott Street.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two grouped dwellings at No. 5 Scott Street, Leederville.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes two two-storey grouped dwellings in a battle-axe configuration, with primary access from Scott Street.

Background:

Landowner:	Colin Carson
Applicant:	Tascone Design
Date of Application:	22 August 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R30
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Vacant
Proposed Use Class:	Dwelling (Group)
Lot Area:	607m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No.
Heritage List:	No.

The subject site is as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1 and comprises a vacant lot which has been cleared and levelled in preparation for development. The subject site is bound by Scott Street to the east, grouped dwellings to the north and south and a single house to the west. Scott Street and the broader area surrounding the subject site is characterised by one and two-storey single, grouped and multiple dwellings.

The subject site and the adjacent lot, No. 7 Scott Street, share a driveway through an access easement on the Certificate of Titles and Deposited Plans. This access easement effectively restricts the manner in which the site can be developed.

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Street Setback		ü
Front Fence	ü
Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall	ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Open Space	ü
Outdoor Living Areas		ü
Landscaping (R Codes)	ü
Privacy	ü
Parking & Access	ü
Bicycle Facilities	ü
Solar Access		ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls	ü
Essential Facilities	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Surveillance	ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Street Setback
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Clause 5.2 Street Setback Average of five adjoining properties: 5.98 metres	3.0 metres
Outdoor Living Areas
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas Not located within the front setback area	Located within the front setback area
Solar Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 5.4.2 Solar Access for Adjoining Sites Maximum overshadowing of 35 percent	41.6 percent

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 28 September 2018 and concluding on 11 October 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.

The City received eight submissions: one in support; one expressing concern; and six objecting to the proposal. The submissions received presented concerns relating to overshadowing, visual privacy and the design of the dwellings. A summary of submissions received and Administration’s response to these is included as Attachment 3.

Following the first consultation period, the applicant sought to respond to the objections through the submissions of amended plans, which involved the following modifications:

· Increased street setback of dwelling line from 4.4 metres to 5.2 metres and amended façade design;

· Increased canopy cover; and

· Re-design of Unit 2 to allow for winter sun to access the southern adjoining dwelling’s ground floor living room window.

· Concerns regarding the impact of visual privacy on the property at the rear of the subject site;

· It is noted that the amended plans now allow winter sun into the highlight window on the upper floor of the rear dwelling on the adjoining property to the south (No. 3A), however, there remains concerns around winter sun being restricted to the downstairs living and outdoor living area; and

· The solar access to the front dwelling of the adjoining property to the south (No. 3) remains impacted as a result of the proposal.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

Administration referred the proposed development plans to the Chair of the DRP for comment in relation to the street setback and front elevation. The Chair of the DRP was of the opinion that the proposed street setback provides a rhythm along the streetscape, and an appropriate transition between the setbacks on either side of the subject site.

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.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development application received more than five objections during community consultation, in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register 2018 – 2019.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Sensitive Design

· Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

The applicant proposes a street setback of 3.0 metres, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 5.98 metres. The existing setbacks for the dwellings on the abutting properties are as follows:

· No. 1 Scott Street – 6.4 metre street setback;

· No. 3 Scott Street (immediately south of the subject site) – 6.7 metre street setback;

· No. 7 Scott Street (immediately north of the subject site) – 2.52 metre street setback;

· No. 9 Scott Street – 7.5 metre street setback; and

· No. 11 Scott Street – 6.8 metre street setback.

In addition to these properties:

· The developments on the northern and southern ends of the street block have nil setbacks to Scott Street which is the secondary street frontage for each of these properties.

· The setbacks along the opposite side of Scott Street range from 4.4 metres (being 10 Scott Street) to 9.1 metres (being 4 Scott Street).

Whilst the above have not been calculated toward the deemed-to-comply street setback, the street block does provide an inconsistent streetscape.

In considering the proposed street setback relative to the applicable Design Principles and Local Housing Objective, the following is relevant:

· The 3.0 meters setback is to the proposed balcony, which occupies only 40 percent of the front and is relatively open and does contribute significant building bulk;

· The dwelling line (being the main portion of the building excluding the balcony), is setback 5.18 meters from the street;

· Compared to the equivalent components on the abutting No. 7, the proposed balcony has a 0.5 meter greater setback and the proposed main portion of the building has a 2.2 meters greater setback. The subject proposal provides a reasonable transition between the 2.52 metre setback to the north and 6.7 metre setback to the south;

· The street setback allows for adequate privacy and open space for both dwellings and allows adequate space for the provision of the required parking and landscaping requirements and all essential facilities and utilities;

· The provision of the balcony and courtyard within the front setback area provides for additional street surveillance, contributing to a safer public realm;

· Given the amount of deep soil area located within the front setback area, the proposed landscape plan is intended to provide tree planting to mitigate the impact of building bulk on the street;

· The proposed façade presents a number of materials, including varying shades of grey render, red face brick work and extensive glazing. These materials are consistent with the streetscape and assist in mitigating the impact of building bulk when viewed from the street;

· The garages are located behind the front dwelling, reducing bulk from garage doors as viewed from the street; and

· As detailed earlier in the report, Scott Street accommodated a varied streetscape, with setbacks ranging from nil to over 7.0 meters.

The application satisfies the design principles relating to Street Setback and is supported.

Solar Access

The applicant proposes a total of 41 percent overshadowing onto the parent lot of the southern adjoining lot, in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 35 percent.

The property is orientated east-west, which will inevitably result in some overshadowing regardless of the resultant development on-site. For example, the overshadowing cast by a standard 1.8 metre high fence is approximately 129.2 square metres or 21.2 percent of the southern adjoining lot. With respect to the design principles, the proposed development:

· Would not result in any overshadowing onto the roof space of either dwelling to the south of the subject site (No’s. 3 and 3A) and appropriately takes into account the existing road mounted solar collectors;

· Results in overshadowing to the northern facing major openings of No. 3 Scott Street at midday on 21 June of each year;

· Does not restrict sunlight into the ground-floor, north-facing highlight windows of No. 3A Scott Street, due to the height of those windows; and

· Appropriately responds to the outdoor living areas of both dwellings to the south and restricts only a very small amount of sun into those areas.

Whilst largely acceptable from a solar access perspective, the proposal does not satisfy the design principles of the R Codes as it does not protect solar access for the north facing major openings of the abutting No. 3 Scott Street.

Outdoor Living Area

The applicant proposes an outdoor living area for Unit 1 in the street setback area, in lieu of the deemed‑to‑comply provision of the R Codes requiring the outdoor living area to be located behind the street setback area.

Both outdoor living areas, including the courtyard and balcony, are capable of being used in conjunction with habitable rooms. All outdoor living areas have been designed to make optimum use of the northern aspect of the site and are open to winter sun and ventilation. The outdoor living areas within the street setback area allows for additional passive surveillance over the public realm. The proposed outdoor living areas are consistent with the design principles of the R Codes and are supported.

Landscaping

Administration have calculated that the proposal provides 92 square metres, or 15 percent, deep soil zone. Based on the indicative landscaping plan, the site is able to provide 30 percent canopy cover. The proposal complies with the deemed-to-comply requirements set out in the Built Form Policy, although a detailed landscaping plan is required to confirm the acceptability of the tree species and the reticulation details. Should the application be approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed that a Landscape and Reticulation Plan is submitted and approved prior to completion of the development.

Conclusion

The proposal requires Council to exercise its discretion in relation to the proposed development. The proposed dwellings present a façade that draws on design elements, colours and materials of the existing streetscape. The street setback allows for adequate outdoor living area and provision of landscaping, which mitigates the impact of building bulk when viewed from the street and neighbouring properties. However the extent of overshadowing will restrict access to natural light of the ground floor living areas of the adjoining dwelling. It is recommended that the application be refused for this reason.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.7 Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - No. 51 (Lot: 25; D/P: 1230) Marian Street, Leederville

TRIM Ref: D18/161755

Author: Mitchell Hoad, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward: North

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Location Plan ⇩

2. Attachment 2 - Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Map ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Report ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ADOPTS Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2, included as Attachment 3, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

2. ADVISES the Western Australian Planning Commission that Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 is considered a standard amendment pursuant to Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as the amendment:

· Is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Strategy which identifies the provision of high density residential and commercial activities within a walkable catchment of the Mount Hawthorn and Leederville Town Centres;

· Is consistent with the intent of the Urban zone under the Metropolitan Region Scheme to provide for a range of commercial and residential activities;

· Will have minimal impact on land in the scheme area that is not the subject of the amendment, with this detail to be resolved through a future development application;

· Does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts on land in the scheme area; and

· Is not a complex or basic amendment;

3. REFERS Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority, pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

4. Subject to the approval of the Environmental Protection Authority, ADVERTISES Amendment No. 3 to Local Planning Scheme No 2 for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

5. REQUESTS the Western Australian Planning Commission to require a Local Development Plan for 320 - 324 Oxford Street and 51 Marian Street, pursuant to Clause 47(d) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the adoption of proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) in accordance with Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to rezone No. 51 Marian Street, Leederville (the subject site) from Residential R30 to Mixed Use R100.

Background:

Landowner:	Synergy Property Investments Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Urbanista Town Planning
Date of Application:	17 October 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R30
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Lot Area:	432m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site fronting Marian Street is zoned Residential R30 under LPS2 and is located within the Residential Built Form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The land to the east is also zoned Residential R30 under LPS2 within the Residential Built Form area and consists of Single Houses. The land to the west and south is zoned Mixed Use R100 within the Activity Corridor Built Form area and consists of a mix of commercial and residential uses. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Details:

Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 proposes to rezone the subject site from Residential R30 to Mixed Use R100 to match the existing zoning and density of the adjoining land to the west and south (No. 318, 320, 322 and 324 Oxford Street). The landowner of the subject site also owns No. 320 - 324 Oxford Street and the applicant has advised that the ultimate intent is for these lots to be amalgamated to facilitate a mixed-use development on the site. A copy of the Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 map is included as Attachment 2 and the accompanying report is included as Attachment 3.

No subdivision nor development application for the site(s) has been lodged. A preliminary concept plan showing the potential building footprint for this redevelopment is included in Figure 6 of Attachment 3 for indicative purposes only.

The applicant’s justification for the amendment is summarised below.

· The amendment would enable the redevelopment of the adjoining lots in a mixed use development and the achievement of affordable housing outcomes consistent with State Government policy and the City’s strategic vision;

· The rezoning of this site is consistent with the adjoining properties (to the west) and follows the line of the Mixed Use zone at the rear;

· The subject site is well located within proximity to Leederville and Mount Hawthorn, essential services, public recreation facilities, primary, secondary and tertiary education facilities, community mental and physical health services and other multi-modal transport options. The subject site is suitable for high density residential development that would take advantage of the amenity and walkability of the local area; and

· The higher density coding would allow the City to maximise its contribution to the State’s urban consolidation objectives and support an increase in housing stock in strategic areas consistent with LPS2.

Consultation/Advertising:

If Council resolves that Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 is a standard amendment, in accordance with Regulation 47(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the proposal must be advertised for public consultation. The amendment would also need to be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment was necessary.

The standard amendment must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days. Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015:

· Advertisement in a local and state newspaper;

· Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

· Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies;

· Display on the City’s website;

· Placement of a sign on site, giving notice of the proposal; and

· Any other way the local government considered appropriate.

Following the 42 day advertising period, a summary of submissions received and Administration’s responses to those submissions would be included in a report to Council for consideration of whether to support or not support the amendment.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: No

Legal/Policy:

Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 allows a local government authority to amend its local planning scheme with the approval of the Minister for Planning.

Regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 requires a resolution of a local government to adopt an amendment to a local planning scheme which must specify if the amendment is a “basic amendment”, “standard amendment” or “complex amendment”. This matter is discussed later in the report.

If Council resolves to adopt the amendment, the City would advise the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) what type of amendment it was considered to be in accordance with Regulation 35 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and would forward the amendment documentation to the EPA for its consideration in accordance with Regulation 47(1).

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function to consider adopting Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 for the purposes of public consultation.

Strategic Implications:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Sensitive Design

· Our planning framework supports quality design, sustainable urban built form and is responsive to our community and local context.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Administration Comment

The amendment would facilitate the amalgamation of the subject site with the adjoining sites to the west which are in the same ownership. That amalgamation would create a landholding of 2,016 square metres and would facilitate mixed use development on the site. The subject site is well located given its proximity to public transport (including a high frequency bus route along Oxford Street and the Leederville Train Station approximately 1,200 metres to the south) and the Leederville and Mount Hawthorn Town Centres (approximately 330 metres and 370 metres respectively).

The amendment would provide for a more intensive use of the subject site under the proposed Mixed Use R100 zoning then what is permitted under the current Residential R30 zoning. In considering this, the following is relevant:

· The amendment would consolidate the zoning of the lots within single ownership.

· The rezoning of this site would provide a consistent zoning boundary with the site to the south, being No. 318 Oxford Street.

· Irrespective of the subject amendment, a zoning boundary between the Mixed Use R100 zone and the Residential R30 zone would remain.

· Any future development of the subject site (as part of the larger amalgamated site) would be guided by the Built Form Policy (and potentially a Local Development Plan) which seeks to achieve appropriate buildings setbacks particularly where abutting sites have different density codes. Development on the higher density site would need to be setback 6.5 metres for the first three stories and 12.5 metres for the fourth storey and above, which would provide an appropriate transition.

· Across from the subject site, there is Mixed Use 100 zoned land fronting Oxford Street, a 5.0 metre wide laneway and Aranmore Catholic College.

Amendment No. 3 to LPS2 is appropriate for the purposes of advertising, subject to there being a requirement for a Local Development Plan to guide the transition between the higher density along Oxford Street and the lower density along Marian Street. Initiation of the amendment does not bind Council to support final adoption of the amendment.

Amendment Type

Under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, Council is required to consider whether the amendment is basic, standard or complex. The amendment is considered to be a standard amendment for the following reasons:

· The City’s Local Planning Strategy makes reference to the Oxford Street Urban Corridor which is generally comprised of the properties directly abutting Oxford Street between the Leederville and Mount Hawthorn Town Centres. The intent of this corridor under the Local Planning Strategy is “to focus higher density residential and commercial activities along the corridor in a way that provides increased opportunities for diverse housing and employment within a walkable catchment area of the Leederville and Mount Hawthorn Town Centres”. The amendment would facilitate the provision of a higher density of residential and commercial activities through the development of the subject site as part of a larger landholding with the adjoining properties fronting Oxford Street. The subject site forms part of a broader landholding that is located approximately 370 metres and 330 metres from the Mount Hawthorn and Leederville Town Centres respectively;

· The amendment does not alter the Urban zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS);

· The amendment would have a material impact on the adjoining property to the east in terms of the likely development outcome. That outcome could be appropriately controlled as part of a future development application process, as guided by Council’s Built Form Policy.

· The development is proposed across a larger landholding which would provide the opportunity for the design to respond to the local context and to mitigate impacts on the existing development the area. This would be resolved through a future development application;

· The amendment would not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impacts; and

· The amendment is not considered to be a basic or complex amendment, as defined within the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

It is recommended that Council formally consider the amendment to be a standard amendment for the purposes of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Built Form Policy

If ultimately approved by the Minister, the subject site would be zoned Mixed Use R100 but be within the Residential Built Form area, while the adjoining properties to the west would be within the Transit Corridor Built Form area. It would be necessary for the Built Form Policy to be amended to include the subject site within the Transit Corridor Built Form area. This matter does not require immediate action and could be progressed if the amendment was approved.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

9.9 No. 21 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1477) Vincent Street, Mount Lawley - Amendment to Development Approval for Alterations and Additions to exisitng Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House

TRIM Ref: D18/149330

Author: Joslin Colli, Coordinator Planning Services

Authoriser: Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward: South

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

2. Attachment 2 - Development Approval Documentation and Plans dated 23 February 2015 ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Development Plans ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Written Submission ⇩

5. Attachment 5 - Parking Survey and Parking Management Plan ⇩

6. Attachment 6 - Heritage Impact Statement and Response from Design Review Panel ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - Summary of Submissions and Administration Response ⇩

8. Attachment 8 - Summary of Submissions and Applicant's Response ⇩

9. Attachment 9 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application to amend a development approval for Alterations and Additions to existing Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House at No. 21 (Lot: 22; D/P: 1477) Vincent Street, Mount Lawley, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3 dated 23 July 2018 and 22 October 2018, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 9:

1. All conditions and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2014.656.1 granted on 23 February 2015 and included in Attachment 2 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1 Condition 3.1 (cash in lieu of car parking) is removed;

1.2 Condition 3.2 is amended to read as follows:

3.2 Prior to occupation/use of the development, a minimum of three bicycle parking bays, in the form of two (2) Class 3 bicycle bay facilities for the Commercial component shall be provided. Bicycle bays must be provided at a location convenient to the entrance, publically accessible and within the development. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3;

1.3 A new condition 10 is imposed to read as follows:

10. Landscaping

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

· The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants, based on the City’s tree selection tool and to maximise the provision of canopy cover; and

· Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

10.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 10.1 shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to completion of development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

1.4 A new Condition 2.4 is imposed to read as follows:

11. The Consulting Rooms shall not accommodate more than two clients on-site at any given time;

1.5 A new Condition 2.5 is imposed to read as follows:

12. Appointments with each health practitioner shall be scheduled no less than 10 minutes apart to avoid the overlap of clients on site;

1.6 A new Condition 11 is imposed to read as follows:

13. The obligation to comply with the requirements of a time limited condition continues whilst the approved development exists;

1.7 A new Condition 12 is imposed to read as follows:

14. This approval is valid for two years from the date of this approval; and

1.8 Condition 4.1 (Terrace Roofing) is removed.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to amend a development approval for alterations and additions to existing Consulting Rooms and a proposed Single House at No. 21 Vincent Street, Mount Lawley.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to amend the exiting approval by extending the approval period and removing Condition 3.2, which requires payment of cash-in-lieu.

Background:

Landowner:	Jeffery & Lynn Bennett
Applicant:	Bruce Arnold
Date of Application:	23 July 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R50
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Consulting Rooms
Proposed Use Class:	Consulting Rooms: A Dwelling (Single House): P
Lot Area:	355m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	Yes. Management Category A – Conservation Essential

The subject site is located at No. 21 Vincent Street, Mount Lawley, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject is surrounded by residential uses, abutting the lot and to the north on the opposite side of Vincent Street. The broader area includes residential and commercial uses, with commercial uses being located along Beaufort Street.

The subject site is zoned ‘Residential’ with a density coding of R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site accommodates a single-storey building being used as Consulting Rooms. The subject site is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory, as Management Category A – Conservation Essential.

In April 1990, the City of Perth approved the change of use from residential to Consulting Rooms. That approval contained a condition which restricted the site to one health practitioner at any one time.

An application for alterations and additions to existing dental surgery (including allowing two health practitioners) and a proposed two-storey dwelling to the rear of existing Consulting Rooms was approved by Administration under delegated authority on 23 February 2015. A copy of this approval is included in Attachment 2. The approval contained a condition (3.1) which required the payment of $6,572.80 for the equivalent value of 1.264 car parking spaces. This approval was not enacted and payment was not made to the City. The previous approval also contained a condition (4.1) which required the outdoor living area to have a minimum two thirds uncovered, in accordance with the R Codes. The applicant is seeking removal of this condition.

The current proposal does not involve any amendments to the previously approved built form. The applicant is not proposing any changes to the previously approved operating hours, number of employees and overall intensity of the land use. There are currently two consulting rooms within the existing dental surgery with one of these consulting rooms being used by the dentist to treat patients. There are three employees in total on site at any time currently. This is one health practitioner being a dentist, a receptionist and a dental nurse. The applicant has confirmed that only one client is capable of being treated at any one time by the dentist currently.

The second consulting room is being used for the purposes of sterilising equipment and as a back of house area, and it is intended that this can be accommodated in the proposed extension area of the dental surgery. This will allow a dental hygienist to operate from the second consulting room. There would be four employees being a dentist, a dental hygienist, a dental nurse and a receptionist working from the premises at one time as part of this proposal. The applicant has confirmed that only one client is capable of attending the dental hygienist at any one time and the appointments are scheduled for one hour. This would be in addition to one client being treated by the dentist at any time. These appointment times can vary from 20 minutes to two hours per appointment. The dwelling proposed as part of this application is intended to be offered to the resident dentist or the hygienist.

The development plans are included in Attachment 3, the associated report from the applicant is included in Attachment 4 and the Parking Survey and Management Plan are included in Attachment 5.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, the Non-Residential Parking Policy and the State Government’s SPP 3.1 Residential Design Codes (R Codes). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

The applicable deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes are not affected by the Built Form Policy, with the exception of street setbacks and landscaping.

The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC). These provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application and discussed in the Comments section of this report.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply/ Previously Supported	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use	ü
Density/Plot Ratio	ü
Street Setback	ü
Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall	ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Open Space	ü
Outdoor Living Areas		ü
Visual Privacy	ü
Parking & Access		ü
Bicycle Facilities	ü
Solar Access	ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Surveillance	ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Parking and Access
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy Eight car parking bays 0.6 (1) long-term bicycle bays	Two car parking bays Nil long-term bicycle bays The applicant has requested that a cash-in-lieu condition not be imposed.
Outdoor Living Area
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas C1.1 An Outdoor living area to be provided: - With at least two thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover	Entire outdoor living area (roof top terrace) is covered.

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised for a period of 14 days between 3 October 2018 and 16 October 2018 by means of letters being sent to surrounding neighbours. The City received one objection to the proposal. The concerns are summarised below:

· Overshadowing as a result of the building height; and

· Potential for damage to dividing fences.

A summary of the submission with Administration’s and the applicant’s response can be found in Attachment 7 and Attachment 8, respectively.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

Given the site is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI), the application was referred to the DRP for specific comments on the impact on the cultural significance of the site. The comments provided by the DRP can be summarised as follows:

· It is considered that the new addition would have no significant impact on the sightline of the existing building when viewed from Vincent Street;

· The proposal only involves minor alterations to the original fabric of the building and it is noted that the original western elevation will be retained and concealed behind a new wall; and

· The contemporary style of the additions is supported as the new materials and finishes are distinguishable from the old building and assists in the discernment of the evolution of the place.

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;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

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

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

As the proposed built form does not differ to the original approval, the current application can be considered as an amendment to an approval under Clause 77(2)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The application is being presented to Council as the applicant is requesting to waive the cash-in-lieu contribution amount for six car parking bays.

Risk Management Implications:

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:

This is in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

“Sensitive Design

· Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.

· Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Should Council agree to waive the cash-in-lieu for the shortfall of vehicle parking on-site, the City would not receive the amount of $32,400 that would contribute towards the provision and upgrading of transport infrastructure within the City of Vincent.

Comments:

In considering the acceptability of this application for an extension of time, Administration has considered the following:

1. Changes in the planning framework since development approval was granted;

2. Whether the development is likely to receive approval now; and

3. Whether the applicant has actively pursued the implementation of the development.

1. Changes to the planning framework

City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2

The previous application for the subject site was assessed under the City’s TPS1 and associated policies. The City’s LPS2 was approved by the Minister and was gazetted on 16 May 2018. LPS2 resulted in no changes to the subject site’s Residential R50 zoning.

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

On 13 December 2016, Council adopted the Built Form Policy, which was published and came into effect on 21 January 2017. The adoption of the Built Form Policy also resulted in several other polices being rescinded. The subject site is located with the Residential Built Form Area under the Built Form Policy. The current application has been assessed against the Built Form Policy.

State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes

On 2 March 2018, the Western Australian Planning Commission gazetted amendments to the State Planning Policy 3.1 Residential Design Codes. It is noted that these changes do not affect the assessment of the subject application.

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access

On 6 March 2018, Council resolved to adopt Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Non-Residential Development Parking Policy) and revoked Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. The Policy was published and came into effect on 7 April 2018.

2. Whether the development is likely to receive approval now

In considering whether the development is likely to receive approval now, Council must assess the issues of land use, car parking and landscaping.

Land use

The application previously obtained approval for Grouped Dwelling under TPS1 which was classified as ‘P’ use within the Residential zone. An assessment of the proposed dwelling has been undertaken for this application informed by legal advice which confirms that the dwelling is classified as a Single House land use. A Single House is a ‘P’ use under LPS 2. The land use permissibility remains the same as what was considered in the previous application and the development requirements for Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings do not differ.

Parking

The 2015 application was assessed against the City’s previous version of Policy No. 7.7.1 – Parking and Access. Due to the adjustment factors of that policy, the proposal involved a shortfall of 1.264 car parking bays was resolved via a condition of development approval requiring a cash-in-lieu contribution or guarantee to the value of $6,572.80. The approval was not enacted and therefore this cash in lieu contribution has not been paid to the City.

Three car parking bays were previously approved on-site, with two of the approved parking bays being dedicated for the consulting rooms and one for the dwelling. One bay for the consulting rooms is required to be provided as a car parking space designed for people with a disability in accordance with the National Construction Code (NCC) Volume 1 and is shown on the development plans submitted. As per the NCC, this bay need not be signed and marked so as to restrict the use of the car parking space only for people with a disability. This is because the NCC only requires these bays to be appropriately signed and marked where there are more than five car parking spaces provided on site.

The application does not propose to increase the amount of car parking bays provided onsite. The car parking bay associated with the dwelling complies with the deemed-to-comply car parking requirements of the Residential Design Codes. The current Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy requires eight car parking bays to be provided for the previously approved consulting rooms, with the application involving the provision of two bays. A cash-in-lieu contribution for the six bays would equate to $32,400, however, the application is seeking Council’s discretion on the matter and has provided a Parking Survey and Parking Management Plan to demonstrate the parking provision would not result in parking problems within the locality. The Parking Survey was undertaken in accordance with the WAPC’s Traffic Impact Assessment Guidelines and calculated the number of car parking bays available within the operating hours of the consulting rooms and also provides an analysis of the parking availability within the surrounding locality. These supporting documents are provided in Attachment 5 and include the following relevant information:

· There are 134 off-street, public car parking bays within 261 metres of the subject site;

· These are all time limited car parking bays, ranging from a maximum of one to 7.5 hours;

· Of these 134 car parking bays, 85 car parking bays require a parking ticket when being used;

· These bays were surveyed for vacancy between the hours of 9:00am and 5:00pm, which are the approved operating hours of the consulting room;

· At the lowest vacancy (which occurred on two separate occasions throughout the week), there were 59 off-street car parking bays available;

· At the highest vacancy, there were 105 off-street car parking bays available;

· On average, throughout the operating hours of the consulting rooms, there were 82 off-street, public car parking bays available within 261 metres (less than a five minute walk) of the subject site.

The applicant proposes the following Parking Management Strategy for the existing consulting rooms, based on the results of the Parking Survey:

· All employees, inclusive of the health practitioners and receptionist, if driving, are to park at the car park located on the corner of Beaufort Street and Barlee Street, where the maximum time limit is 7.5 hours, with a valid parking ticket. Alternatively, monthly commercial parking permits can be purchased from the City;

· There are two car bays available on site allocated exclusively for clients of the consulting rooms (one of which is designed to allow parking for people with a disability); and

· The receptionist will advise clients of the most suitable car parking locations based on their type and length of scheduled appointment.

In addition, employees and clients accessing the site can do so through public or active transport options. There are two high frequency bus stops within the 250 metre pedestrian shed, and an additional two high frequency bus stops between 250 and 357 metres of the subject site. The Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy requires a minimum of 1.4 short-term bicycle bays and 0.6 long-term bicycle bays. The application involves the provision of three short-term bicycle bays located on-site, which in conjunction with the end of trip facilities appropriately facilitates an alternative form of transport to and from the site.

In considering the approved intensity of the use and the applicant’s request to remove the condition relating to cash-in-lieu contribution, the following is relevant:

· The consulting room has been operating since 1990, with no complaints being received by the City in relation to parking or use of the subject site;

· There are 134 off-street, public car parking bays within 261 metres of the subject site, with the Parking Survey identifying a minimum of 59 vacant car parking bays available at the busiest time;

· All employees would be asked to utilise the car parking available on the corner of Barlee Street and Beaufort Street, with commercial parking permits available for purchase;

· There will be two car parking bays available on-site for use by the two clients being treated by the dentist and hygienist at any one time;

· Access to all public car parking bays is easily accessible by vehicle off main arterial roads;

· There are three bicycle parking bays available on-site; and

· There are two high frequency bus stops within 250 metres of the site, and an additional two high frequency bus stops between 250 and 357 metres of the subject site.

Given the extensive private, public and active transport services available to the subject site to cater to the demands of the development, as well as car parking spaces available on site for clients, it is reasonable to remove the condition relating to the cash-in-lieu contribution. A condition of development approval has been recommended to be imposed to ensure that appointments for each health practitioner be scheduled at least 10 minutes apart to avoid any potential overlap and increased demand for on site car parking.

Landscaping

The City’s Built Form Policy includes landscaping requirements in relation to the amount of deep soil zone and canopy cover. The applicant proposes a deep soil zone of 4.6 percent of the site in lieu of the deemed‑to-comply 15 percent and a canopy cover of 5.1 percent of the site in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 30 percent.

The previous approval included the removal of the existing Cape Lilac tree within the street setback. This tree is a pest species as it sheds berries and is susceptible to cedar moth infestations. The tree also affects the stormwater drainage of the existing heritage building as the berries block the gutters causing water to overflow. The removal of this tree also allowed for the inclusion of a car parking bay within the street setback area.

Opportunities to provide additional landscaping on site is limited. While Administration stills supports the removal of the existing Cape Lilac tree for the reasons above, the tree should be replaced with a more appropriate species that provides an equivalent or greater canopy cover. There is opportunity to install trees that can provide canopy coverage within deep soil zones in the front of the lot. There are also opportunities to provide additional landscaping within garden beds between the car bay in the front setback area and the dental surgery, as well within the garden beds along both the southern and eastern lot boundaries. Whilst the width of some portions of the garden beds proposed means that they would not contribute towards deep soil area, they would still allow for species to adequately grow to a height and maturity that can contribute to canopy cover. The landscaping opportunities on the site would assist in reducing the impact of the development, providing a sense of open space between the proposed dwelling and surrounding residents, and contribute towards a sustainable landscape design for the lot and the greater community. It is recommended that a condition be imposed requiring the submission of a landscaping plan to show the installation of landscaping and tree species on site consistent with the City’s tree selection tool.

Heritage Conservation

The previous approval provides for an extension to the western façade of the heritage building enclosing the external area to the west of the building. These additions to the existing heritage building have been designed to reflect the existing style of the building. The multiple dwelling is located behind the principal façade of the heritage building. The multiple dwelling is contemporary in design and incorporates materials and colours that are distinguishable from the historical architecture and design of the building.

The subject site is listed on the City’s MHI, as a Management Category A – Conservation Essential. Consideration must be had to the Statement of Significance of the subject site, as follows.

"The former substation has considerable historic value as a physical record of Perth’s tram and trolley bus transportation system that operated in Perth from 1899 to 1969 and contributed significantly to the development of the suburbs within the Town of Vincent.

The former substation has some aesthetic value as a good example of a municipal building constructed in the Inter-War Functionalist style.

The former substation has considerable rarity value as one of few remaining physical structures associated with the tram and trolley bus transportation system located within the Town of Vincent."

A Heritage Impact Statement was submitted as part of the previous application to determine whether the design satisfies the provisions of the City’s Heritage Management Policy. The HIS can be found in Attachment 6. This HIS presented the following conclusions:

· It is considered that the new addition would have no significant impact on sightline of the existing building when viewed from Vincent Street;

· It is noted that the original western elevation will be retained and concealed behind a new wall;

· The contemporary style of the additions is supported as the new materials and finishes are distinguishable from the old building and assists in the discernment of the evolution of the place; and

· It is considered the proposal has no adverse impact on the cultural heritage significance of the subject place and the application is recommended for approval.

The proposal would not alter the original façade of the heritage building or obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the place. The development would maintain an existing line of view to the heritage place and is positioned in a location that ensures the prominence of the heritage building is not compromised. Administration considers the proposal presents an appropriate outcome for the heritage building and satisfies the requirements of the City’s Heritage Management Policy.

Outdoor Living Area

The existing approval contains the following condition (4.1):

“The proposed dwelling terrace shall have a minimum two-thirds of the proposed area without permanent roofing.”

The applicant is seeking removal of this condition on the basis that the Outdoor Living Area meets the relevant Design Principles of the R-codes. Clause 5.3.1 of the R-Codes requires an outdoor living area to be provided with at least two-thirds of the required area without permanent roof cover.

The proposed Outdoor Living (terrace) is accessed directly from the living room and is located on the northern side of the property and will be open to winter sun. The proposed roof is a skillion roof with the angle increasing to the north to allow sufficient light into the dwelling. Administration recommends removal of condition 4.1 on the basis that the proposal meets the Design Principles of the R-codes.

3. Implementation of the development

The applicant has provided the following information detailing why the application has not been substantially commenced:

“The ongoing Dental practice business was purchased by my client around late 2014 and was then leased to The Dental Corporation (DUPA). Unfortunately a condition of the lease meant that the approved works was not able to be executed which in turn resulted in the approval lapsing in February 2017. In the recent months, the lessee has indicated that they no longer wish to peruse the lease and my client, Mr. Bennett, who is a Dentist, will now look to take over the running the practice as a small local practice similar to the one he currently operates in Donnybrook. Due to this change in the leasing arrangement, my client wishes to resubmit the documents which were originally approved which is to provide a small extension to the existing surgery and add a dwelling at the rear of the existing building. The proposed new dwelling, which is the major work associated with this proposal, will form a part of the package being offered to either the resident dentist or the hygienist employed in the surgery and may also be part of an interchange staff programme with the Donnybrook practice.”

Whilst the owner has not made genuine attempts to implement the approval, it is acknowledged that constraints existed by way of a separate lease arrangement.

Conclusion

Council is required to exercise discretion with respect to the extension of time, car parking and landscaping.

The Parking Survey and Parking Management Plan demonstrate the area is well serviced by a variety of private, public and active transport methods and facilities. The parking demand can be accommodated on site and within the surrounding locality. The cash-in-lieu condition is not required.

Landscaping can be provided on site that would result in an equivalent or greater canopy coverage compared to the tree that is proposed to be removed.

Administration recommends that the application be approved.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

10.2 Tender No. 561/18 - North Perth Common Construction – Appointment of a Successful Tenderer

TRIM Ref: D18/159245

Author: Tahnee Bunting, Place Manager

Authoriser: Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments: 1. Tender Evaluation and Pricing Schedule – Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by BOS Civil for Tender No. 561/18 for the North Perth Common Construction.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the awarding of Tender No. 561/18 – Appointment of a Contractor for the Construction of North Perth Common Shared Space.

Background:

The delivery of a new public shared space for North Perth in the current financial year has been identified in several of the City’s strategic documents, including the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19- 2021/22 (Item 4.8) and the North Perth Place Plan (Item 1.1).

The project is moving into the construction phase and the City requires a suitably qualified construction team to undertake the next stage of works.

Details:

As the contract value exceeds $250,000, Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing requires an open public tender process.

Under CEO Delegation 1.19 of the Delegated Authority Register, the Director Engineering approved the Procurement Plan, which included the following Evaluation Criteria:

Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
A. Relevant Experience Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Relevant Experience”: a) Provide details of similar projects undertaken including scope of the Tenderer’s involvement and confirming successful completion of the project. 1.	30%
B. Key Personnel Skills and Experience Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Key Personnel Skills and Experience”: Tenderers to provide as a minimum information on the proposed personnel to be allocated to this project such as: § Their role in the performance of the Contract; § Qualifications, with particular emphasis on experience of personnel in projects of a similar size and scope; 2.	20%
C. Tenderer’s Resources As a minimum, Tenderers should provide a current plant/equipment schedule in an attachment and label it “Tenderer’s Resources”. Tenderers should indicate which pieces of plant/equipment will be allocated to this project, confirm if the item is owned/leased or intended to be hired and indicate any contingency measures for breakdowns or emergencies that result in plant/equipment not being available.	10%
D. Demonstrated Understanding of the project Tenderers must provide the following information in an attachment and label it “Demonstrated Understanding”: a) A project delivery plan including key stages and timelines. b) General site operation procedures/plans. c) Site safety procedures including measures to ensure public safety d) Traffic management procedures/plans. 3.	30%
E. Environmental Responsibility · Provide details of your organisation’s environmental policy and/or practices which manage or reduce the impact on the environment; · Offer details of any initiatives for this project that would support the sustainability objectives of the Principal and assist them to achieve environmental targets (e.g. use of recycled construction products, recovery/recycling of site waste etc).	10%

The Request for Tender 561/18 was publicly advertised from 6 October 2018 and invited submissions until 30 October 2018.

At the close of the advertising period, four responses were received from the following companies:

· BOS Civil

· Environmental Industries

· Phase 3 Landscaping

· West Coast Profilers

Tender Assessment

The tenders were assessed by members of the Tender Evaluation Panel (below) and each tender was assessed using the above Evaluation Criteria, with a scoring system being used as part of the assessment process.

Title	Role
Director Engineering	Voting
Manager Engineering	Voting
Place Manager	Voting
Procurement and Contracts Officer	Voting
Emerge Associates Director, Principal Landscape Architect	Technical Advice (non-voting)

Evaluation

A summary of each compliant Tenderer is proved below. A full outline of the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria for each tenderer is contained within Confidential Attachment 1.

Company	Qualitative Score / 100	Ranking
BOS Civil	77	1
Environmental Industries	69.5	2
Phase 3 Landscaping	69	3
WCP	56	4

Once the tenders were ranked on the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria, the evaluation panel made a value judgement as to the cost affordability, qualitative ranking and risk of each Tender, in order to determine which Tender presented the best value for money.

The price summary for the Tender is included as Confidential Attachment 1. This also lists prices for the additional extras, such as three phase power and bollards.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Request for Tender No. 561/18 was advertised in the West Australian on 6 October 2018 and on the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 6 October and 30 October 2018.

Legal/Policy:

· Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995;

· Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

· City of Vincent Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for Council to appoint a construction company to undertake these works.

Strategic Implications:

North Perth Common will contribute to three of the six community priorities identified in the City’s Strategic Community Plan and the City’s Corporate Business Plan; namely – “Enhanced Environment’, “Accessible City” and “Thriving Places”.

North Perth Common has also been identified as a key priority project within the North Perth Town Centre Place Plan. The delivery of this project was initially identified in the North Perth Master Plan to provide the area with a centrally located public meeting space.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

North Perth Common will contribute to the greening of Vincent by providing additional town centre green space and canopy cover.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The project was allocated a total budget of $741,000, made up as follows:

· $71,620 – Design Documentation and Project Management.

· $669,380 – Construction, inclusive of materials and labour.

These funds have been spread over the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 financial years.

Comments:

North Perth Common will be a prominent and highly visible public space within the town centre. The site context has complexities that need to be addressed to achieve a high quality outcome. It was essential that tenderers demonstrated how they had considered the site context, such as the location near Fitzgerald Street, the adjoining and surrounding businesses and large number of people regularly frequenting the area.

The submission for BOS Civil complies with all the tender requirements, including demonstrated understanding of the project, relevant experience, expertise, project team and capacity to deliver the works outlined in the specification.

The BOS Civil submission was superior in the responses, particularly in relation to relevant experience and demonstrated understanding. The submission demonstrated an appropriate allowance of time in delivering the project in both the methodology and similar examples which reinforced the panel’s confidence in the ability of BOS Civil to deliver the project efficiently and to a high quality.

Reference checks were conducted for BOS Civil on 23 November 2018.

The Evaluation Panel recommends that Council accept the Tender submitted by BOS Civil for Tender No. 561/18 as the best overall value for money to the City.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

10.4 Waste Strategy Project 1 – Recovery of Organic Material – Food and Greens Options Appraisal

TRIM Ref: D18/177448

Author: Yvette Plimbley, Manager Waste and Recycling

Authoriser: Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments: 1. Options - Advantages and Disadvantages ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. SUPPORTS in principle the future adoption of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system for the City of Vincent in line with the draft State Waste Strategy;

2. REQUESTS:

2.1 Administration to prepare a comprehensive business case for implementation of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system to be presented to Council in March 2019;

2.2 Administration to prepare a consultation plan to seek community input on the future adoption of a FOGO system;

2.3 Administration to investigate external funding options to support the adoption of a FOGO system including through the Waste Authority’s Better Bins Program; and

2.4 further financial modelling to be presented to Council on the implications of the adoption of a FOGO system.

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the introduction of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system for the City of Vincent.

Background:

The City of Vincent currently spends around $6.5 million per annum on its Waste and Recycling Service, which includes kerbside collections for domestic rubbish and recycling, commercial rubbish and recycling collections, bulk verge hard waste (junk), bulk verge green waste collections, public space litter collections and street cleaning, City event bins, waste education and community engagement events/workshops, and subsidised home composting equipment.

The City recently adopted the new Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 with a Vision of “Zero waste to landfill by 2028”. The City’s current diversion from landfill is around 42%. The City will not achieve this vision without significant changes to current waste management practices.

The Strategy recognises that currently around 55% of a typical Vincent rubbish bin is organic waste. Project 1 of the Strategy is an options appraisal to consider ways that this organic material could be diverted from landfill.

The new Western Australia draft Waste Strategy 2030 has recently been released for comment. This Strategy but has a much stronger focus on waste avoidance and creating a circular economy approach where waste is valued as a resource which can be reused or recycled for the benefit of the Western Australia Economy. A headline strategy is for Local Governments to “Deliver a harmonised kerbside collection system, which includes food organics and garden organics (FOGO), in all Perth and Peel regions by 2025”.

Details:

Current Service

The City provides a two bin kerbside collection service through a general waste bin and recovery of dry recyclables in a yellow lid bin.

Mindarie Regional Council (MRC) manages the treatment and disposal of the City’s residual waste collected in the general waste bin via its Tamala Park Landfill and Neerabup Resource Recovery Facility (RRF). Waste disposal costs have risen significantly in recent years due to increases in both the landfill levy and MRC gate fees. Since its implementation in 2013, the landfill levy has increased year-on-year from the original $28 per tonne 2013/14 to $70 per tonne in July 2018. Similarly the MRC gate fee has risen consistently from $120 per tonne in 2013/14 to the current rate of $205 per tonne. This trend is set to continue as member councils continue to divert their organic tonnages to various green and FOGO collection schemes.

In 2016/17 the City collected 17,695 of waste and recovered 7,375 tonnes; achieving a recovery (landfill diversion rate) of 42%, as detailed below:

Main Sources of City Waste	Tonnage 2016/17	% Diverted from Landfill
Rubbish – green lid bin	12,782	29% (3707 tonnes)
Recycling – yellow lid bin	3,750	82% (3075 tonnes)
Bulk hard waste (junk)	670	15% (100.5 tonnes)
Bulk green waste	493	100% (493 tonnes)

Waste Composition Audit

A recent MRC audit of the City’s general waste (summer and winter cycles) highlighted that an average of 55% of a typical rubbish bin is food or garden organic waste. This is made up of an average of 17.75% food waste and 37.62% green garden waste.

There is a significant opportunity to increase diversion rates through organic waste segregation at source.

Organic Material Recovery – Options Considered

The City considered the following four options:

Option 1 – Three bin system, garden organics only (GO)

Option 2 – Three bin system, food organics and garden organics (FOGO) - combined

Option 3 – Four bin system, food organics and garden organics (FOGO) – separate bins

Option 4 – Three bin system. Garden Organics to single dwellings and Food Organics to Multi unit dwellings

Key factors considered for each option were the cost implications, potential waste diversion and advantages and disadvantages of introducing a separate organics collection system.

Costings and options were prepared with the assistance of Waste Management Consultants Talis. They assisted Administration with analysis of the options and provided wide ranging experience from working with other local governments.

Organic Material Recovery Options Costs – Key Findings

Scenario	Description		Rollout costs (one off)*	Indicative Annual Saving or Additional Cost*	Diversion rate
Baseline	Current service	2 bins			42%
1	Garden only	3 bins	$1,086,289	$124,663 saving	57%
2	FOGO	3 bins	$1,182,636	$44,120 cost	62%
3	FO + GO	4 bins	$1,798,422	$695,220 cost	62%
4	FO(units) + GO (houses)	3 bins	$1,184,976	$67,317 cost	58%

Preferred option

Discussion of Options

Option 1 (Garden organics) is the simplest option. It is easy to communicate and for residents to understand, would generate the best saving in annual service costs and provide a significant improvement in the City’s diversion from landfill. It is now becoming standard across the metro region and does not preclude adding food waste to the service in the future when the FOGO processing become more widely available.

Option 2 (FOGO) is best practice and is emerging as a service option in WA providing greater diversion from landfill than option 1. It carries a higher risk of implementation because it is more complicated in terms of resident behaviour, would marginally increase service cost and FOGO processing options are currently limited in the market. It also results in the fortnightly collection of the rubbish bin and aligns with both the City’s Waste Strategy and recently the released draft WA Waste Strategy 2030.

Option 3 is not recommended. It does not provide any advantage in terms of landfill diversion rate. It is a significantly higher cost than option 2 and requires 4 bins.

Option 4 could be considered as a hybrid for staged implementation that provides appropriate services for the different type of dwellings in the City. It carries similar risks to options 2 and 3 in terms of market availability for food processing services and it does carry higher cost for only a modest estimated additional 1% of landfill diversion when compared to Option 1 and a lower landfill diversion than Option 2.

More detailed advantages and disadvantages of each option are contained in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

It is essential that the City develops a comprehensive public engagement and communications strategy to inform, educate and promote any new collection system.

An engagement strategy would be developed utilising best practice principles and incorporating lessons learnt from other local governments.

The proposed public engagement and communications strategy would be presented to the March 2019 Council meeting at part of the overall implementation plan.

Legal/Policy:

The introduction of an organic bin aligns with the City’s Waste Strategy 2018-2023 and its aim to achieve “Zero waste to landfill through maximising recovery and avoidance”.

It also aligns with new Western Australia draft Waste Strategy 2030 that aims to “Deliver a harmonised kerbside collection system, which includes food organics and garden organics (FOGO), in all Perth and Peel regions by 2025”.

Legislation: The Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007

Risk Management Implications:

Medium: Community acceptance of a three bin FOGO scheme. It would be essential to undertake a comprehensive communications campaign to inform, educate, and promote any new scheme and encourage good waste diversion behaviours.

Medium: Lack of established FOGO processing infrastructure. This would develop as more Councils move to a FOGO system. Talis have estimated that there are seven Councils in the Perth and Peel region that have approved or are close to approving the adoption of a FOGO system.

Medium: MRC cost increases. As member councils remove their residual waste from the MRC facilities, this adversely impacts the remaining member councils as gate fees increase. It is estimated that for every 10,000 tonnes removed, the gate fee increases in the region of $5 per tonne. However, failure to divert waste, would incur even higher costs as MRC gate fees and the landfill levy continue to rise.

Strategic Implications:

The introduction of an organic bin would contribute to the following priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:-

Priority: Enhanced Environment

Outcome: We have improved resource efficiency and waste management by delivering a contemporary and sustainable waste service that minimises waste generation and increases recovery, reuse and recycling.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Separation of organic waste at source to allow recovery of clean organics is high on the Waste Hierarchy and is a considerably better environmental outcome than sending organic material to landfill.

Financial/Budget Implications:

High level modelling for each option shows the indicative one off costs of rollout and the saving or additional cost for each option. This modelling shows the one off rollout costs of the preferred FOGO option to be $1,182,636 with an additional annual cost of $44,000.

The one-off rollout cost in year one includes the cost of additional bins to be delivered to each household, a full time education officer to cover the roll-out of the new service and marketing and education costs of the new service. This cost could be spread over more than one financial year depending on the final implementation timetable.

The ongoing cost includes the collection and processing costs for the organics and residual streams as well as ongoing bin maintenance and education. The cost of the impact of the reduction in tonnage sent to MRC (which results in a rise of the MRC gate fee) has been included.

The impact of an increase in landfill levy has not been modelled as future rises in the levy have not been confirmed by State Government.

All options modelled assume no changes to other waste services although it is recommended that all services are reviewed after rollout so that the impact of the change on other waste services can be measured. For example a FOGO bin rollout may well cause migration of organic material from the bulk verge green waste service which could result in recommended changes to that service.

There may be the opportunity to apply for Better Bins Grant funding which is currently up to $30 per participating household. This opportunity has not been included in the modelling as the deadline for applications under the existing scheme is December 2018 and there has been no confirmation of funding beyond this date. This opportunity would be further explored by Administration as part of the implementation process and modelling would be updated as necessary.

Further financial modelling would be undertaken if an option is supported in principle by Council and the modelling would be used to inform the annual budget process.

Comments:

It is recommended that Council supports in principle the implementation of a three bin Food Organics/Garden Organics (FOGO) system for the City of Vincent.

It offers potentially the most cost effective solution for the City to recover organic material from its waste stream it achieves the joint highest diversion of the options considered for a marginal additional annual service cost.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

11 Corporate Services

11.1 Investment Report as at 30 November 2018

TRIM Ref: D18/186972

Author: Sheryl Teoh, Accountant

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Investment Report ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 30 November 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 of investments are attached in Attachment 1.

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

Details:

Total funds held as at 30 November 2018, including on call in the City’s operating account were $44,188,761; compared to $41,716,473 for the period ending 30 November 2017. The increase in total funds is largely due to issuing of 2018/2019 rates instalment notices a month earlier compared to the prior year.

Total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 November 2018 were $42,678,504 compared to $41,180,325 for the prior month end, and $39,482,047 for the period ending 30 November 2017.

The following table shows funds under management for the previous and current years:

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	$44,209,274	$40,651,147
October	$41,087,462	$38,947,823	$44,463,021	$41,180,325
November	$41,716,473	$39,482,047	$44,188,761	$42,678,504
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 30 November 2018 is:

	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$420,000	$228,200	$232,715	101.98%
Reserve	$246,060	$110,500	$114,302	103.44%
Sub-total	$666,060	$338,700	$347,017	102.46%
Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$58,781	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 maximum investment ratios as shown in the following 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
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Actual	Policy	Actual	Policy	Actual
A1+	30%	18.2%	30%	Nil	90%	51.6%
A1	25%	5.7%	30%	Nil	80%	5.7%
A2	20%	18.1%	n/a	Nil	60%	42.8%

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:

This recommendation aligns with the “Innovative and Accountable” priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

“The City of Vincent has a significant role to play in supporting our community to realise its vision. To achieve this, we will be an innovative, honest, engaged and responsible organisation that manages resources well, communicates effectively and takes our stewardship role seriously.”

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 slightly increased from the previous period due to timing of payments to creditors and other expenditures over cash receipts.

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.66% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.72% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for November 2018 was 1.94%.

As at 30 November 2018, the City’s total investment earnings excluding the Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust income is higher than the year to date budget estimate by $8,317 (2.46%).

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”. Administration currently uses Marketforces.org.au to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investment in fossil fuel related entities. 30.34% of the City’s investments were held in institutions considered non-fossil fuel lending by Marketforces.org.au as at 30 November 2018.

Administration notes that Sustainable Platform has been engaged to undertake an accreditation assessment of the City’s sustainability practices and policies and has provided a high level review of the City’s investments in non-fossil fuel and other industries potentially considered contentious. This work will lead to a review of the City’s investment policies in the first quarter of the new 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 11 December 2018

11.3 Financial Statements as at 31 October 2018

TRIM Ref: D18/178449

Author: Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 31 October 2018 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 31 October 2018 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the financial statements for the period ended 31 October 2018.

Background:

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

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

· the annual budget estimates;

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

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

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

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

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

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1 represent the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ending 31 October 2018:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report	4
3.	Net Current Funding Position	5
4.	Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas	6-64
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule	65-77
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	78
7.	Rating Information and Graph	79-80
8.	Debtor Report	81
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	82

The following table provides a summary view of the year to date actual, compared to the adopted and year to date budget.

Summary of Financial Activity by Program as at 31 October 2018

		Revised Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Variance	Variance
		2018/19	2018/19	2018/19	2018/19	2018/19
		$	$	$	$	%
REVENUE		23,398,772	7,990,415	7,993,210	2,795	0%

EXPENDITURE		(59,698,331)	(16,295,475)	(15,164,100)	1,131,375	-7%

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES		(36,299,559)	(8,305,060)	(7,170,890)	1,134,170	-14%

OPERATING ACTIVITIES EXCLUDED FROM BUDGET
NON-CASH EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE
	Add Deferred Rates Adjustment	0	0	15,034	15,034	0%
	Add Back Depreciation	10,289,210	13,310	0	(13,310)	-100%
	(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals	(687,908)	(114,837)	0	114,837	-100%

AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES		9,601,302	(101,527)	15,034	116,561	-115%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES
	Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions	1,829,854	657,334	430,987	(226,347)	-34%
	Capital Expenditure	(14,949,424)	(4,149,916)	(2,386,872)	1,763,044	-42%
	Proceeds from Joint Venture Operations	583,333	0	0	0	0%
	Proceeds from Disposal of assets	475,000	166,000	101,559	(64,441)	-39%
		(12,061,237)	(3,326,582)	(1,854,326)	1,472,256	-44%

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
	Repayments Loan Capital	(1,017,424)	(307,474)	(307,475)	(1)	0%
	Proceeds from New Debentures $428,000		0	0	0	0%
	Transfers from Reserves	1,546,190	237,190	97,923	(139,267)	-59%
	Transfers to Reserves	(1,542,713)	(599,498)	(207,758)	391,740	-65%
		(585,947)	(669,782)	(417,310)	252,472	-38%

	Plus: Surplus/(Deficiency) brought forward 1 July 2018	4,829,483	4,829,483	5,524,405	694,922	14%
	Surplus/(Deficiency) Before General Rates	(34,515,958)	(7,573,468)	(3,903,088)	3,670,381	-48%
	Total amount raised from General Rates	34,717,855	34,467,855	34,315,366	(152,489)	0%
	Restricted Grant	0	0	0	0	0%
NET CURRENT ASSETS at JULY 31 C/FWD - SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)		201,897	26,894,387	30,412,279	3,517,892	13%

Comments on the statement of financial activity as at Attachment 1:

Operating Revenue

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

Revenue by Program is showing a variance of $2,795. This is due to:

· Community Amenities - $282,405, largely due to timing difference for additional rubbish services of $122,795 and development application fees which have exceeded year to date budget by $99,663; and

· Recreation and Culture – ($151,505), largely due to lower revenue in Beatty Park membership by ($53,895), Café – Sale of food is low by ($21,157).

Operating revenue as presented on the ‘Nature and Type’ report (Page 4 of Attachment 1) is showing zero variance.

Operating Expenditure

Expenditure by Program is showing a positive variance of 7% ($1,131,375) as a result of underspending in most programs.

Similarly, the operating expenditure listed under the Nature and Type report reflects a corresponding favourable variance of 7%, with the largest variances in:

· Materials and Contracts ($1,014,886 favourable), where the variance is due to timing on works and receipt of invoices;

· Employee costs ($162,903 unfavourable), where the variance is largely due to seasonal labour requirements; and

· Internal allocations ($574,600 favourable). Internal allocations methodology is currently being reviewed for accuracy and doesn’t affect actual expenditure.

Transfer from Reserves

Transfers from Reserves is aligned with the timing of capital works projects that are reserve funded.

Capital expenditure

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

Transfer to Reserves

Transfer to reserves as appropriate have been completed as at 31 October.

Opening surplus bought forward - 2018/19

The actual opening net surplus position brought forward for 2018/19 is $5,524,405 as stated in the recently audited 2017/2018 financials. The estimated budgeted opening surplus position for 2018/19 was $4,829,483. Administration will adjust the opening surplus position during the December 2018 budget review process.

Closing surplus 2018/19

There is currently a surplus of $30,412,279 compared to the year to date budget surplus of $26,894,387. This variance is substantially attributed to the positive variance in operating expenditure and underspend in capital against budget.

An explanation of each report within the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1), along with some commentary, is below:

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

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

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

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

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

Net current assets is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities, less committed assets and restricted assets. The net current funding position as at 31 October 2018 is $30,412,279.

4. Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 64)

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by service unit.

5. Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 65 - 77)

The following table is a summary of the ‘2018/2019 Capital Expenditure Budget by Program’, which compares year to date budget with actual expenditure to date. The full capital works program is listed in detail in Note 5 of Attachment 1.

EXPENDITURE	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Land and Buildings	2,729,200	571,200	348,125	87%
Infrastructure Assets	7,939,502	2,666,404	1,642,647	79%
Plant and Equipment	3,085,811	414,401	196,420	94%
Furniture and Equipment	1,194,911	497,911	199,680	83%
Total	14,949,424	4,149,916	2,386,872	84%

FUNDING	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Own Source Funding - Municipal	11,098,380	3,089,392	1,756,403	84%
Cash Backed Reserves	1,546,190	237,190	97,923	94%
Capital Grant and Contribution	1,829,854	657,334	430,987	76%
Other (Disposals/Trade In)	475,000	166,000	101,559	79%
Total	14,949,424	4,149,916	2,386,872	84%

Note: Detailed analysis is included on page 65 - 77 of Attachment 1.

* Infrastructure assets increased by $160,000 based on Council decision 16 October 2018.

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 78)

The Cash Backed Reserves schedule details movements in the reserves, including transfers and funds used, and compares actual results with the annual budget. The balance as at 31 October 2018 is $11,541,805.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 79 – 80)

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2018/19 were issued on 26 July 2017.

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

First Instalment	31 August 2018
Second Instalment	31 October 2018
Third Instalment	04 January 2019
Fourth Instalment	04 March 2019

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

Instalment administration charge

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

$13.00 per instalment

Instalment interest rate

5.5% per annum

Late payment penalty interest

11% per annum

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

The Rates debtors balance to be collected as at 31 October 2018 is $11,950,414 (this includes deferred rates of $104,528). This represents 33.54% of collectable income compared to 35.08% at the same time last year.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 81)

Receivables of $2,175,681 are outstanding as at 31 October 2018, of which $1,758,486 has been outstanding over 90 days. This is comprised of:

· $1,143,461 (65.0%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance for a fee.

Due to the age analysis of infringement debtors, Administration has increased the provision of doubtful debts for infringement debtors and has also transferred a significant amount ($1,066,403) of infringement debtors to long term debtors.

· $319,433 (18.2%) relates to Cash in Lieu Parking. Some Cash in Lieu Parking debtors have special payment arrangements over more than one year; and

· $78,047 (16.8%) relates to Other Receivables, refer to attachment - page 81.

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

9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position Report (Note 9 Page 82)

As at 31 October 2018 the operating deficit for the centre was $591,305 in comparison to the year to date budgeted deficit of $739,775.

Note: Actual deficit would be $752,535 if the duplicate journal was not posted as per the comment on page 22 of attachment 1.

10. Explanation of Material Variances

All material variances as at 31 October 2018 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $20,000. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the year to date budget or where that variance exceeds $20,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2018/19 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

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

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

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

This recommendation aligns with the “Innovative and Accountable” priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Comments:

All expenditure included in the Financial Statements is incurred in accordance with Council’s adopted budget.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

11.4 Financial Statements as at 30 November 2018

TRIM Ref: D18/188469

Author: Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 30 November 2018 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 30 November 2018 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the financial statements for the period ended 30 November 2018.

Background:

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

· the annual budget estimates;

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

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

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

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

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1 represent the Statement of Financial Activity for the period ending 30 November 2018:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type Report	4
3.	Net Current Funding Position	5
4.	Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas	6-64
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule	65-77
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	78
7.	Rating Information and Graph	79-80
8.	Debtor Report	81
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	82

The following table provides a summary view of the year to date actual, compared to the adopted and year to date budget.

Summary of Financial Activity by Program as at 30 November 2018

		Revised Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Variance	Variance
		2018/19	2018/19	2018/19	2018/19	2018/19
		$	$	$	$	%
REVENUE		23,398,772	10,016,045	10,153,365	137,320	1%

EXPENDITURE		(59,698,331)	(23,982,292)	(23,270,428)	711,864	-3%

NET OPERATING EXCLUDING RATES		(36,299,559)	(13,966,247)	(13,117,063)	849,184	-6%

OPERATING ACTIVITIES EXCLUDED FROM BUDGET
NON-CASH EXPENDITURE AND REVENUE
	Add Deferred Rates Adjustment	0	0	15,031	15,031	0%
	Add Back Depreciation	10,289,210	4,287,170	4,643,820	356,650	8%
	(Profit)/Loss on Asset Disposals	(687,908)	(127,952)	(84,868)	43,084	-34%

AMOUNT ATTRIBUTABLE TO OPERATING ACTIVITIES		9,601,302	4,159,218	4,573,983	414,765	10%

INVESTING ACTIVITIES
	Non-Operating Grants, Subsidies and Contributions	1,829,854	1,167,268	716,358	(450,910)	-39%
	Capital Expenditure	(14,949,424)	(5,754,576)	(2,818,274)	2,936,302	-51%
	Proceeds from Joint Venture Operations	583,333	0	0	0	0%
	Proceeds from Disposal of assets	475,000	183,000	101,775	(81,225)	-44%
		(12,061,237)	(4,404,308)	(2,000,141)	2,404,167	-55%

FINANCING ACTIVITIES
	Repayments Loan Capital	(1,017,424)	(385,219)	(385,220)	(1)	0%
	Proceeds from New Debentures		428,000	0	0	0
	Transfers from Reserves	1,546,190	297,190	133,796	(163,394)	-55%
	Transfers to Reserves	(1,542,713)	(679,774)	(273,938)	405,836	-60%
		(585,947)	(767,803)	(525,362)	242,441	-32%

	Plus: Surplus/(Deficiency) Brought Fwd 1 July 2018	4,829,483	4,829,483	5,524,405	694,922	14%
	Surplus/(Deficiency) Before General Rates	(34,515,958)	(10,149,657)	(5,544,178)	4,605,479	-45%
	Total amount raised from General Rates	34,717,855	34,567,855	34,399,215	(168,640)	0%
NET CURRENT ASSETS C/FWD - SURPLUS/(DEFICIT)		201,897	24,418,198	28,855,036	4,436,839	18%

Comments on the statement of financial activity as at Attachment 1:

Operating Revenue

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

Revenue by Program is tracking positively by 1% i.e. $137,320 positive variance. This is due to:

· Community Amenities - $327,306, largely due to a timing difference for additional rubbish services of $122,795, development application fees which have exceeded year to date budget by $126,441 and cash in lieu contributions by $42,040; and

· Recreation and Culture – ($271,822), largely due to lower revenue to budget in Beatty Park membership of $65,026, Swim school admission of $19,322, Café – sale of food of $24,787 and lease/rental fee of $109,133.

Operating revenue as presented on the ‘Nature or Type’ report (Page 4 of Attachment 1) is showing a zero variance.

Operating Expenditure

Expenditure by Program is reflecting an under-spend of $711,864 against the YTD budget.

The operating expenditure listed under the Nature or Type report also reflects a favourable variance of 3%, with the largest variances in:

· Materials and Contracts ($1,051,294 favourable), where the variance is due to timing on works and receipt of invoices;

· Employee costs ($320,571 unfavourable), where the variance is largely due to seasonal labour requirements; and

· Other Expenditure - Internal allocations ($362,872 favourable). Internal allocations methodology is currently being reviewed for accuracy and doesn’t affect actual expenditure.

Transfer from Reserves

Transfers from Reserves is aligned with the timing of capital works projects that are reserve funded.

Capital expenditure

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

Transfer to Reserves

Transfers to reserves as appropriate have been completed as at 30 November 2018.

Opening surplus bought forward - 2018/19

The actual opening net surplus position brought forward for 2018/19 is $5,524,405 as stated in the audited 2017/2018 financials. The estimated budgeted opening surplus position for 2018/19 was $4,829,483. Administration will adjust the opening surplus position during the December 2018 budget review process.

Closing surplus 2018/19

There is currently a surplus of $28,855,036 compared to the year to date budget surplus of $24,418,198. This variance is substantially attributed to the positive variance in operating expenditure and underspend in capital expenditure against corresponding budget.

An explanation of each report within the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1), along with some commentary, is below:

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

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

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

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Nature or Type.

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

Net current assets is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities, less committed assets and restricted assets. The net current funding position as at 30 November 2018 is $28,855,036.

4. Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 64)

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by service unit.

5. Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 65 - 77)

EXPENDITURE	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Land and Buildings	2,729,200	746,200	446,551	84.6%
Infrastructure Assets	7,939,502	3,886,654	1,861,263	77.6%
Plant and Equipment	3,085,811	583,811	303,791	90.2%
Furniture and Equipment	1,194,911	537,911	206,669	83.7%
Total	14,949,424	5,754,576	2,818,274	81.1%


FUNDING	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Own Source Funding - Municipal	11,098,380	4,107,118	1,866,345	83.6%
Cash Backed Reserves	1,546,190	297,190	133,796	91.3%
Capital Grant and Contribution	1,829,854	1,167,268	716,358	61.4%
Other (Disposals/Trade In)	475,000	183,000	101,775	79.6%
Total	14,949,424	5,754,576	2,818,274	81.1%

Note: Detailed analysis is included on page 65 - 77 of Attachment 1.

* Infrastructure assets budget increased by $160,000 based on a Council decision on 16 October 2018.

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 78)

The Cash Backed Reserves schedule details movements in the reserves, including transfers and funds used, and compares actual results with the annual budget. The balance as at 30 November 2018 is $11,572,112.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 79 – 80)

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2018/19 were issued on 26 July 2018.

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

First Instalment	31 August 2018
Second Instalment	31 October 2018
Third Instalment	04 January 2019
Fourth Instalment	04 March 2019

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

Instalment administration charge

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

$13.00 per instalment

Instalment interest rate

5.5% per annum

Late payment penalty interest

11% per annum

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

The Rates debtors balance to be collected as at 30 November 2018 is $9,926,384 (this includes deferred rates of $104,528). This represents 27.86% of collectable income compared to 27.74% at the same time last year.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 81)

Receivables of $2,014,792 are outstanding as at 30 November 2018, of which $1,481,683 has been outstanding over 90 days. This is comprised of:

· $1,127,701 (76.1%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance for a fee;

Due to the age analysis of infringement debtors, as at 30 June 2018 Administration increased the provision of doubtful debts for infringement debtors and has also transferred a significant amount ($1,066,403) of infringement debtors to long term debtors;

· $275,935 (18.6%) relates to Cash in Lieu Parking. Some Cash in Lieu Parking debtors have special payment arrangements over more than one year; and

· $78,047 (5.3%) relates to Other Receivables, refer to attachment - page 81.

9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position Report (Note 9 Page 82)

As at 30 November 2018 the operating deficit for the centre was $657,079 in comparison to the year to date budgeted deficit of $766,299.

10. Explanation of Material Variances

All material variances as at 30 November 2018 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

This recommendation aligns with the “Innovative and Accountable” priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Comments:

All expenditure included in the Financial Statements is incurred in accordance with Council’s adopted budget.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

11.5 Land Exchange - Portion of Lot 75 Brentham Street (Brentham Street Reserve) for Portion of Lot 100 (No 20) Brentham Street (Aranmore Catholic Primary School)

TRIM Ref: D17/127577

Authors: Meluka Bancroft, A/Manager Governance and Risk

John Paton, Manager - Office of the CEO

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Plan of proposed land exchange ⇩

2. Plan showing proposed future use of land ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. REFUSES McAuley Property Limited’s offer to purchase the northern portion (2,251m²) of Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville, for $470,000;

2. AGREES in principle to the exchange of a 1,761m²portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville, and Lot 37 Brentham Street, Leederville (area of 539m²), for an equal portion (2,300m²) of Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville (Brentham Street Reserve), as shown in Attachment 1, subject to the requirements of section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995;

3. AUTHORISES the Chief Execuitve Officer to provide public notice of the proposed land exchange as detailed in 2. above in accordance with section 3.58(3) of the Local Government Act 1995; and

4. NOTES that a report will be presented to Council following the provision of public notice as set out in 3. above in respect to the submissions received in response to the public notice, and to determine whether the City enters into a contract with McAuley Property Limited for the exchange of the land specified in 2. above, which is conditional upon the rezoning of the land under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2.

Purpose of Report:

To consider a land exchange request from the Institute of Sisters of Mercy of Australia and Papua New Guinea (Sisters of Mercy), who own, under the name of McAuley Property Limited (MPL), the land comprising Aranmore Catholic Primary School (School), and seek approval to provide public notice of the proposed disposition in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Background:

The School is located on Lot 100 Brentham Street, Leederville. This 11.363 hectare property was purchased by the Sisters of Mercy from the City of Perth in 1976 at market value. Over time the three lots fronting Brentham Street (Lots 37, 38 and 39) were also acquired for use by the School.

In 2012, the two WA congregations of the Sisters of Mercy joined nine other congregations across Australia to form the Institute of Sisters of Mercy of Australia and Papua New Guinea. The land held by St Brigids Convent of Mercy Perth Inc, including Aranmore Catholic Primary School (and the other three lots fronting Brentham Street; Lot 37, 38 & 39) was transferred to McAuley Property Limited (MPL).

Adjoining the School is the Brentham Street Reserve, which stretches from Wavertree Place to the north, Brentham Street to the west and Bourke Street to the south. It totals 30.55 hectares and comprises the following lots:

Lot Number	Area (m²)	Ownership
74	1,638	City of Vincent - freehold
75	18,963	City of Vincent – freehold
76	1,421	City of Vincent – freehold
101	4,106	City of Vincent – freehold
9216	4,422	Crown (Department of Lands) – Management Order to City of Vincent
	30,550

There have been a number of reports considered by Council involving the School and adjoining Lot 75 portion of the Brentham Street Reserve, including:

28/08/1995 (Item 12.1.9) Council approved a five year Licence to the School to use a 393m² area for the pre-primary playground with an annual licence fee of $2,000, subject to the fence installed around the playground being moved to provide a one metre accessway between the fence and Lot 40 (Rosewood Aged Care). At the OMC 22/04/1996 Council approved the annual Licence fee being reduced to $1,000. At the OMC 10/06/1996, following the tabling of a petition, Council approved a reduction of the annual Licence fee to $1. The Licence was from 1/01/1995 to 31/12/2000.

11/05/1998 (Item 11.3.2) Council resolved that the School and the City would each contribute $2,500 for the construction of a car park on Lot 75.

13/06/2000 (Item 10.1.26) Council considered a report dealing with proposed additions to the School, development of a car park on Lot 74 Wavetree Place and use of nominated areas of Lot 75 under a lease agreement. A lease was executed on 21/12/2000 between the School and the City over the land previously licenced to the School for the pre-primary playground. The lease commenced 1/07/2000 and was for a term of five years with an option of a further five years, expiring 30/06/2010.

12/12/2001 (Item 10.2.1) Council considered a report dealing with parking and access issues and approved plans for parking improvements in Brentham Street and at the front of Lot 75, 38 and 39. In addition, Council also approved an amendment to the Lease to include the whole of the portion of Lot 75 north of the School (3,678m²). This report also noted requests from the School for boundary fencing. The parking improvements were to be the subject of a community consultation process.

12/02/2001 (Item 10.2.3) Council considered the results of the community consultation process and approved the implementation of the parking improvements. The report indicated that in accordance with the previous Council resolution, “Aranmore School has been duly notified of the resolution and the respective lease has been amended to include the land area as recommended”. There is no record of a formal variation to the Lease being made.

22/06/2010 (Item 9.3.5) Council considered a report dealing with the Lease which was due to expire on 30 June 2010. The report made no mention of the expanded area, in fact it noted that whilst “the School has access and uses the Town’s public open space, it does so on an informal basis. The Leased area is primarily used for the pre-primary playground, and is very important to the pre-primary, as it forms part of the existing playground”. Council approved a ten year lease from 1/07/2010 to 30/06/2020 with a ten year option period for 320m² of Lot 75 ($1 per annum). The school was advised in writing of the Council decision, however it is noted that the executed Lease does not include the option term.

24/04/2012 (Item 9.3.4) Council approved an extension to the lease area to accommodate a proposed natural play area in conjunction with the development of a new kindergarten classroom. The Deed of Variation dated 30 July 2012 indicates the area increasing to approximately 480m².

In September 2015 MPL wrote to the City raising a number of issues in respect to the School, in particular, concerns about:

· there being no clear differentiation between Lot 100 and Lot 75, particularly in the park land behind the School and the potential risk that poses to the City as land owners;

· enclosing the boundary could be perceived to cut off the park access to the local community;

· the School installing fencing at Brentham Street, over the Council land (albeit with gates);

· the School’s use of the parking area on Lot 75; and

· the expiry of the Lease in 2020 of part of Lot 75, which is important for the school continuing to provide pre-school care (see reference to lease term in 22/06/2010 above).

MPL has proposed a realignment of the boundary between Lot 75 and Lot 100 and a land exchange, including the transfer of Lot 37, which would result in no net loss of land for either party.

Details:

Current Situation

Rear oval area – Brentham Street Reserve

· The rear of the School is fenced, however the fence is not installed on the boundary of Lot 100 (in part, approximately 26m from the boundary).

· The open parkland at the rear, which is used as an oval by the school, straddles Lot 100 and Lot 75.

· The senior children at the school (approximately 180) play on the oval at recess, lunch and for active daily sports.

· The School maintains the oval area to the treeline (lawn mowing, reticulation and watering from the school bore), which includes portion of Lot 75.

· Members of the public have full access to the Brentham Street Reserve, including the unfenced section of Lot 100 as there is no delineation between the City’s Lot 75 and the School’s Lot 100.

North Side of School (Lot 75)

· Junior children (approx. 120) play in this area at recess and lunch.

· The School maintains the area of Lot 75 between the main building and Lot 39, with the City responsible for the section behind Lots 37-39 including the playground equipment.

· Over time fencing (albeit with gates) has been installed adjacent to Brentham Street over Lot 75, therefore appearing to restrict access to the park (albeit with gates).

· With the completion of the Rosewood Aged Care development on Lot 40 and construction of a brick boundary fence, the connection between the western and eastern sections of Brentham Street Reserve has been restricted to a long and narrow corridor of parkland.

Carpark Area off Brentham Street (Lot 75)

· The area is sign posted “Staff Parking Only”.

Whilst the School has been granted an exclusive lease of approximately 480m² within Lot 75, adjoining the northern boundary of its Lot 100, there is no known formal arrangement between the City and the School addressing issues of access rights or distribution of maintenance responsibilities over each of the above areas.

In view of the operational and potential liability issues between the City and the School, and also the expiry of the term of the current Lease, MPL proposed an equal land area land exchange, with MPL providing Lot 37 and rear portion of Lot 100 (combined area 2,300m²), with the City exchanging the section of Lot 75 adjoining the northern boundary of the School (2,300m²).

The proposed land exchange would resolve the above issues as it would result in:

· security of access to the pre-school play area and continuity of the School area (between Lot 100 and Lot 37);

· align land ownership with the current fence boundary between Lot 100 (the School) and Lot 75;

· each party being responsible for their respective land holdings;

· the public having access to the remaining portion of Brentham Street Reserve;

· School access to the oval area of the Brentham Street Reserve through a formal shared use arrangement with the City; and

· the playground remaining open to the public with improved visibility through integration of Lot 37.

The plan attached at Attachment 2 details the proposed use of the land following the land exchange.

Option for MPL to purchase additional portion of Lot 75:

Administration has also discussed with representatives of MPL the possibility of MPL acquiring the northern portion of Lot 75 (additional 2,251m²). On 12 December 2017 MPL confirmed that the Catholic Education Office of the Archdiocese of Perth, on behalf of MPL, offered to purchase the additional areafor $470,000.

Administration has obtained valuations for the purchase of this additional portion of Lot 75, which indicates that the land is worth either:

· $2.1 million based on the highest and best use of the land; or

· $470,000 based on the current use of the land.

Administration notes that the $470,000 valuation is based on the value of land decreasing as the area increases, which entails that a lower per square meter value is applied to the School site following the acquisition of the further portion of land.

Administration recommends that the City does not accept MPL’s offer of $470,000 as it does not represent good value for money for the City. Instead, Administration believes the exchange of equal portions of land remains appropriate, for no exchange of funds, as that would resolve the current land use issues.

In order to proceed with the land exchange the following would be involved:

1. Market Valuation of Land

Section 3.58(4)(c) of the Local Government Act 1995 requires the market valuation of a disposition to be provided as part of the public notice in accordance with section 3.58(3). While the proposed disposition may be exempt, as discussed below, Administration proposes to provide public notice of the market value of the land exchange.

The City has obtained a market valuation, as discussed above, and based on the square meter value used in these calculations ($300/m²) it is estimated that the value of the 2,300m² of land which is proposed for disposal by the City is $690,000. As the City is proposing to acquire an equal portion of land from MPL no exchange of funds is required.

2. Public Notice

The proposed exchange involves the City disposing of 2,300m² of land and therefore falls within the scope of a disposition. The City must comply with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), unless it is an exempt disposition as defined in the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996. MPL is a religious and educational body that is registered as a charity and its members would not receive any pecuniary profit from the proposed land exchange. The proposed disposition would be exempt in accordance with regulation 30(b).

Given the nature and scale of the potential disposition and in the interests of transparency and accountability, Administration would recommend public notice of the proposed exchange be published, along with an invitation for public submissions in accordance with section 3.58(3) of the Act.

Following the provision of public notice and consideration of any submissions received, the City would seek Council’s guidance as to whether to proceed with the proposed land exchange.

3. City to initiate scheme amendment

Under the Metropolitan Regional Scheme, both parcels of land are zoned Urban. Under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2, Lot 100 is reserved Public Purpose – Primary School and the City’s Lot 75 is reserved Public Open Space - Restricted. In view of this, rezoning would be required to facilitate the future use of the land, as set out in the table below:

Land to be exchanged	Current LPS No.2 reservation	Required zoning
Portion of Lot 100 (to City)	Public Purpose – Primary School	Public Open Space - restricted
Portion of Lot 75 (to School)	Public Open Space – restricted	Public Purpose – Primary School

Lot 37 is currently zoned Residential – R60 and it is proposed that this zoning would remain following the exchange.

It would be necessary for Council to initiate the scheme amendment process. If approved by Council, the City would submit the scheme amendment proposal to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for confirmation that it is suitable to be advertised. Following the 21 day advertising period, Council must consider any submissions received and resolve as to whether it proceeds with presenting the scheme amendment to the WAPC and the Minister for approval and endorsement.

The City’s fees for the scheme amendment process are estimated in the order of $3,000. As the City and MPL/ Sisters of Mercy are jointly benefitting from the proposed land exchange and Sisters of Mercy are prepared to fund the subdivision costs, consideration could be given to waiving the fees. The scheme amendment process is likely to take 18 months.

4. Legal Agreement with MPL

Given the time frame for the scheme amendment process, MPL has requested that the land exchange be conditional upon the rezoning of the land. To facilitate this, the City and MPL could enter into an agreement providing that, subject to Council approval, the City would initiate the scheme amendment process, and if the scheme amendment was endorsed by the Minister, the land would be exchanged in accordance with the plan of subdivision.

MPL has confirmed that all costs related to the plan of subdivision, which would depict the amalgamation and subdivision of the two lots, would be paid by the Sisters of Mercy. The costs associated with the preparation of the plan of subdivision, including the WAPC’s fee, is estimated to be $7,600 plus GST. Easements would also be required to protect the Water Corporation sewer main and City of Vincent drainage pipe. This infrastructure and the required easements would be depicted on the plan of subdivision.

Entering into the agreement would require Council approval, and approval should be conditional on the Sisters of Mercy arranging for the plan of subdivision to be prepared prior to the City and MPL entering into the agreement. The Sisters of Mercy have confirmed that they would meet all costs associated with the plan of subdivision (surveying costs), easements and transfer of land documents. The City would prepare the required legal agreement.

5. Agreement becomes unconditional

Following the advertisement of the scheme amendment, the City would consider the submissions and present the submissions to Council, requesting approval for the scheme amendment to be presented to the WAPC and the Minister for endorsement. If the scheme amendment was endorsed, the agreement would become unconditional and a transfer of land could be prepared, at the Sisters of Mercy’s cost, to facilitate the land exchange. The transfer of land would need to be registered with Landgate to effect the land exchange.

Consultation/Advertising:

While the City is not required to comply with the requirements set out in section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, the City intends to provide public notice of the proposed land exchange (disposition) and consider all submissions.

Legal/Policy:

Local Government Act 1995 section 3.58 - Disposing of Property, provides that, at sub section (2), a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to lease) to:

“(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at a public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.”

A local government can also dispose of property by complying with sub section (3), if, before agreeing to dispose of the property –

“(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition –

(i) describing the property concerned; and

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before the date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given;

(b) it considers any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made.”

If complying with sub section (3), the details required to satisfy sub section (3)(a)(ii) include –

“(a) the names of all parties concerned; and

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(c) the market value of the disposition –

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

(ii) as declared by a resolution of the local government on the basis of a valuation carried out more than 6 months before the proposed disposition that the local government believes to be a true indication of the value at the time of the proposed disposition.”

Section 3.58(5) provides that section 3.58 does not apply to certain types of dispositions, including dispositions which are provided by the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 to be exempt. Regulation 30 provides a range of dispositions that are exempt from the application of section 3.58 of the Act, including dispositions to:

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

As the proposed disposition is to a registered charity the City would not be required to comply with section 3.58.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium The undefined boundary between Lot 75 and Lot 100 and the current use by the School and the public creates liability and maintenance risks for the City, the School and MPL. Accordingly, the ownership and use of the land should be formalised, to reflect the actual use and maintenance of the land.

Strategic Implications:

This recommendation aligns with the objectives of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028, particularly:

· enhanced environment;

· connected community;

· thriving places; and

· innovative and accountable.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

As equal portions of land are proposed to be exchanged it is recommended that no exchange of funds be required.

MPL has offered to purchase an additional 2,251m²portion of Lot 75 for $470,000. The market value, based on the highest and best use of this portion of Lot 75 (Residential R-60) is estimated to be $2.1m. On this basis Administration recommends that the City does not accept MPL’s offer, as it does not represent good value for money.

The proposed scheme amendment is not included in the Corporate Business Plan or operational budget. If the scheme amendment was commenced, Administration could investigate and reprioritise its current projects. Alternatively, Administration could investigate and consider including a project in the Corporate Business Plan for 2019/20. In both cases, the scheme amendment process would likely take at least 12-18 months from commencement to final approval.

Comments:

Nil.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

11.6 November 2018 Budget review (including Carry Forwards)

TRIM Ref: D18/180777

Author: Vanisha Govender, Manager Financial Services

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type ⇩

2. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program ⇩

3. Rate Setting Statement ⇩

4. List of other Budget amendments ⇩

5. List of Capital expenditure amendments ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council BY ABSOUTE MAJORITY:

1. ADOPTS the November 2018 Budget amendments to the 2018/2019 annual budget as detailed in the report and Attachments 1 – 5,

2. WAIVES the 2018/19 local government rates for the following organisations, pursuant to Section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995:

· East Perth Football Club Inc	Leederville Oval	$ 1,309.76
· Subiaco Football Club Inc	Leederville Oval	$ 1,309.83
· Earlybirds Playgroup Inc	87 The Boulevarde, Mount Hawthorn	$ 648.83
· North Perth Playgroup Inc	15 Haynes Street, North Perth	$ 702.11
· Mount Hawthorn Toy Library Inc	Mt Hawthorn Community Centre	$ 992.68
· Mount Hawthorn Playgroup Inc	Mt Hawthorn Community Centre	$ 550.53
· North Perth Community Garden	Woodville Reserve	$ 856.66
	TOTAL	$6,370.40

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to:

· consider and authorise the proposed budget amendments including amendments to the 2017/18 capital carry forwards items, and

· consider additional rates waivers which were incorrectly calculated in the original 2018-19 Budget.

Background:

During the preparation for the 2018/19 annual budget, an allowance was made to carry forward funds for incomplete capital projects from 2017/18. The value of the carry forwards was based on estimates of expenditure that would be unspent as at 30 June 2018. As the Annual Financial Report for the year ended 30 June 2018 has been finalised and audited, the estimated funds available to be carried forward can be updated to reflect the actual level of expenditure and consequently the remainder of the budget available to be carried forward into 2018/19.

Waiver of rates for relevant organisations was considered as part of the 2018-19 Budget, pursuant to section 6.47 of the Local Government Act 1995. However seven organisations’ waiver calculations were incorrectly calculated and approved. This report details and requests approval for the corrected rates waivers.

This budget review has also accommodated other budget amendments. The reasons for these budget amendments can be found in Attachment 4.

Details:

Capital Expenditure

The 2018/19 adopted budget included a capital expenditure program totalling $14,789,424, including carry forward funding of $3,169,772.

In most instances, the estimated expenditure and the available funds carried forward closely aligned to the actual outcome for 2017/18. Overall, expenditure to 30 June 2018 on carry forward projects was over-estimated by $525,507 and the budget available in 2018/19 for these projects should now be reduced accordingly.

Attachment 5 (List of capital expenditure amendments) lists the capital projects to be amended in the 2018/19 budget.

Key capital budget amendments are summarised in the table below:

Capital Expenditure

Revised Budget

New Budget

Difference

Comment

Bike Boulevard Stage 2

500,000

76,397

- 423,603

Reduction of $500,000 from carry forward as funds were spent in 2017-18. Additional budget of $76,397 is required in the current financial year for completion of the project.

Replace Existing Skid Steer Loader

130,000

- 130,000

Skid steer loader is no longer required as the plant is being hired on a needs basis instead of outright purchase.

Greening (Streetscapes)

380,000

335,268

- 44,732

Reduction of:

- $10,634 as this amount was spent in 2017-18;

- Reallocation of $9,098 to Menzies Park; and

- $25,000 transferred to Bike Boulevard project.

CCTV Upgrade - Multiple Sites

80,000

62,282

- 17,718

Reallocation of costs to upgrade lighting at Loftus Recreation Centre.

Chelmsford Road Car Park

42,512

No carry forward budget for invoices received in 2018/19.

Loftus Rec Centre - Synthetic Soccer Pitch Surface

38,460

No carry forward budget for invoices received in 2018/19.

Banks Reserve - Foreshore restoration stage 2

23,710

Capital works for the current year have been budgeted under operating expenditure.

Redevelopment of Website (stage 2)

11,430

Intranet and Councillor portal costs for the current year have been budgeted under operating expenditure.

Graffiti Reporting Equipment

11,617

Equipment purchased for better graffiti reporting, funded from grants received in 2017/18.

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 16 October 2018 (Item 11.7) Council approved the reallocation of $160,000 from the recycling expenditure budget to the Leederville town centre share space budget. This is reflected in the attachments to this report.

Other budget amendments:

Detail on all other budget amendments are included in attachment 4. Key amendments from this attachment include:

· An increase of employee costs of $323,778 due to previously unbudgeted employer superannuation for casual staff;

· A $250,000 decrease in proceeds from the Tamala Park joint venture due to decreased projected land sales proceeds; and,

· An increase in transfer to reserves of $600,000 as a result of unbudgeted savings realised in 2017/18 financial year.

Opening operating surplus:

The estimated opening surplus for the 2018/2019 budget was $4,829,483. The 2017/2018 audit has now been finalised and the budget opening surplus has been confirmed as $5,524,402. The additional surplus is largely a result of lower than estimated capital expenditure in 2017/2018 financial year.

Rates waiver:

In the 2018/2019 budget, Council approved rates waivers of $135,841.37 for City owned properties leased to not for profit organisations having a community and /or sporting purpose. Administration subsequently identified errors in the rate waiver calculation and is now requesting these corrected rates be waived.

This would result in additional waivers of $ 6,370.40.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable

Legal/Policy:

Section 6.47 from the Local Government Act 1995 states:

6.4.7 “Subject to the Rates and Charges (Rebates and Deferments) Act 1992, a local government may at the time of imposing a rate or service charge or at a later date resolve to waive a rate or service charge or resolve to grant other concessions in relation to a rate or service charge.”

This budget review is performed as a matter of good governance and is not required by the Act or associated regulations. The review is in accordance with the functions of the CEO as set out in section 5.41 of the Act:

5.41(d) “manage the day to day operations of the local government.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Conducting this budget review ensures Council is aware of any proposed expenditure which varies from that in the approved budget.

Strategic Implications:

This recommendation aligns with the “Innovative and Accountable” priority in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable

Financial/Budget Implications:

The overall effect of the various budget amendments would result in a budget surplus of $226,499 for 2018/19. $200,000 of this increase is restricted funds for the bike network plan for 2019/2020.

Comments:

With the completion of the year-end processes and audit for the 2017/18 financial year, it is good practice for the carry forward components of the 2017/18 capital expenditure budget to be adjusted to reflect the actual funds available at the end of 2017/18.

A further mid-year budget review as required under Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations will be tabled at the April 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council. This will address further budget amendments identified during coming months and is line with good financial governance practices.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

11.7 Lease of 15 Haynes Street, North Perth to North Perth Playgroup Inc.

TRIM Ref: D18/179853

Authors: Kara Davies, Administration Officer Corporate Services

Meluka Bancroft, A/Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Plan of North Perth Playgroup location and lease area ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES a new lease of a portion of the building at 15 Haynes Street, North Perth to North Perth Playgroup Inc., commencing on 1 January 2019, on the following key terms:

1.1 Term: Two years, six months, commencing 1 January 2019;

1.2 Permitted purpose: playgroup activities;

1.3 Rent: $952.24 including GST (indexed by CPI on 1 July);

1.4 Rates & Taxes: payable by the lessee (including ESL and bin charge);

1.5 Outgoings: payable by the lessee;

1.6 Insurance: lessee to effect and maintain public liability insurance;

1.7 Indemnity: lessee indemnifies the lessor against loss / damage / claims;

1.8 Repainting: at the lessee’s discretion;

1.9 Repair & maintenance: lessee to keep premises and fittings & fixtures clean and in good repair, and repair any damage caused by lessee or due to fair wear and tear (unless major structural damage);

1.10 Structural damage: if damage renders premises unsafe / unfit for occupation, lease will terminate and no compensation will be payable to lessee;

1.11 Shared use: lessee can hire premises to community groups when not in use, and charge fee’s consistent with fees in City’s Schedule of Fees and Charges; and

1.12 Termination: by mutual agreement or by lessor if default occurs.

2. SUBJECT to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Director Corporate Services to affix the common seal and execute the lease in 1 above.

Purpose of Report:

To consider granting a short term lease to North Perth Playgroup Inc. (NPPG) to enable the continued use of a portion of the building located at 15 Haynes Street (corner Sydney Street), North Perth.

Background:

The NPPG leases a portion of the building located on 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street and 31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street, North Perth, as shown in the plan attached at Attachment 1. Lot 9 was purchased by the City of Perth in 1927 and in 1941 the City of Perth Council resolved that the land be held in trust for the purpose of recreation for the people. The certificate of title for Lot 9 is encumbered by a registrar’s caveat which secures the terms of the Deed of Trust. Lot 100 (which previously comprised lots 94, 95 and 96 on Swan Location 660) was resumed for the purpose of public works – recreation ground, Sydney and Haynes Street, North Perth, by the City of Perth in 1945.

Subsequent to the City of Perth acquiring Lot 100, a brick and tile building was constructed on the land. A portion of this building was also constructed over Lot 9, as shown in the plan attached at Attachment 1. Since 1958 the building was leased to the Minister for Health (Dental Health Services WA) for the purpose of a dental health clinic. A portion of the building was also used as a child health clinic.

A separate brick and tile building was also constructed on Lot 9 subsequent to 1945 and this building was leased to the Education Department and was used as the Kyilla Pre-Primary. The Kyilla Pre-Primary was relocated to the Kyilla Primary School in 2002 and the building and playground area on Lot 9 was subsequently leased to Kidz Galore Pty Ltd.

From 1986 the NPPG operated several playgroup sessions from the verandah of the child health clinic on Lot 100, with the children accessing the play area facing Haynes Street. There was no known formal arrangement to govern the NPPG’s use of this portion of the land. In 1997 (OCM 12 May 1997, Item 11.1.11) the child health clinic was discontinued due to a decrease in numbers and the City entered into a licence with the NPPG in respect to the use of the portion of the building formally comprising the child health clinic (OCM 22 September 1997 Item 11.3.4). The initial licence was for a five year term, with further leases approved in subsequent years.

Details:

The NPPG’s current lease, dated 7 March 2014, commenced on 1 January 2014 and will expire on 31 December 2018. The key terms of the lease are as follows:

Term: Five years;

Rent: $900* plus GST (indexed by CPI);

Permitted Use: playgroup activities;

Rates & Taxes: payable by lessee (including waste bins and rubbish removal);

Utilities: payable by lessee;

Repairs & maintenance: lessee must repair and maintain premises, including all fittings and fixtures, except if the damage is to plumbing / piping or electrical wiring and it is due to the component being at end of life;

Painting: lessee is responsible to repaint the premises in the final two months of the Term (whether or not the Term is to be extended);

Insurance: lessee must effect and maintain public liability insurance and pay the annual building insurance premium and any excess for a claim.

*GST was not applied to the initial $900 rental fee, it has only been indexed by CPI. They are currently paying $952.24 including GST.

The NPPG by email dated 29 June 2018 advised the City that it would like to enter into a new lease of the building upon the expiry of the current lease.

At that time the NPPG were advised that Administration was awaiting the outcome of the Public Open Space (POS) Strategy, to determine the long term outcome for the land comprising lots 9 and 100.

The City’s draft POS strategy identifies that:

· The level of POS provision is relatively low compared to surrounding local government areas with 3.37ha/1,000 population compared to Stirling with 4.38ha/1,000 population and Cambridge 7.54ha/1,000 population; and

· Should no additional POS be provided there will be a gradual decline in provision which based on current population forecasts could equate to 2.98ha/1,000 population by 2036.

One of the actions proposed in the POS strategy to improve the level of POS provisions is to “Repurpose City owned land as POS in strategic locations where gaps have been identified within the network.”

Given the assessed shortfall in local open space in North Perth, this site has been identified as a prime site for repurposing.

Pending the preparation and adoption of an implementation plan to repurpose the site Administration is recommending a new short term lease, to align with the expiry of the Dental Health Services lease of the building at 31 Sydney Street (lease expires 30 June 2021). Administration is proposing that the new lease contain terms consistent with the current lease:

Term: Two years six months, commencing 1 January 2019;

Rent: $952.24 including GST (indexed by CPI);

Permitted Use: playgroup activities;

Rates & Taxes: payable by lessee (including waste bins and rubbish removal);

Utilities: payable by lessee;

Insurance: lessee must effect and maintain public liability insurance and pay the annual building insurance premium and any excess for a claim;

Painting: repainting is at the lessee’s discretion.

Consultation/Advertising:

NPPG have been kept informed throughout the process.

The City is not required to comply with the public notice requirements set out in section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Legal/Policy:

Local Government Act 1995 section 3.58 - Disposing of Property, provides that, at sub section (2), a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to lease) to:

“(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at a public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.”

A local government can also dispose of property by complying with sub section (3), if, before agreeing to dispose of the property –

“(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition –

(i) describing the property concerned; and

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before the date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given;

If complying with sub section (3), the details required to satisfy sub section (3)(a)(ii) include –

“(a) the names of all parties concerned; and

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(c) the market value of the disposition –

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

As the proposed disposition is to an incorporated body which has charitable objectives the City would not be required to comply with section 3.58.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The NPPG has demonstrated its capacity to manage the lease of the building since 2014. Entering into a short term lease would ensure the City has the flexibility to implement the recommendations of the Public Open Space Strategy and provides sufficient certainty for the NPPG.

Strategic Implications:

This recommendation supports the outcomes we are working towards in the City’s 2018 - 2028 Strategic Community Plan, specifically:

Connected Community

· We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City; and

· Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The City would continue to receive an income of $952.24 (indexed by CPI) from NPPG for the duration of the lease term.

Comments:

Provision of a short term lease provides the NPPG with sufficient security of tenure to continue to operate its service. It would also allow the City to appropriately plan for the future use of lots 9 and 100 in accordance with the POS strategy recommendations.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

12 Community Engagement

12.1 Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan - Public Comment Feedback

TRIM Ref: D18/164486

Author: Philippa Baker, Community Projects Officer

Authoriser: Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments: 1. Banks Reserve Master Plan ⇩

2. Banks Reserve Master Plan Design Guidelines ⇩

Recommendation:

That the Council:

1. NOTES the public comment submissions received in relation to the draft Banks Reserve Master Plan;

2. ADOPTS the Banks Reserve Master Plan and associated Design Guidelines as shown in Attachments 1 and 2; and

3. AUTHORISES Administration to consult with the Whadjuk Working Party and other relevant stakeholders regarding the potential renaming of Banks Reserve in accordance with the Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia.

Purpose of Report:

To consider submissions received during the recent public comment period on the Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan, and to seek Council adoption of the Plan (Attachments 1 & 2).

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 13 November 2018, it was resolved that Council:

“1. RECEIVES the draft Banks Reserve Master Plan and associated Design Guidelines;

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to advertise the draft Banks Reserve Master Plan for public comment for a period of 14 days inviting written submissions in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

3. NOTES that a further report will be submitted to the Ordinary Council Meeting in December 2018 in regard to any written submissions received during the public comment period; and

4. NOTES that Administration will again consult with the Whadjuk Working Party during the public comment period to obtain their feedback on the draft Banks Reserve Master Plan.”

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan was advertised for public comment for a period of 14 days between 14 November and 28 November 2018. The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness during the public comment period:

· Project page and online survey on the City’s Engagement HQ portal

· Posts on the City’s social media channels

· Public Notice in The Guardian and Perth Voice local newspapers

· Direct emails to previous survey respondents, Project Reference Group and other stakeholders consulted during preparation of the Master Plan

· Public Notices on the digital screens at the City’s Administration & Civic Centre, Beatty Park Leisure Centre and Vincent Library & Local History Centre

· Postcards delivered to all residents located within a 400 metre radius of Banks Reserve

· Onsite signage at Banks Reserve

· Notice in the City’s November 2018 e-Newsletter

During the public comment period there were 393 visitations to the Banks Reserve Master Plan project page on the Engagement HQ portal with 159 people downloading the Draft Master Plan and 76 people visiting the online survey page. 35 submissions were received during the public comment period with 23 in support of the Draft Master Plan, nine being opposed to the Draft Master Plan, and three being unsure. Throughout the entire duration of the project there were 868 visitations to the Banks Reserve Master Plan project page on the Engagement HQ portal.

Upon reviewing the public comments received within the context of planning and consultation processes that informed development of the Draft Master Plan Administration is not proposing any amendments. Although several comments received will be relevant during Master Plan implementation and have been listed for further consideration.

Consultation/Advertising:

A summary of the key feedback within these public comment submissions relating to each of the Master Plan zones is provided below:

BANKS PLAZA
	Comments Received	Administration Response
1.	Keep the existing hall or a new enclosed structure that could be used all year round and for a wider range of activities than the Plaza. There is plenty of open space at the Reserve for people to interact already. There are too few community halls as it stands. An unnecessary addition that will create a harsh unnatural zone. Toilet facilities should be updated. The proposed car park does not align with the objective retain and maintain natural features of the sign or the use of subtle design features.	The existing community facility is nearing the end of its useful asset life and no longer compliant with accessibility requirements or building standards. The Plaza is intended to facilitate improved activation including events, pop-up vendors and informal recreation. This partially sheltered space will be sympathetically designed to allow flexible use by the community. The proposed future car park remains subject to further feasibility and business case investigations.
2.	More seating and BBQ’s as well as a parenting facility within the toilet and outdoor shower are required. Improvements to picnic tables and shade are required. More areas for family gatherings are supported.	The Master Plan proposes additional seating, BBQ amenities, new toilet facility, and improved shade within the Plaza area. The proposal for an outdoor shower can be considered during detailed design of the proposed toilet facility/kayak storage area.
3.	Install a small ferry capable jetty installed here for future usage given the proximity to Optus Stadium and Claisebrook. The impact of beach erosion will need to be considered should river access by kayakers increase.	Both the Plaza and Boardwalk zones have incorporated opportunities to better access, interact with and view the Swan River. Administration and the Project Reference Group identified these access options as less intrusive than a formal jetty. Consultation with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (River and Estuaries Division) during the detailed design phase will ensure necessary consideration and mitigation of any erosion implications.
4.	Concerned about the lighting level as this should be sensitive especially at night as it will affect both fauna and local residents. It is not in the interests of the Reserve to provide such lighting as it will only encourage anti-social behaviour. If lighting is upgraded it should be turned off by 8pm at night. Lighting along the dual use path to Summers Street is appropriate.	Throughout the Master Plan development and consultation process the safety of park users was highlighted as a concern, and provided the basis for improved lighting. Consultation with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (River and Estuaries Division) during the detailed design phase will ensure necessary consideration and mitigation of any unintended fauna impacts. Lighting times can be managed to balance any adverse impacts for adjacent residents.
5.	Pop up container cafe looks rather small for the expected higher volume of people. A proper café or kiosk should be considered. Seating, umbrellas and shelter is required.	The proposed pop-up café has been identified as the most viable option which subject to commercial analysis may lead to a more permanent style facility in the future. The Master Plan proposes additional seating and improved shade within the Plaza area.
6.	Duck faeces will need to be regularly removed from the hardstand and decking areas.	Noted. Effective asset management and maintenance of the Reserve remains an important City responsibility.
7.	Not supportive of the proposed parking changes. Provide access for deliveries and ACROD permit holders but keep other motorists out. Local people should be encouraged to walk to the park and non-locals have access to public transport options.	Development of the Plaza area, including removal of the existing community pavilion, will provide the opportunity to realign the car parking bays and improve both safety and accessibility. The Master Plan focuses on improving existing car parking rather than significantly increasing car parking. As a ‘neighbourhood’ public open space it is agreed that walking and cycling access should be promoted.
8.	Do not support decking area, prefer existing grass. This will introduce a trip/slip hazard, detract from the natural atmosphere, and increase maintenance and cleaning costs.	The portion of the Plaza area with proposed decking has somewhat limited area grass growth as it is underneath large trees. The decking will allow the space to be better utilised while maximising the shade provided by the trees.
9.	Doubtful that kayak storage area will be used given the risk to damage to equipment and ease of transporting equipment. Unless a club is involved kayak storage is unlikely to be used. Will there be a fee for kayak storage? Object to money being spent for the benefit of a small number of people. Kayaks and canoes mostly enter the river from the Summers Street end. Do like the concept of the Banks Plaza upgrade.	The proposed kayak storage has been included in the Master Plan based upon consultation with a local paddling club who currently use the Reserve. It is anticipated that the storage area will assist with growth of the club and opportunities for the wider community to engage in this recreational activity. The club will be required to enter into a licence agreement with associated costs.
10.	Too close to residential dwellings, move to Summer Street end.	The proposed Plaza area has been proposed where the existing community pavilion is located. Relocation to the Summers Street end of the Reserve is not practicable given the existing vegetation, and is not consistent with consultation inputs during preparation of the Master Plan.
11.	Pop-up café is not required as people bring their own food and drink. This would not be viable except when there is an event/function at the Reserve. Improved drainage in the car park is required.	The pop-up café has been proposed to determine viability at this Reserve. Any drainage issues will be dealt with during the Plaza detailed design and construction phases.
12.	Not sure why the existing toilets would be demolished as a priority when the rest of the building is not proposed for immediate demolition.	The poor condition and need to upgrade the toilets was identified as a high priority due to both safety and amenity concerns. A contemporary, modular toilet is proposed until construction of the new toilet facility is completed.

BANKS PROMENADE
	Comments Received	Administration Response
13.	Ok if regenerated area left alone.	The Master Plan aims to maintain the natural environment while improving opportunities to access and interact with the river. Revegetated areas will be maintained where possible with additional plantings to replace any lost vegetation through the establishment of the boardwalk. Consultation with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (River and Estuaries Division) during the detailed design phase will ensure effective management of vegetation.
14.	Support in general but unsure of the need for a 4-metre wide path, and it is doubtful that the path can be widened without damaging the roots of mature trees. Love the idea of getting more vegetation along the path.	The proposed widening of the path to 4 metres is to comply with Department of Transport standards as the path is classified as a Recreational Shared Path. This will assist with reducing conflicts between cyclists and pedestrians which was highlighted throughout the community consultation process.
15.	This will be a welcome improvement. Please ensure that the revegetation is no higher than half a metre as this will allow for river glimpses across the Reserve. Planting vegetation along the side of the path will increase congestion as at present people can move off the path onto the grass.	The low-level vegetation is proposed as a physical barrier to reduce conflict between dogs, cyclists and pedestrians while ensuring that sight lines and river views can still be achieved.
16.	The rumble zones may not be aggressive enough to slow cyclists so speed humps may need to be investigated. Cyclists do not have time to read signage when passing, however techniques are required to ensure they are aware when entering this shared space.	As the path is highly utilised by cyclists, and such activity is encouraged, the use of speed humps is not the preferred method to reduce speeds. Path markings and rumble strips will indicate the area is a shared space, and low level vegetation along the path will reduce crossing points and conflict zones. This will allow cyclists to move through the Reserve while improving awareness of pedestrian activity.

BANKS ACTIVE ZONE
	Comments Received	Administration Response
17.	Seating options and contained areas for families/children, including BBQ’s, are required. The mini court and playground should be fenced so that dog owners can still exercise dogs without disturbing activity. The curved wall bench seating is not necessary. Individual bench seats would be a less obtrusive and a cheaper option.	Amenities for families and children are proposed within the Active Zone. As Banks Reserve is an approved dog exercise area the upgraded playground will be fenced. The curved seating has been included to provide both a functional element and a barrier between other Reserve activities. The design and cost of these elements will be further investigated during the Active Zone detailed design phase.
18.	Would like to see nature play areas like Braithwaite Park in Mount Hawthorn with wooden structures, no plastic elements, water play etc. Ensure that swings are provided and retain the roundabout as these are well used.	The Master Plan Design Guidelines dictate that natural elements are to be utilised within the upgraded playground. Specific play elements will be identified through the Active Zone detailed design phase.
19.	Although there is a mention of the very popular dog exercise area there are no attempts to provide a specific area of interest to dogs such as sand for digging.	The need for dog specific elements was not identified during Master Plan consultation with feedback primarily relating to minimising conflict between dogs, pedestrians and cyclists. The broader Dog Exercise Strategy/Policy as identified within the Draft Public Open Space Strategy will better inform the provision of such amenities throughout Vincent.
20.	Support in general but why there is no outdoor exercise equipment. The existing equipment provides little benefit but upgraded equipment would be highly utilised.	Upon investigating the quality, capital and maintenance costs, and relatively low usage of outdoor exercise equipment it was decided not include any upgrades within the Master Plan. As an alternative, other recreational opportunities including the mini court are proposed within the Active Zone.
21.	The oval path will provide an area for riding of bikes and scooters that will create conflict with dogs/dog owners. Adequate east west access across the site is already provided. The concrete pathway will only cause additional heat areas, reduces park usage for sporting activities and dog walking/play areas. The oval path reduces the size of the oval – high cost for no gain. It will interfere with the use of the goal posts and people running up and down the Reserve slope. The path would diminish the serviceable area of grass and dissect the park from its bushland fringe. The Reserve is not large enough for this to be practical. There are drainage issues on the oval. Landscaping in general terms is supported with grass surfaces being managed to a higher horticultural and drainage standard.	The proposed oval path within the Active Zone is compacted limestone and purposefully designed for walking. The path directly responds to community feedback regarding conflict between pedestrian and cyclists, and the need for a pedestrian only option. The primary purpose of the path is a recreational circuit for pedestrians that links to the Banks Boardwalk. A large, open grassed area has been retained to enable passive, unstructured recreation activities and dog exercise. The area identified as being prone to flooding and poor drainage has been identified for eco-zoning.
22.	There is no mention of an off leash dog walking and play area. This is currently a major use pattern of the oval and we are disappointed that there has been no allowance made for dog owners to exercise their dogs. I note that there is no specific acknowledgement that Banks Reserve is a dog off lead park. It is important that it remain such. This park is widely known as a dog exercise park. It is regularly used by hundreds of dog owners both local and visitors.	Banks Reserve will be maintained as a dog exercise area. The need for dog specific elements was not identified during Master Plan consultation with feedback primarily relating to minimising conflict between dogs, pedestrians and cyclists. The broader Dog Exercise Strategy/Policy as identified within the Draft Public Open Space Strategy will better inform the provision of such amenities throughout Vincent.
23.	The removal of cricket nets and replacement with a basketball court will disadvantage children in the area. There is a full sized basketball court in Claisebrook Cove. Tennis hit-up wall and volleyball posts should be included in the active recreation spaces. The current basketball facility for shooting hoops is popular with children of all ages as it is not at full height. The intensity and space required for the Active Zone is of concern. There is limited space in this location for the basketball court. Please limit hard surfaces which may have a negative impact on tree roots.	A basketball court already exists at Banks Reserve and the Master Plan identifies the opportunity to convert this to a multi-purpose court that can accommodate a broader range of recreational activities. The recently completed Public Open Space Strategy has identified a significant gap in the provision of recreational infrastructure for children and young people.
24.	Access for food trucks and other vehicles for events appears restricted due to revegetation at Reserve entry points.	Specific vehicle access requirements will be further considered and refined during the Active Zone and Banks Plaza detailed design phase.
25.	The impact of 8,600 people from events is grossly exaggerated as most of the Optus Stadium users travel directly from the Windan Bridge to East Perth Station or up Summers Street. Very few people will use the path to cross the Reserve when they can walk diagonally.	The pedestrian statistics have been sourced from the Public Transport Authority, and it is acknowledged that many of these pedestrians will not necessarily access Banks Reserve. Although there remains an opportunity to provide pop-up activities on Optus Stadium event days to activate the Reserve.
26.	Remove the fire pit as it will only encourage anti-social behaviour late at night. Preference would be for BBQ and seating area. The fire pit is a vandalism risk and the obscured area outweighs benefits. It presents a fire risk to the adjacent rubberized play area and natural foliage. Fire pit is a waste of space. They are banned for safety reasons.	Administration investigated designs that allow the fire pit to be effectively managed and locked when not in use prior to inclusion within the Master Plan. The fire pit location was incorporated into the amphitheatre area in order to facilitate cultural activities and events at the Reserve

WALTERS BROOK

Comments Received

Administration Response

27.

More proposed desecration of a renewed natural environment that has been beautifully enhanced by recent planting.

The bridge structure is unnecessary, a waste of money, and would break up the replanted natural vegetation around the brook. The peaceful seclusion would be lost as with the bridge the brook becomes an annex of the car park.

The Walter’s Brook crossing is unnecessary and will damage the regenerated vegetation.

The new crossing point at Walter's Brook is proposed to alleviate the current bottleneck at the existing crossing, and provide a connection between the Banks Plaza and Banks Active Zone.

A number of safety concerns associated with toilet access and poor sight lines were highlighted during Master Plan consultation. The bridge will assist with addressing these issues.

Consultation with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (River and Estuaries Division) during the detailed design phase will ensure necessary consideration and mitigation of any flora and fauna impacts.

BANKS BOARDWALK
	Comments Received	Administration Response
28.	Will damage the regenerated vegetation that has taken years to grow. Preservation of the riverine environment is important to limit disturbance to flora and fauna. The length of boardwalk along the foreshore will be invasive. The boardwalk will encourage people going to the foreshore but some areas along the foreshore could be protected for water birds and other native fauna, minimising potential impacts from human usage. Improved river views are unnecessary as the path along the river gives plenty of river views. Consideration must be given to wildlife.	The Master Plan aims to strike a balance between protecting vegetation while providing improved access and interaction with the river. Community feedback received during preparation of the Master Plan identified the riverside location and features to enhance interaction with river as major opportunity. Consultation with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (River and Estuaries Division) during the detailed design phase will ensure necessary consideration and mitigation of any flora and fauna impacts.
29.	Areas to easily launch kayaks, stand-up paddleboards etc. and more areas for picnics where children can access the river are supported. There is no specific mention of river access via a sandy beach so that kids/dogs can play.	The small, existing beach area on the foreshore is to be retained, and both the Banks Plaza and Boardwalk Zones aim to enhance accessibility to the river. Additional amenities for families and children are also proposed within the Banks Plaza and Active Zones.
30.	Concerned about the boardwalk surface as the steel mentioned will have holes which may negatively impact dog claws and paws.	The boardwalk remains subject to a detailed design phase, and this concern has been noted for consideration given that Banks Reserve is a designated dog exercise area.
31.	Due to the number of people that fish here another extension to the river from the centre/crossing point of 'the bow' is preferable. By providing fishing spots it encourages people to look after the river.	This opportunity has not yet been captured within the Master Plan but aligns with the intent to improve access and interaction with the river. This concept will be further investigated with the Department of Biodiversity, Conservation and Attractions (River and Estuaries Division) during the Banks Boardwalk detailed design phase.
32.	Supportive of the boardwalk if people can walk through the area without compacting the ground. Existing amenity should still be maintained for cyclists. Pedestrians and bikes should be separated like in South Perth and Victoria Park. These arrangements work really well and there is nothing like that north of the river.	Multiple options to manage conflict between pedestrians and cyclists have been investigated during preparation of the Master Plan, including advice from the Department of Transport. Key design elements and options for the boardwalk and paths will be further investigated through the detailed design phase upon adoption of the Master Plan.

OVAL AND BANK
	Comments Received	Administration Response
33.	Not planting out the bank area and along Joel Terrace seems a missed opportunity to replace the existing ugly fence.	During preparation of the Master Plan local residents identified the importance of keeping the top of the Reserve open to improve passive surveillance.
34.	Soccer and/or football goals posts should be installed.	The soccer goal will be retained. Further sporting infrastructure has not been included in the Master Plan with a focus on spaces and amenities to support passive recreation activities.
35.	A set of stairs or path leading up to Westralia Street from the southern side of the bank to provide access towards East Perth station should be included.	Additional access points were investigated during preparation of the Master Plan, however the steep gradient would require a significant infrastructure solution. A pathway from Joel Terrace near the playground is preferred due to the more gradual incline.
36.	The soccer goals are well utilised but will be negatively impacted by the oval path. Barriers may be required so that cyclists, walkers and joggers are not hit with balls. The goals with the hill behind work well so the ball rolls back to you.	The soccer goal will be retained, however at the time of the oval path construction they may be relocated or redesigned if the current location causes conflict.

NEW FACILITY OPPORTUNITY
	Comments Received	Administration Response
37.	Unnecessary waste of money and will impact residents overlooking park. The new facility should not be on Joel Terrace. It would be better placed at the Summers Street end, as would the plaza. The location of the new facility will require more discussion with the community. The existing building should be retained and renovated as it has potential for use by a broad section of the community. Would rather keep the existing building as I am concerned that ‘next steps’ will not happen and we will have lost a facility that has the potential to be used for a variety of community purposes. Why demolish building (2021) prior to a new facility feasibility plan (2022) – refurbishment is preferred over replacement. There is no need for expansion of the pavilion facility as it is rarely used and there are other facilities not far away in the City of Vincent The existing facility is patronised by a Montessori playschool, yoga classes and other community meetings. It is a valued community facility. Contrary to the comments in the Master Plan the present facility is very well utilised. Small community halls unattached to religious institutions are rare in Vincent and need to be preserved.	The New Facility Opportunity remains subject to future feasibility and business case investigations, and envisaged to be a potential future stage of the Master Plan. Feedback received during preparation of the Master Plan highlighted that the current facility design, location and condition did not meet community needs. The building does not comply with current accessibility and compliance standards, and is nearing the end of its useful asset life. Facility usage statistics demonstrate limited utilisation.
38.	Great concept but am concerned about the extended car parking. Far better to have more parking on the Summer Street side of the Reserve rather than removing trees and having a car dominated entrance. There is a lot of public transport servicing the area so this should be encouraged rather than additional car parking areas. Mature trees should not be lost for additional car parking. More parking is not required. There is plenty of parking at both ends of the reserve and on Joel Terrace. Parking provision is currently is sufficient except for during major events. Additional parking and lighting on Joel Terrace will negatively impact adjacent residents. This will ruin the quiet, simple ambience now enjoyed by all visitors to the Reserve. High-level lighting will not discourage vandalism or any other criminal activity as those who are inclined to undertake anti-social behaviour would find it more convenient.	The New Facility Opportunity, including the associated car parking, remains subject to future feasibility and business case investigations, and envisaged to be a potential future stage of the Master Plan. The Master Plan focuses on improving existing car parking rather than significantly increasing car parking. As a ‘neighbourhood’ public open space it is agreed that walking and cycling access should be promoted. Feedback received during preparation of the Master Plan highlighted safety concerns, and provided the basis for improved lighting. Lighting locations and times will consider the proximity of adjacent residences.
39.	Angled parking on the eastern side of Joel Terrace is not supported as it encroaches into the Reserve. I do not support this. The area is routinely used for commuter parking.	Any additional parking associated with the New Facility Opportunity is intended to be located on the edge of Reserve, including Joel Terrace, rather than within Reserve. On-street parking occupancy directly informs the need for any parking restrictions in response to commuter parking.

GENERAL COMMENTS
	Comments Received	Administration Response
40.	The bulk of the works should be undertaken simultaneously as conducting works over several years will just prolong the inconvenience to users. The kayak storage and pop-up container café should be brought forward if possible. The first priority should be to replace the outdated building/toilets with a new building comprising a community hall, toilets and café. This should be located next to the Summers Street car park. The high priority implementation steps will not add much to the Reserve. It seems ridiculous to demolish the current hall and toilets before having funds to replace them with a new structure.	Master Plan implementation remains subject to consideration within the City’s Annual Budget and Long Term Financial Plan. Implementation priorities have been determined based upon a combination of current asset condition, community priorities, and practical staging.
41.	Not sure how the Plan relates to Noongar history. The Reserve has always attracted Aboriginal people. There is a need to retain and strengthen that, and do our bit for reconciliation.	A comprehensive analysis of the Reserve has been undertaken to reaffirm its cultural significance, and directly inform the Master Plan elements. This has included consultation with Noongar Elders and the Whadjuk Working Party, and that dialogue will continue through the implementation phase.
42.	Allocate funds to upgrade the Summers Street jetty. It has always been well utilised and it’s sad to see its degradation and closure. Funds could be better used for restoration of the two jetties within the Banks Precinct.	The jetty closure has strengthened the importance of providing opportunities for the community to interact with the river, and this is a key focus within the Master Plan. Reconstruction and reopening of the jetty remains subject to the City’s annual budget review process, and consideration of community benefits.
43.	Do not change the name of the Reserve. People who live around the park should have some say on what it should be called.	Any renaming or co-naming of the Reserve will remain subject to a separate process as per the various policies and standards for geographical naming in Western Australia. Community consultation is an essential part of that process.
44.	Money would be better spent on finding a use for the East Perth Power Station. Should the Power Station be used for residential development it would be appropriate for the City of Vincent to advocate that some of the site be used for community space and public open space to reduce pressure on Banks Reserve.	The East Power Station site is controlled by the State Government. Both the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority and Western Power were consulted during preparation of the Master Plan, and there are currently no confirmed development plans or timelines for the site.
45.	Money should not be allocated for a rehash of a park that local residents want to keep the same. A few upgrades are required but nobody wants to see this beautiful, natural park turned into an amusement/tourist drive in, drive out venue. There seems to be an opinion that the current Banks Reserve is underutilized and these new modifications will enhance and improve the reserve. As a daily user of the Reserve I am not of that opinion and feel efforts should be made to retain as much of the natural environment as possible. This park is beautiful and peaceful, and residents and visitors appreciate it for these attributes. There is no need to shrink the green space. The Plan appears too controlled resulting in very high maintenance costs for the City. Less is better. Trying to cram everything in would change the nature of the park. Councillors should visit the park to understand current use – it is a meeting place for those who often have very little social interaction. Banks Reserve is a unique place because of its simple, understated ambience that results from minimalist man-made structures and fantastic revegetation efforts that have rejuvenated the foreshore and the brook. The dog park is a magnet that brings a range of people together, from within and outside the Vincent community, and fosters these relationships. The proposed changes in the Master Plan will only damage not enhance the way the Reserve is used and loved by locals.	The Master Plan provides a coherent and coordinated vison to guide the future development and management of Banks Reserve. It has been prepared based upon the range of ideas, views and comments provided through community consultation. That consultation included surveys, workshops, pop-ups at community events, meetings with key stakeholder groups, onsite analysis of reserve usage, and site and cultural significance analysis. All feedback was considered and incorporated where possible and practical, however such projects always attract a wide range of views.
46.	The plan is silent as to the ongoing problem with traffic on Joel Terrace. The number of cars and speed of traffic must be addressed before increased use of Banks Reserve is encouraged.	The Master Plan focuses on improving existing car parking rather than significantly increasing car parking. As a ‘neighbourhood’ public open space it is agreed that walking and cycling access should be promoted. Traffic and car parking concerns have been noted and will be investigated further as part of the City’s Integrated Transport Strategy in 2018/19 and 2019/20.
47.	The Plan does not fully support the ‘Reconciliation Statement’ made not that long ago and captured on a plaque in the park. The natural beauty was to be retained but the Plan includes significant hard landscape works	The Master Plan recognises that Banks Reserve is a significant site for Aboriginal people, and has consulted with noongar Elders and the Whadjuk Working Party. The Master Plan aims to achieve improved amenity and functionality while retaining natural features and environmental assets.
48.	The Plan does not estimate operational costs after development and what kind of maintenance standard will be provided.	The City’s Asset Management and Parks Teams have been involved throughout the Master Plan process. Maintenance implications and life-cycle costs will inform decision making during the subsequent detailed design phases. It is acknowledged that effective asset management and maintenance of the Reserve remains an important City responsibility.
49.	More parking would be better along the switchyard off Summer Street. The Summers Street Car Park is often flooded so should be a priority for drainage works and resurfacing. Summers Street Car Park should be improved to reduce traffic into the park and maintain the concept of open space.	The Summer Street Car Park is essential to support Banks Reserve and the river foreshore generally. Upgrades have been identified as a high priority with funding included in the City’s 2018/19 capital works budget.

Whadjuk Working Party

Further consultation with the Whadjuk Working Party was an essential action during the public comment period. The Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan was presented to the Working Party on 21 November 2018. No major concerns or comments were put forward. The key outcome was that members of the Working Party expressed a desire to share stories and experiences of their time in the East Perth area. These stories will add significant value to the interpretive features and design elements at Banks Reserve, and Administration has committed to liaising with the Working Party to ensure this occurs. In addition, it was identified that the City must engage with the Working Party again prior to progressing any proposed renaming or co-naming of the Reserve.

Legal/Policy:

Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium: The Banks Reserve Master Plan has been prepared based on a comprehensive site planning and community consultation process. The recent public comment process has attracted a broad range of views and perspectives, both positive and negative, which now require consideration by both Council and Administration. While feedback from the public comment period has not led to any amendments to the Master Plan much of it remains valid and will be further assessed during the detail design phases that follow Council adoption.

Strategic Implications:

The Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan aligns with the following actions within the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028 as follows:

“Enhanced Environment

The natural environment contributes greatly to our inner-city community. We want to protect and enhance it, making best use of our natural resources for the benefit of current and future generations.

Accessible City

We want to be a leader in making it safe, easy, environmentally friendly and enjoyable to get around Vincent

Connected Community

We are diverse, welcoming and engaged community. We want to celebrate what makes us unique and connect with those around us to enhance our quality of life

Thriving Places

Our vibrant places and spaces are integral to our identity, economy and appeal. We want to create, enhance and promote great places and spaces for everyone to enjoy.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan aligns with the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016 as follows:

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

6.3.1 Continue to replant areas of City-owners land with local plant and tree species to increase food and habitat areas, including native fringing vegetation as faunal habitat areas.

6.3.4 Identify cultural ties between the indigenous flora/fauna and the local Aboriginal people, with a view to establishing indigenous cultural gardens.

6.3.9 Continue to ensure that information and signage incorporates information relating to the history, function and ecology of wetlands, as appropriate.”

Financial/Budget Implications:

The Master Plan includes proposed works and staged delivery over a number of financial years’ subject to consideration within the annual budget process and the long-term financial plan, as follows:

Proposed Works	Financial Year	Estimated Cost ($)
1. Summers Street car park upgrades	2018/19	120,000
2. Temporary Modus style toilets	2018/19	45,000
3. Wheelchair charging point	2018/19	10,000
4. Active Zone detailed design (including playground)	2018/19	30,000
5. Lighting upgrades	2018/19	70,000
6. Plaza and Boardwalk detailed design	2018/19	40,000
		315,000
7. Active Zone construction	2019/20	500,000
8. Boardwalk construction	2019/20	450,000
		950,000
9. Promenade upgrades	2020/21	150,000
10. Pavilion demolition	2020/21	50,000
11. Plaza construction	2020/21	430,000
12. Plaza lighting upgrades	2020/21	140,000
		770,000
13. Plaza Toilets, storage and pop-up café site preparation	2021/22	300,000
14. Active Zone oval path	2021/22	80,000
15. Walters Brook crossing	2021/22	70,000
		450,000
16. Community facility & car park extension	Future	2,500,000
		2,500,000

The total estimated cost for implementation of the Banks Reserve Master Plan is $4,985,000 or $2,485,000 excluding the new community facility, which remains subject to further feasibility and business case development. It should be noted that the above order of magnitude cost estimates will be further refined through detailed design and procurement phases upon Master Plan implementation.

Comments:

Banks Reserve is a highly valued public open space. This has been reaffirmed through the level of community engagement during preparation of the Master Plan and the range of feedback received during the recent public comment period. The Master Plan provides a coherent and coordinated vison to guide the future development and management of the Reserve, and implementation will ensure that community benefits from this high-quality natural asset are maximised.

Responses received throughout the public comment period were generally in support of the Master Plan although there were a number of submissions that were not supportive and/or raised concerns regarding specific elements. Many of these concerns will be considered and addressed through the detailed design phase for each Master Plan element. Other specific concerns have been comprehensively reviewed by Administration, and when balanced with key project findings and community feedback received during preparation of the Master Plan, no amendments or changes are necessary.

On that basis, it is recommended that Council adopt the Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan and Design Guidelines as shown in Attachments 1 and 2. While the Master Plan includes advice on the potential renaming or co-naming of Banks Reserve this still requires further analysis, dialogue with the Whadjuk Working Party, and consultation with the local community. It is recommended that Council authorise Administration to progress potential renaming or co-naming in accordance with the Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia, and Council Policy No. 4.1.18 – Naming of City Facilities, Streets, Parks, Reserves and Buildings.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

12.2 Draft Public Open Space Strategy - Public Comment Feedback

TRIM Ref: D18/169317

Author: Philippa Baker, Community Projects Officer

Authoriser: Michael Quirk, Director Community Engagement

Attachments: 1. Public Open Space Strategy December 2018 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the public comment submissions received in relation to the Draft Public Open Space Strategy; and

2. ADOPTS the Public Open Space Strategy as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To consider submissions received during the recent public comment period on the City’s Draft Public Open Space Strategy, and to seek Council adoption of the Strategy (Attachment 1).

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 13 November 2018, it was resolved that Council:

“1: RECEIVES the draft Public Open Space Strategy;

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to advertise the draft Public Open Space Strategy for public comment for a period of 14 days inviting written submissions in accordance with Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

3. NOTES that the Public Open Space Strategy will be subject to further formatting and styling, as determined by the Chief Executive Officer, prior to publication; and

4. NOTES that a further report will be submitted to the Ordinary Council Meeting in December 2018 in regard to any written submissions received during the public comment period.”

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the Draft Public Open Space Strategy was advertised for public comment for a period of 14 days between 14 November and 28 November 2018. The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness during the public comment period:

· Project page and online survey on the City’s Engagement HQ portal

· Posts on the City’s social media channels

· Public Notice in The Guardian and Perth Voice local newspapers

· Direct emails to previous survey respondents, Community Engagement Panel and stakeholders consulted during preparation of the Strategy

· Public Notices on the digital screens at the City’s Administration & Civic Centre, Beatty Park Leisure Centre and Vincent Library & Local History Centre

· Notice in the City’s November 2018 e-Newsletter

During the public comment period, there were 164 visitations to the Public Open Space (POS) Strategy project page on the Engagement HQ portal with 91 people downloading the Draft Strategy and 41 people visiting the online survey page. 10 submissions were received during the public comment period with seven being in support of the Draft Strategy, zero being opposed the draft Strategy, and 3 being unsure. Throughout the entire duration of the project there were 1,100 visitations to the Public Open Space Strategy project page on the Engagement HQ portal.

Based upon the feedback received Administration has made one amendment to the Strategy with ‘Figure 4: Access to any POS within the City of Vincent’ updated to resolve an anomaly with catchment mapping surrounding Hyde Park. Based on that amendment further formatting changes were then made to Figures 5, 6, 7 and 8 so that the POS hierarchy relevant to each map is more easily identified.

Administration is not proposing any further amendments to the Strategy although other feedback received may be relevant during Strategy implementation, and therefore has been noted for further consideration.

Consultation/Advertising:

A summary of the key comments within these public comment submissions is provided below:

	Comments Received	Administration Response
1.	The City is commended for its efforts to identify opportunities to improve POS in this already great locality. I have admired the efforts made in enhancing pedestrian and cycling infrastructure, providing extensive street tree plantings, supporting public art and activating the City's local centres.	Noted
2.	It is odd that the minimum size for the Local POS classification starts at 0.4ha or 4000sqm with many small-scale parks such as Hyde Street Reserve being less than 2000sqm. These small-scale parks have high patronage and value, and there should be a greater focus on providing such spaces more frequently within very localised contexts. These may be accommodated within underutilised spaces such as public car parks and excessive road reservations which do not require the City acquiring additional land.	The hierarchy utilised within the POS Strategy identifying Local POS as being between 0.4ha and 1ha is based upon the Classification Framework developed by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural industries. The bespoke POS Levels of Service includes Local Open Space as being between 0ha and 1ha. Opportunities to convert road reserves and other underutilised spaces as POS is listed as a Key Action within the Strategy (Key Action 7).
3.	Consider upgrading Lynton Street Reserve in Mount Hawthorn.	Based upon the POS audits and gaps analysis an upgrade to Lynton Street Reserve was considered a lower priority compared to increasing POS provision within Mount Hawthorn. Necessary upgrades to all POS will be identified and progressed on a prioritised basis through implementation of the Strategy (Key Action 10).
4.	Interested to see the individual spaces audit results and which underperforming spaces will be prioritised for works.	The key audit outputs in terms of accessibility, amenities, appearance, maintenance, safety and security from an independent audit of all POS throughout the City are included within Table 7. Necessary upgrades to all POS will be identified and progressed on a prioritised basis through implementation of the Strategy (Key Action 10).
5.	Data is informative although 'quality' of the open space does not appear in the results. An example is Monmouth Street Reserve which appears as a local park but is effectively a vacant lot with grass and no other amenities. Given the difficulties noted with land acquisition I would like to see conversion of road reserves to POS given greater priority.	The independent POS audit assessed all spaces in terms of accessibility, amenities, appearance, maintenance, safety and security. Necessary upgrades to each POS will be identified and progressed on a prioritised basis through implementation of the Strategy (Key Action 10). Opportunities to convert road reserves into POS is listed a Key Action within the Strategy with short/medium term priority (Key Action 7).
6.	It would be beneficial if the spatial analysis highlighted whether major roads impact POS accessibility as this impacts whether children or the elderly are able to safely access POS. The area of Mt Lawley bound by Walcott, Beaufort, Vincent and William Street is an example of a location where there is no POS within these major roads aside from the unusable Monmouth Street Reserve.	Sections 2.3 and 2.4 acknowledges accessibility issues prevalent within Vincent given the extensive distributor roads that act as a barrier. Implementation of the Strategy will include further review of the POS Gaps Analysis to directly inform acquisition priorities (Key Action 5) and POS upgrade priorities (Key Action 10).
7.	The community requirements findings are supported particularly that the largest portion of users access POS on foot highlighting the importance of walkable access, the value of shade and vegetation, the value of areas for quiet enjoyment and reflection, the need for well-designed small local parks, and the conversion of roads and car parks to POS.	Noted.
8.	Generally support the Key Actions, but would like to add the repurposing of City owned land (including car parks) within the suburb of Mt Lawley as there is a lack of localised POS. The conversion of road reserves to POS should be prioritised.	All opportunities to repurpose City owned land will be investigated and progressed through implementation of the Strategy (Key Action 4). Opportunities to convert road reserves into POS is listed a Key Action within the Strategy with short/medium term priority (Key Action 7).
9.	Clarification is required regarding the proposed repurposing of land back to POS where there are existing commercial/community based leases. There is not much City owned land available to repurpose.	All opportunities to repurpose City owned land will be investigated upon the expiry of existing lease arrangements although transitional arrangements may be required to reduce impacts on the various commercial and community based uses (Key Actions 4 and 8). The proposed repurposing of some sites to improve POS provision and accessibility includes both City owned and City controlled sites. Key Action 4 has been slightly reworded to reaffirm this approach.
10.	There are several mapping errors within the POS Strategy and the POS hierarchy maps are misleading as they fail to recognise that higher- level parks such as Hyde Park service all of the functions of local, neighbourhood, district and regional parks.	The mapping anomaly is acknowledged and has been amended within a revised ‘Figure 4: Access to any POS within the City of Vincent’ included within the Strategy. The mapping alone does not necessarily recognise the functionality of parks as while Hyde Park is classified as a regional POS it will be used as a local POS by nearby residents. Mapping is only one of the research elements used to inform the Strategy with industry trends, local government benchmarking, population demographics analysis, onsite audits and observations, scenario testing, and community consultation all directly influencing the Key Actions.
11.	I am glad to see mention of the need to consider the provision of habitat and biodiversity in the planning. This is very important as once lost they are very difficult to re-establish whereas sporting facilities are not. This POS Strategy and the Greening Vincent Plan are clearly strongly linked.	The POS Strategy forms part of the City’s Integrated Strategic planning Framework to ensure alignment with other key plans/strategies including the Greening Plan. In combination, the Strategy and Plan will contribute towards the ‘Enhanced Environment’ priority area within the City’s Strategic Community Plan.
12.	Concerned about any future development and commercialisation of Robertson Park. The park doesn't need a long term Development Plan and needs to be left alone as a park for the community. Birdwood Square should be used by community sporting clubs not for commercial use by the events industry. Hyde Park is being ruined by events and activities that involve amplified noise etc. which effects people wanting to use the park as a place for quiet retreat and relaxation. I strongly object to the use of the park as a cinema and an events venue.	Community feedback will be sought from nearby residents on the State Tennis Centre proposal at Robertson Park throughout December 2018 and January 2019, and Council will then further consider the matter. Birdwood Square provides limited functionality for sporting clubs, and therefore Key Action 32 within the Strategy identifies the opportunity to improve amenities so it can be used for a range of community events and recreation activities. As a regional POS Hyde Park is utilised for a wide range of activities including play, relaxation, recreation, functions and events. Key Action 27 within the Strategy identifies the opportunity to prepare a long-term plan for the park. While a balance between these activities is necessary, Hyde park will continue to attract a wide range of events given its size, location and amenities.
13.	I support the level of service analysis that appear logical.	The establishment of appropriate levels of service across the public open space hierarchy to guide decision making and ensure diversity across the open space network was a key objective of the Strategy. POS improvements, asset renewal and rationalisation will be directly informed by these levels of service (Key Actions 10 and 11).
14.	I love the idea of making many streets one way and tuning the closed lanes into parkland.	Noted. Opportunities to convert road reserves into POS is listed a Key Action within the Strategy with short/medium term priority (Key Action 7).
15.	The POS Classification Table should include bike ride time/distance in the catchment for district level open space. Statistics in Tables 3 and 4 are not consistent. The use of suburbs as a POS provision denominator is flawed. POS per 1,000 residents would be more effective than measuring POS as a percentage of land area.	Noted. Given the City’s commitment to alternative modes of transport, including cycling, this may have merit. Table 2 within the Draft Strategy is primarily based upon the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries POS Classification Framework. As that Framework does not include cycling and Administration has not accurately assessed the bike ride catchment for each POS classification level it has not been included in the Draft Strategy. Administration will investigate this recommendation further. It should be noted that Table 3 reflects POS in metres squared whereas Table 4 reflects POS in hectares. Administration and the Consultant, including the UWA Centre for Built Environment and health, identified the use of suburbs and POS as a percentage of land as suitable methodologies when interpreting data and mapping.

Legal/Policy:

Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The Draft Public Open Space Strategy has been prepared based upon comprehensive research and analysis and comprehensive consultation with the local community and a broad range of key stakeholders. The key actions proposed within the Strategy respond to a range of risks associated with the current provision and management of public open spaces throughout Vincent.

Strategic Implications:

The Draft Public Open Space Strategy aligns with the following priorities and outcomes within the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

“Enhanced Environment

· Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

· Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

Connected Community

· We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City.

· We recognise, engage and partner with the Whadjuk Noongar people and culture.

· Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

· We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

Thriving Places

· Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

· Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Innovative and Accountable

· Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The Draft Public Open Space Strategy aligns with the following objectives and actions within the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016:

“4. Ensure effective and efficient management of water supplies within the City

5. Protect and improve the quality of surface groundwater resources within the City

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

The Draft Public Open Space Strategy also aligns with the following objectives within the City’s Greening Plan 2018-2023:

“1. Increase canopy cover on public land

2. Enhance habitat and promote biodiversity.

3. Greening the town centres.

5. Greening the community.”

Financial/Budget Implications:

The draft Public Open Space Strategy includes a number of key actions and associated tasks that will be implemented across the short, medium and long term with funding to be allocated through the City’s annual budget process and Long Term Financial Plan. Administration will prepare an Implementation Plan to identify priorities along with associated resource and funding implications following adoption of the Strategy.

Comments:

Responses received during the public comment period were generally in support of the Draft Public Open Space Strategy with specific feedback to be considered further during Strategy implementation. It is recommended that Council adopt the Draft Public Open Space Strategy as shown in Attachment 1. The Strategy will then prioritise future investment and development of the City’s public open spaces to meet current/future community demands.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 December 2018

13.2 Leederville Gardens Inc. - Adoption of new rules of the Association

TRIM Ref: D18/179319

Author: John Paton, Manager - Office of the CEO

Authoriser: David MacLennan, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Leederville Gardens Inc. Constitution ⇩

2. Leederville Gardens Inc. - Draft Rules/Constitution 2018 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. CONSENTS to the new Rules of the Leederville Gardens Inc. as detailed in Attachment 2 and as approved by special resolution of the members of the Association on Friday 7 December 2018; and

2. ADVISES the Board of Management of Leederville Gardens Inc. of its decision in 1 above.

Purpose of Report:

To consider proposed amendments to the Rules (previously referenced as the Constitution) of Leederville Gardens Inc.

Background:

In 1991 the City of Perth promoted the formation of the Lake Monger Senior Citizens’ Centre and Homes (Inc), which was incorporated on 2 December 1991. A name change to Leederville Gardens Inc. (the Association) was subsequently registered on 26 June 1995. The Association was to develop and manage a retirement complex on land in Leederville, which was to be made available by the City and ownership transferred free of charge to the Association.

Leederville Gardens Retirement Village (the Village) is located at 37 Britannia Road, Leederville. Relevant property details are:

Lot: 100 on Diagram 83036

Certificate of Title: Volume 1939 Folio 303

Owner: Leederville Gardens Inc.

Area: 15,829m²

Land Use: Retirement Village

Development: 66 residential retirement units plus clubroom

The project was intended as a non-profit venture, with the original Constitution having the following stated objects of the Association:

“(1) To promote and undertake or assist in promoting and undertaking assistance for elderly people irrespective of creed, class or colour, within the City and without in any way limiting the generality of the foregoing provision the Association shall have power to do or assist in doing any of the following things, namely:

(a) To provide benevolent relief to elderly people by establishing and maintaining a club or clubs.

(b) To establish and maintain a meals delivery service.

(c) To organise and maintain a visiting service.

(d) To establish and maintain hostels, nursing homes and day care centres for the accommodation and care of aged and disabled persons entitled to relief under the Aged and Disabled Persons Homes Act 1954 as amended or any statute enacted in substitution thereof.

(2) To provide homes or housing within the City for those aged married couples or single persons who are, in the opinion of the Board, by reason of age, ill health, accident or infirmity, wholly or in part unable to maintain themselves by their own exertions.

(3) To promote and assist the general good of all elderly people in the City by assisting the work of statutory authorities and voluntary organisations engaged in respect of elderly people in providing facilities for physical and mental recreation, developing physical improvement, furthering health, relieving poverty, distress or sickness, or in pursuing any objects which are benevolent.

(4) To promote and organise co-operation in the achievement of the above purposes and to that end bring together in Committee representatives of the authorities and organisations engaged in the furtherance of the above purposes.

(5) To assist any other benevolent body or bodies financially or otherwise in furtherance of any of the above purposes.

(6) To promote and carry out or assist in promoting and carrying out surveys relating to the needs of elderly people and arrange for forwarding to the proper authorities and organisations the relevant facts regarding such cases and causes of distress as it appears to be within the power of those authorities and organisations to alleviate.

(7) To arrange and provide for or join in arranging and providing for the holding of exhibitions, meetings, lectures and classes in furtherance of the objects of the Association or any of them.”

The original Constitution provided an ongoing role for the City, being:

· An entitlement to nominate three representatives to be members of the Association, for the purpose of sitting on the Board of Management (clause 6);

· The approval of changes to the Constitution (clause 45); and

· The receipt of the audited ‘accumulated operating surplus’ of the Association into a Trust account for distribution to public benevolent institutions in the district (clause 46.3).

The Constitution provided for the establishment of a Board of Management (the Board), comprising “six members, three of which shall be persons appointed by the City from time to time”. The Board was to appoint a Chairman from among the three members appointed by the City, with each member of the Board entitled to one vote, “providing that in the case of an equality of votes the Chairman at the meeting shall have a second or casting vote”.

In 1998 the Constitution was amended to provide that the transfer of funds by way of Trust to the Town, is on the basis that “the Town deposit the excess in a particular Trust account and payments from that account shall be made to one or any of those organisations which:

(i) have similar aims and objectives to the Association;

(ii) exist for the acquisition, provision, maintenance, management or extension of the existing village operated by the Association, or the purchase or construction of a similar type of village for senior citizens within the Town’s boundaries; and

(iii) are covered by the provisions of section 78(4) and Item 4.1.1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act,

and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia shall be provided with a copy of the financial records of the Trust in each financial year at the completion of the audit referred to in clause 25.

If no organisation exists which satisfies the requirements set out in clause 46(3) the Town may transfer the excess in the manner set out in clause 46(3) to one or any of those organisations which:

(a) are covered by the provisions of section 78(4) and Item 4.1.1 of the Income Tax assessment Act; and

(b) are approved in writing by the Association as appropriate recipients of the excess prior to the transfer taking place.

A major review of the Constitution was commenced in 2003 and finalised in 2006. In a report to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 22 August 2006, it was indicated the “improvements [to the Constitution] included removing transitional clauses, re-wording the document in ‘plain English’ and adapting the Constitution so it better reflects the administrative requirements of the village”.

Council approved the amended Constitution (refer to Attachment 1) and at the Association’s 2006 AGM, a special resolution was then passed by the members endorsing the amended Constitution. Confirmation of lodgement of the amended Constitution was issued by the Department of Consumer and Employment Protection on 10 November 2006. Key changes to the Constitution included:

· The Objects of the Association were substantially reduced to reflect:

“3. The objects of the Association shall be:

(a) To establish and maintain housing, villages, flats apartments or similar accommodation specifically for the use enjoyment and well being of retired persons.

(b) To arrange and provide for or join in arranging and providing for the holding of exhibitions, meetings, lectures and classes in furtherance of the objects of the Association or any of them.”

· The Accumulated Operating Surplus (now clause 39, previously clause 46) was amended to change reference for the payment of the surplus to the ‘Town’ to be on the basis of a Trust requiring that the Town deposit the excess “in a particular reserve account”. In addition, subclause 39(3)(ii) was amended to read (tracked changes included for ease of comparison) –

(ii) exist for the acquisition, provision, maintenance, management or extension of ~~the~~ any existing ~~village~~ housing, villages, flats apartments or similar accommodation operated by the Association, or the purchase or construction of a similar type of ~~village~~ facility for senior citizens within the Town’s boundaries; and

In addition to the constitutional responsibilities, the City has played a significant role in the management of the Village, including being appointed as the Village Manager in 2002, providing all Board support and undertaking the role of Secretary and Treasurer from inception. In addition, until 2015 the City appointed Board members were selected from sitting Council Members. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held 15 November 2016, Council considered a detailed report on the City’s ongoing management of the Village and resolved:

“That Council ADVISES the Board of Leederville Gardens Inc. that the City:

1. INTENDS to withdraw from the role of Village Manager no later than 1 July 2017;

2. WILL ASSIST the Board in developing and undertaking an appropriate procurement process to identify suitably qualified and experienced providers to undertake the role of Village Manager, with a transition/handover period prior to the end of the financial year; and

3. REAFFIRMS its commitment to maintain a stewardship role with the Board, which could include providing ex-officio support to the Board or Board meetings.”

Details:

The Association is a registered charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. In line with the Council’s previous decisions to withdraw from direct management support of the Board and Village, the Board has been progressively enhancing its strategic management, including the appointment of a Board Advisor and Secretary to assist with the management of the Association and a Village Manager to oversee the day to day management of the Village.

The Association and Board continue to operate under the 2006 Constitution, however the introduction of the Associations Incorporation Act 2015 on 1 July 2016 imposed minimum requirements that associations must comply with. Model rules were introduced to simplify the compliance process and associations have three years from the introduction of the new Act to ensure that either their rules are consistent with the requirements or to adopt the new model rules.

The Board has prepared a draft set of Rules, based on the new model rules. The Associations Incorporation Act 2015 states that an incorporated association may alter its rules by special resolution, being at a general meeting of the association and by the votes of not less than three-fourths of the members who cast a vote at the meeting. The draft Constitution is due to be presented to a Special General Meeting of the Association on 7 December 2018.

Within one month after the passing of a special resolution altering its rules, an incorporated association must lodge the required documents with the Commissioner appointed under the Associations Incorporation Act 2015. The complexity in this instance, is that the current Constitution includes the following provision:

38. The Constitution of the Association may be altered, added to or repealed by a special resolution passed at any annual general or special meeting of members. Any such alteration, addition or repeal shall not become effective until such time as the written consent of the Town to the proposed alteration, addition or repeal is obtained.

The draft Rules is a full revision of the current Constitution, with the majority of the rules dealing with the business and processes of the Association. There are however a number of provisions that may interest or involve the City, including those that preserve the previously constituted role for the City. Reference to those specific rules, along with an Administration comment is detailed below.

3. Objects

The objects of the Association shall be:

· To provide independent living accommodation under a retirement village scheme in Western Australia through housing that is suitable for residents as they age;

· To provide a safe and healthy living environment which offers a high quality of life for residents as they age through the provision of homes, accommodation, facilities and related services;

· To provide care and support for the ageing and the aged;

· To provide a range of social, recreational and health and wellbeing services for residents (and the wider aged community where appropriate);

· To provide or facilitate in-home care and other services for residents where necessary, including personal care services, housekeeping services and meals;

· To work with other organisations, local authorities, and the State and Federal Governments to develop policies and programs that promote the well-being of residents;

· To preserve and improve the financial strength of the Association;

· To maintain and improve the village for the benefit of current and future residents;

· To act in a manner consistent with that of a charitable institution.

· To do all such things that are incidental or conducive to the attainment of any or all of the above objects.

Comment:

This is a significant expansion on the Objects specified in the current Constitution, and more in line with the original Constitution, albeit designed primarily to support residents of the Village.

13 Directors and office holders

(1) The Board shall, subject to rule 13(4) comprise up to:

(a) three community Directors appointed by the City under rule 18;

(b) two resident Directors elected by the members under rule 19; and

(c) one community Director elected by the members under rule 21.

Comment:

This is a minor change from clause 7 of the current Constitution, which provides for a Board comprising up to six (6) Board members, three (3) of whom shall be appointed by the Town and three (3) of whom shall be elected by the members. The draft Rules now specify that of the three Directors (previously referred to as Board members) elected by the Association members, two will be residents of the Village, with the other member being from the community, with appointment based on a selection criteria defined by the Board to ensure an appropriate level of competency and diversity on the Board.

Currently, the Constitution permits the Board to admit as members of the Association persons who by their particular skill set, knowledge or experience may be of assistance to either the Board or the Association and as a result, these members are available to be elected onto the Board. Currently two of the Board members have been elected under these circumstances.

14 Selection criteria

(1) The Board will review the selection criteria every year and send any revisions to the City.

(2) Once the City has agreed to the revised selection criteria they will remain in place until revised or new selection criteria are developed by the Board and approved by the City.

Comment:

This is a new provision to assist the selection process for Directors (Community Directors) based on what the Board considers to be the relevant skills, experience and attributes required for the Board.

18 Appointment of community Directors by the City

(1) The Secretary will give the City at least 90 days’ notice of the expiry of the term of office of each community Director appointed by the City.

(2) The City will run a search and selection process for each community Director to be appointed by the City, before that position becomes vacant, as follows:

(a) The City will use the selection criteria in its search and selection process.

(b) The City will provide a shortlist of potential appointees to the Board.

(c) The Board will interview the potential appointees and recommend to the City its preferred candidate for appointment to the Board.

(d) The City will appoint one (or more) of the potential appointees to the Board after taking into consideration the Board’s recommendation and the selection criteria.

(3) Where a community Director is eligible for reappointment and confirms their willingness to be reappointed, and the Board recommends that they be reappointed, the City may reappoint them without undertaking a search and selection process.

Comment:

This specifies a process for the City to apply for the appointment of community Directors, including the application of the approved selection criteria. The process includes shortlisting by the City and the opportunity for the Board to interview the shortlisted candidates and recommend to the City its preferred candidates. The City is to consider the Board’s recommendation, but the decision is ultimately Council’s.

This aligns to the process applied during the recent expression of interest process for the appointment of City nominated Board members.

22 Appointment of Chair and Deputy Chair

(1) The Board shall at its first meeting following every annual general meeting appoint a Chair from among the 3 community Directors appointed by the City, and a Deputy Chair from among any of the Directors who are not appointed as Chair.

(2) The Chair and Deputy Chair shall hold those offices until the first Board meeting held after the next annual general meeting, at which time they shall be eligible for reappointment if they continue to satisfy the criteria in rule 22(1) and confirm their willingness to be reappointed.

(3) A Director seeking to be appointed Chair or Deputy Chair shall not preside at the meeting at which the appointment is to be made until the appointment has been made.

Comment:

This provision is consistent with clause 10 in the current Constitution.

24 Resignation, cessation and removal from office

(4) The Board may, by resolution of 4 or more Directors passed in accordance with these rules, remove a person from being a Director if that person:

(a) is unwilling to act as a Director;

(b) breaches the Board’s code of conduct; or

(c) behaves in a manner that brings the Association into disrepute.

(5) When the Board removes a Director under subrule 4, it shall inform:

(a) the City, in the case a community Director appointed by the City; and

(b) the Management Committee, in the case of a Director elected at a general meeting.

Comment:

This provision is new and is an addition to the Model Rules. Whilst it covers all Director positions on the Board, the requirement for four or more Directors to vote in favour of the removal would necessitate at least one of the City appointed Directors to support the decision. It is likely that this type of resolution would only be required on rare occasions and when the effectiveness of the board is being adversely impacted.

25 Filling casual vacancies

(1) If a position of Director falls or remains vacant for any reason and:

(a) in the case of a community Director appointed by the City, the City has not appointed a person to fill that position; or

(b) in the case of a resident Director or a community Director elected at a general meeting, a person was not elected to that position at an annual general meeting,

then the Board may appoint a person to that position.

(2) The person appointed under this rule:

(a) in the case of a community Director, must be a person who is not a resident; and

(b) in the case of a resident Director, should preferably be a resident.

(3) When making an appointment to fill a casual vacancy, the Board shall take into consideration:

(a) in the case of a community Director, the selection criteria; and

(b) in the case of a resident Director, the views of the Management Committee.

(4) The term of office of the person so appointed will run until:

(a) in the case of a community Director appointed by the City, until the City makes an appointment under rule 18, provided that the term of office shall not exceed 3 years;

(b) in the case of a resident Director or a community Director elected at a general meeting, until the next annual general meeting.

(5) If there are fewer than 4 current Directors, the Board shall be deemed to have a quorum for the purpose of appointing Board members under this rule.

Comment:

This provision is new, but generally consistent with the Model Rules, but adapted to reflect the specific Board structure and appointment process.

51 Accumulated operating surplus

(1) In this clause:

(a) accumulated operating surplus means the total of the accumulated funds of the Association after deducting therefrom all amounts paid or allowed for capital expenditure and after paying or allowing for the operating expenses of the Association and includes all moneys received by way of deposits, contribution fees, gifts or donations and rental and maintenance charges but excludes reserves for the purchase, replacement or periodic maintenance of capital items or equipment, reserves for repayment of contribution fees or deposits or reserves arising out of a capital revaluation.

(b) base amount means in respect of a given financial year that amount which is calculated from the formula –

where CPI - O is the index number for the Consumer Price Index (All Groups) as published by the Commonwealth Bureau of Consensus and Statistics for the quarter ending 30 June 1992, and CPI - N is that index number for the quarter ending 30 June in that given financial year.

PROVIDED:

That if the reference base (or basis) of the index numbers used in calculating the value of CPI-O or CPI-N is changed, or if the Consumer Price Index (All Groups) is not calculated or published or calculation or publication is suspended then the Association’s auditor shall determine the most appropriate substitutes for both the reference base and/or the Consumer Price Index (All Groups).

(c) References to the Income Tax Assessment Act are to be read as references to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 (Cth) subject to the amendment, repeal and replacement of that legislation from time to time.

(2) Within five months after the end of each financial year the Association’s auditor shall certify to the Board the accumulated operating surplus and the base amount.

(3) If at the end of the financial year the amount of the accumulated operating surplus exceeds the base amount, then the Association shall within 30 days after receipt of the Association’s auditor’s certificate pay the amount of that excess to the City to be deposited by the City in a Particular Trust Account and disbursements therefrom shall only be made to public benevolent institutions which are located within the municipality of the City.

(4) If no organisation exists which satisfies the requirements set out in subrule (3) the City may transfer the excess to one or any of those organisations which:

(a) are covered by the provisions of section 78(4) and item 4.1.1 of the Income Tax Assessment Act; and

(b) are approved in writing by the Association as appropriate recipients of the excess prior to the transfer taking place.

and the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation in Western Australia shall be provided with a copy of the financial records of any such trust in each financial year at the completion of the audit referred to in rule 38(2)(b)(iii).

Comment:

This provision is generally consistent with clause 39 of the current Constitution, with the following exceptions:

· The base amount has been increased from $500,000 to $1,000,000. It is noted that the Association members resolved at the AGM held on 27 September 2007, to amend clause 39(b) of the Constitution by increasing the base amount to $1,000,000. Whilst Administration has found no record that this special resolution of the members was approved by Council or lodged with the Commissioner (required for the amendment to take effect), it has been taken into account in subsequent audits for the purpose of calculating the accumulated operating surplus. The $500,000 was included in the original Constitution, however it is unclear how that value was selected or indeed the basis for the Association’s decision to increase it to $1,000,000 in 2007.

· Sub-rule (3) specifies the surplus is to be deposited into a Trust Account, whereas the current Constitution provides for it to be deposited into a Reserve Account. A Trust Account is the correct treatment for these funds and consistent with the City’s current practice and Council’s resolution from the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 8 March 2016 (item 9.3.5).

· Sub-rule (3) also specifies that disbursements of the Trust funds shall only be made to public benevolent institutions which are located within the municipality of the City. This provision has been amended to bring it back in line with the original Constitution, rather than the highly restrictive provision that evolved through successive constitution amendments.

59 Alteration of rules

(1) These rules may be altered or rescinded by a special resolution passed at a general meeting and by otherwise complying with Part 3 Division 2 of the Act.

(2) Any such alteration or rescission shall not become effective until the written consent of the City to the proposed alteration or rescission is obtained.

(3) The consent of the City may be obtained before or after the alteration or rescission has been put to a general meeting.

Comment:

Subrule (1) is consistent with the Model Rules and legislation. Subrule (2) and (3) reflect the existing requirement for any amendments to be approved by the City (clause 38 of Constitution).

Consultation/Advertising:

The Board is required to consult with the members of the Association and provide a copy of the proposed amendment to each member at least 21 days prior to the general meeting of the Association.

There is no requirement for the City to consult outside of the Association.

Legal/Policy:

Associations Incorporation Act 2015

30. Alteration of rules

(1) Subject to sections 31 and 33, an incorporated association may alter its rules by special resolution but not otherwise.

(2) In this section, a reference to rules includes a reference to information provided under section 7(3)(b)(ii) or 29(5).

(3) Within one month after the passing of a special resolution altering its rules, or such further time as the Commissioner may in a particular case allow, an incorporated association must lodge the required documents with the Commissioner.

Risk Management Implications:

The endorsement of the Rules will ensure Leederville Gardens Inc. meets with the minimum requirements under the Associations Incorporation Act 2015.

Strategic Implications:

Supports the outcomes we are working towards in the City’s 2018-2028 Strategic Community Plan:

Connected Community:

· We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City.

Innovative and Accountable:

· We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

N/A

Financial/Budget Implications:

The City does not receive any financial benefit from the Association. The trust previously established by the Constitution between the Association and the City holds surplus funds which have been transferred to the City for disbursement in accordance with the trust.

Comments:

The original Constitution for Leederville Gardens Inc. and subsequent iterations maintained a stewardship role for the City over the management of the Association. The draft Rules preserve this status.

The draft Rules have been endorsed by the Board and are required to be presented in a special general meeting of the Association (scheduled for 7 December 2018). An update will be provided prior to the Council Meeting in the event there are any amendments arising from the special resolution at the general meeting.

Administration will arrange a workshop with Council Members to discuss the City’s future association with Leederville Gardens Inc. and the disbursement of the trust funds.

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ PAY PERIOD	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
Cheques	82434 - 82470	$9,840.00
Cancelled Cheques		$0.00
EFT and BPAY Payments	2317 – 2328 and 2330	$3,498,680.05
Sub Total		$3,508,520.05

Transfer of Payroll by EFT	22/10/18 Ad hoc	$825.40
	30/10/18	$620,238.10
	31/10/18 Ad hoc	$609.70
	13/11/18	$634,343.97
	October/November 2018	$1,256,017.17

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits
Lease Fees		$385.00
Loan Repayments		$148,540.85
Bank Charges – CBA		$28,556.32
Credit Cards		$6,499.05
Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)		$183,981.22

Total Payments		$4,948,518.44

Tender No.	Tender Description	Proposed Value
560/18	Design, supply and installation of rooftop solar photovoltaic systems for four City of Vincent facilities	$400,000
563/18	Mt Hawthorn Community Centre – Lesser Hall upgrade	$350,000