Agenda of Council Briefing - 29 January 2019

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

5.1 No. 118 (Lot: 89; D/P: 1823) Angove Street, North Perth - Mixed Use Development Comprising One Commercial Tenancy and Four Multiple Dwellings

TRIM Ref: D18/195962

Authors: Karsen Reynolds, Urban Planner

Kate Miller, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

Attachments: 1. Attachment 1 - Consultation and Location Plans

2. Attachment 2 - Development Plans ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Design Review Panel Comments ⇩

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

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

6. Attachment 6 - Applicant's Justification ⇩

7. Attachment 7 - Acoustic Report ⇩

8. Attachment 8 - Parking Management Plan ⇩

9. Attachment 9 - Environmentally Sustainable Design Report ⇩

10. Attachment 10 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for the proposed Mixed Use Development Comprising One Commercial Tenancy Four Multiple Dwellings at No. 118 (Lot: 89, D/P: 1823) Angove Street, North Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 10:

1. This decision constitutes development approval only and is valid for a period of two years from the date of approval. If the subject development is not substantially commenced within the two year period, the approval shall lapse and be of no further effect;

2. Use of Premises

The use of the tenancy on the ground floor indicated as ‘Office’, on the approved plans, shall only be used in accordance with their respective definitions in the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 as follows:

Office means premises used for administration, clerical, technical, professional or similar business activities;

3. Boundary Walls

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

5. Car Parking, Access and Bicycle Facilities

5.1 A minimum of five parking bays for the Multiple Dwellings shall be provided on-site;

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

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

5.4 The car park shall be used only by owners, visitors and tenants directly associated with the development;

5.5 Engineering drawings and specifications shall be submitted to and approved by the City’s, and works undertaken in accordance with the approved drawings and specifications for the construction of the on-street car parking bay within the Lake Street verge adjacent to the subject site. All costs associated with these works shall be at the owners cost, and shall be completed prior to the occupation of the development, to the satisfaction of the City;

5.6 Roller shutters and/or other screening devices to the basement parking area are to be visually permeable, to the satisfaction of the City; and

5.7 Bicycle racks shall be design in accordance with AS2890.3 and installed in the following locations to the satisfaction of the City:

· Two (2) bicycle racks shall be provided below the pedestrian stairs accessed from Farmer Street, as identified on the approved plan; and

· Two (2) bicycle racks shall be provided in front of the Office tenancy entry, as identified on the approved plan;

6. Parking Management Plan

Prior to the occupation of the development a Parking Management Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City. The Parking Management Plan is to include, but not limited to, the following:

· Detailed management measures for the operation of the vehicular entry gate, to ensure access is readily available for owners/visitors/tenants to the residential units at all times; and

The Parking Management Plan as identified in Condition 7.1 above shall be implemented, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Parking Management Plan and approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

7. Stormwater

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

8. Building Design

8.1 Windows and doors of the ground floor tenancy fronting Angove Street and Church Street shall provide an active and interactive relationship to the street to the satisfaction of the City and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City; and

8.2 Ground floor glazing and/or tinting shall be a minimum of 70 percent visually permeable to provide unobscured visibility. Darkened, obscured, mirrored or tinted glass or other similar materials as considered by the City is prohibited;

9. Acoustic Report and Noise Management

All of the recommended measures included in the approved Acoustic Report provided by Sealhurst Acoustic Design & Engineering dated 19 October 2018 shall be implemented 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;

10. Landscape and Reticulation Plan

10.1 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 of 15 percent deep soil area as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

· The provision of 80 percent of the side setback areas as canopy cover at maturity; and

· The appropriate selection of tree species (consistent with the City’s Tree Selection Tool) to be located within the deep soil areas to maximise the provision of canopy coverage;

10.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 11.1 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;

10.3 The landscaping works within the adjacent road verges are excluded from this approval. A further development approval is required to be obtained for any works proposed on land owned or managed by the City;

11. Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the commencement of development, a detailed schedule of external finishes (including materials, 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;

12. Clothes Drying Facilities

Each multiple dwelling shall be provided with a clothes drying area that shall be adequately screened in accordance with the Residential Design Codes prior to occupancy or use of the development and shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City;

13. 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 shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the development. The Construction Management Plan is required to address the following concerns that relate to any works to take place on the site:

· Public safety, amenity and site security;

· Contact details of essential site personnel;

· Construction operating hours;

· Noise control and vibration management;

· Dilapidation Reports of nearby properties;

· Air, sand and dust management;

· Stormwater and sediment control;

· Soil excavation method;

· Waste management and materials re-use;

· Traffic and access management;

· Parking arrangements for contractors and subcontractors;

· Consultation plan with nearby properties; and

· Compliance with AS4970-2009 relating to the protection of trees on the development site;

14. Waste Management

14.1 A Waste Management Plan prepared to the satisfaction of the City shall be submitted and approved by the City; and

14.2 Waste management for the development shall thereafter comply with the approved Waste Management Plan;

15. Visual Privacy

The obscure glazed awning windows are to be restricted to a maximum 0.3 metres opening;

16. Environmentally Sustainable Design Report

Prior to the issuing of an Occupancy Permit, the Applicant must implement the recommendations of the submitted Environmentally Sustainable Design Report so as to achieve a minimum 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction and 25 percent water reduction. All initiatives must be maintained for the duration of the development, to the satisfaction of the City; and

17. Cash in Lieu

A cash-in-lieu contribution shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of 0.63 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 being a contribution of $3,402 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.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a Mixed Use Development comprising One Office tenancy and four Multiple Dwellings at No. 118 Angove Street, North Perth (subject site).

Background:

The application proposes a three storey development comprising of one Office tenancy and four multiple dwellings. The commercial tenancy and car parking is located on the ground floor and four dwellings are located on the second and third levels.

Landowner:	Tiger Development International Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Chindarsi Architects
Date of Application:	3 October 2018 (amended plans submitted 18 December 2018)
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Mixed Use R Code: R60
Built Form Area:	Mixed Use
Existing Land Use:	Single House
Proposed Use Class:	Mixed Use Development (One commercial tenancy and four multiple dwellings)
Lot Area:	375.17m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located at No. 118 Angove Street, North Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. It currently accommodates a single storey dwelling. The subject site is bound to the north by Farmer Street, to the east by a mixed use property comprising an Office and Residential Dwelling (and listed on the City of Vincent Municipal Inventory as Management Category B), to the south by Angove Street and to the west by a commercial property.

The existing streetscape consists of pitched roofed dwellings, both single and two storey as well as some single storey commercial buildings. The dwellings have a variety of building materials including render, limestone and brickwork. The renders along the streetscape include white and grey, with the brickwork predominately being redbrick and sandstone.

The City received a development application seeking the approval for the construction of one commercial tenancy and four multiple dwellings on the subject site on 2 October 2018. The applicant agreed in writing on 21 December 2018 to extend the statutory timeframe in which to determine the application to 5 February 2018 as the City required additional information. The final plans were received by the City on 20 December 2018. The development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Land Use		ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Street Setbacks	ü
Plot Ratio		ü
Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall		ü
Ground Floor Design	ü
Building Design	ü
Pedestrian Access	ü
Service Area / External Fixtures	ü
Open Space		ü
Outdoor Living Areas	ü
Landscaping	ü
Awnings, Verandahs, Collonades		ü
Visual Privacy		ü
Parking & Access		ü
Solar Access	ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls	ü
Essential Facilities	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:

Land Use
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Local Planning Scheme No. 2 ‘P’ Use	Office – ‘D’ Use
Plot Ratio
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.1.1 Maximum 0.7 (262.62 square metres)	Plot ratio proposed: 0.88 (329 square metres)
Lot Boundary Setbacks
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Clause 1.2 Minimum side boundary setback for the third storey as per Table 5 of the R Codes (Minimum 3.0 metres)	Eastern Boundary: Third storey – 1.5 metres setback provided Western Boundary: Third storey – 1.5 metres setback provided.
Open Space
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 5.1.4 Minimum 45 percent open space required	34.5 percent open space proposed.
Awnings, Verandahs and Collonades
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Clause 1.5 Provide continuous awnings or an alternative pedestrian protection measure along the full length of the building frontage to the primary and secondary streets.	Awnings/pedestrian shelter to both Angove Street and Farmer Street are not continuous.
Visual Privacy
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Clause 6.4.1 Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces that have a floor level of more than 0.5 metres above natural ground level require a 6.0 metre cone of vision setback to any part of any other residential property.	Apartment 1a proposes a 2.4 metre cone of vision setback from the outdoor living terrace to the eastern boundary. Apartment 1a proposes a 3.3 metre cone of vision setback from the southern terrace to the eastern boundary. Apartment 2a proposes a 2.3 metre cone of vision setback from the balcony to the eastern boundary.

Car Parking
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements 0.63 bays (rounded to 1 bay) is required for the Office use.	Nil non-residential bays proposed.
Environmentally Sustainable Design
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy Clause 1.8 No deemed-to-comply standard. Local housing objectives and design principles assessment.	The applicant provided an Environmentally Sustainable Design report (ESD), included in Attachment 9. The ESD demonstrates a minimum 50 percent greenhouse gas reduction and 25 percent water reduction.

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 application was advertised for a period of 14 days between 23 November 2018 and 7 December 2018, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.5.1 – Community Consultation. The City received eight submissions; all objecting to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are as follows:

· Development results in building bulk;

· Adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties;

· Overlooking provided to adjoining properties;

· Overshadowing provided to adjoining properties;

· Adverse impacts to adjoining heritage dwelling;

· Materials and colours are not in keeping with the adjoining heritage dwelling;

· Lack of deep soil zones and canopy cover;

· Lack of parking available on site and on-street; and

· Overdevelopment of the site.

Following the community consultation period, the application submitted amended plans which provided additional landscaping to contribute to the deep soil areas and canopy coverage, amended materials and colours to better relate to those found within the streetscapes, and provided further written justification addressing the elements that required a Design Principles assessment.

A summary of submissions with Administrations and the Applicant’s response is provided in Attachment 4 and Attachment 5, respectively.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The development has been referred to DRP on three occasions, twice prior to lodgement on 20 July 2016 and 14 September 2016, and once following receipt of the application by Administration on 28 November 2018. Attachment 3 contains the development plans presented to the DRP and an extract of the minutes from each meeting.

The proposal was first presented to the DRP on 20 July 2016, with comments raised by the DRP summarised as follows:

· Improve the entry experience from Angove Street to the residential properties;

· The privacy screen on the first floor on the front terrace fronting Angove Street is not required and should be removed as the area is in direct street view;

· Provide an open style garage door that still provides security but also allows for greater interest, interaction and passive surveillance of the street and access to natural light and ventilation into the car parking area;

· Consider softening the flat privacy screen. Explore projecting the roof along the eastern side and linking it to an articulated screen at the rear. Consider making this a feature element of the design;

· Increase the length of the raking roof to connect to the rear section of the roof;

· Soft landscaping is to be further developed. Explore a canopy tree on the south western corner of the first floor terrace; and

· Maximise deep soil zones and creepers throughout the site. Explore potential for additional canopy tree within car parking zones on both the eastern and western central void areas.

On 14 September 2016, an amended design was presented to DRP, with the comments raised summarised as follows:

· Revise the colour and material of the balustrading fronting Angove Street to be more complementary with the fencing of the neighbouring heritage property; and

· Revise the colour and finish of the raised planter fronting Angove Street to be more complementary with the fencing of the neighbouring heritage property.

· The proposal was awarded Design Excellence.

On 28 November 2018, Administration presented the formal development plans to the DRP, with the comments raised summarised as follows:

· Aluminium privacy screen and stair balustrade offers a possible location for artwork or soft landscaping creepers to grow up;

· Consider adding more materiality from the surrounding context into the commercial tenancy façade along Angove Street at street level;

· Maintaining permeability to the perforation is encouraged;

· All opportunities to increase deep soil should be looked into to comply with the City’s landscaping requirements;

· Look at implementing planters on the balustrade/mesh for creepers on each level;

· Planting on the balustrade will need careful consideration in terms of maintenance and to uphold design integrity of the balustrade feature; and

· The general quality of the proposal is high and is supported pending consideration of minor comments as noted above.

Following the receipt of the DRP comments, the applicant, in December 2018, submitted amended plans for the City’s assessment. The amended plans received have addressed the comments above regarding landscaping, façade materiality, and balustrading permeability, and have resulted in a greater level of compliance with the R Codes. The amended plans are included in Attachment 2.

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 (Built Form Policy); and

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

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

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council as the development proposes a mixed use development, being three storeys in height.

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:

The City’s Strategic Plan 2018 – 2028 states:

“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:

As detailed within the table above, discretion is required for various elements. The proposed development has been considered against the relevant objectives and design principles below.

Land Use

Within the Mixed Use zone, Office is a ‘D’ use which is not permitted unless discretion is used to grant approval.

The objectives of the Mixed Use zone are as follows:

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

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

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

· To promote residential use as a vital and integral component of these mixed use zones;

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

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

The City did not receive specific community submissions relating to the permissibility of the office uses. In addition, the Office use is acceptable as it satisfies the objectives of the Mixed Use zone, as follows:

· The use is specifically listed as a compatible use within the objectives.

· The use is located on the street level and is compatible with the apartments located above, given the hours are complimentary, and provides services for the residents and the surrounding areas. The Office will provide a level of activity appropriate to the context of the Mixed Use zone of the subject site and the proximity to residential development; and

· The use will not generate nuisances detrimental to the amenity of the area or the residents of the development. The applicant has provided an Acoustic Report, included in Attachment 7, and concludes that the development is capable of complying with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997.

Plot Ratio

The application proposes a plot ratio of 0.88 (which equates to 329 square metres) in lieu of the Deemed-to-Comply maximum of 0.7 (which equates to 262.6 square metres).

In considering the acceptability of the plot ratio proposed, the following is noted:

· The City received community concerns with regards to the plot ratio resulting in excessive building bulk, overdevelopment of the site and adverse impacts on the adjoining heritage building.

· The development incorporates design measures so as to mitigate building bulk impacts, including the setting back of the upper floors, the provision of articulated facades through the use of major and minor openings, balconies, contrasting materials, different roof typologies, and the incorporation of landscaping.

· In considering the bulk and scale, the development is consistent with the future desired built form within the Mixed Use Built Form Area as envisaged by Council’s Built Form Policy.

· The proposal involves the provision of three storeys in lieu of the permitted four storeys.

· In considering the impact of the development on the heritage property to the east, the provision of articulated facades and complimentary colours and materials assist in the reduction of building bulk and mass and the sandstone and face brick materials complement the heritage features of the abutting site.

The plot ratio proposed satisfies the relevant design principles of the R Codes, and is acceptable.

Lot Boundary Setbacks

The application proposes 1.5 metre setbacks in lieu of the required 3.0 metre setbacks from the third storey walls to both the eastern and western boundaries.

In considering the acceptability of the building setbacks, the following is noted:

· The City received submissions which raised concerns with the aesthetic impact and bulky appearance of the building as a result of the setbacks, and impacts relating to amenity, overlooking and overshadowing. Concerns were also raised in relation to adverse impacts to the adjoining eastern heritage dwelling.

· The adjoining western property at No. 120 Angove Street is a commercial property.

· The adjoining eastern property at No. 116 Angove Street is a mixed-use building comprising of an Office and Single House, with the Office situated on the western side of the building and the residence situated on the eastern side.

· The eastern and western elevations provide articulated façades with openings and balconies to mitigate building bulk. The building has also been stepped back as the height increases with landscaping incorporated around the perimeter to further soften the building edge. The eastern and western elevations also incorporate a number of contrasting materials such as Colorbond steel cladding; acrylic textures; feature face brick work; and render with paint finish, which break up the appearance of the walls when viewed from the adjoining properties and the street. A copy of the proposed materials and colours schedule is included in Attachment 2.

· On the eastern façade, wall on unit 2a (third storey) has been tilted back as a mansard roof to further ameliorate the appearance with the building bulk and overshadowing on the adjoining eastern heritage property.

· The upper floors have been stepped back to allow for natural light and ventilation.

· The major openings have been setback to reduce the impact of any overlooking. The adjoining western property is not a residential property and therefore the visual privacy requirements of the R Codes are not applicable. The eastern property is a mixed use building, with overlooking proposed to the commercial component of the dwelling.

· The application proposes landscaping on the second storey of the development which will assist in alleviating impacts of building bulk and mass.

· The development proposes outdoor living areas which meet or exceed the requirements of the R Codes.

The boundary setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles of the R Codes, and is acceptable.

Open Space

The proposal does not comply with the R Code requirements for open space. Table 4 of the R Codes requires a minimum of 45 percent open space and the application proposes 34.5 percent.

The Design Principles require open space to be provided so that the development respects the existing or preferred neighbourhood character and responds to the natural features of the site. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

· The application proposes each dwelling to be provided with a balcony, which although excluded as open space, provides areas external to the dwellings for use by the residents.

· The application proposes deep soil zones on the roof of the first storey, adjacent to the street boundaries. Whilst these areas do not contribute to the open space calculation (as they are raised greater than 0.5 metres above natural ground level) they will accommodate landscaping and will assist in creating a sense of open space between buildings.

· The site is permitted to have boundary walls to both street boundaries for the first three storeys. In considering the development potential of the site, the application proposes large areas of open space addressing both street frontages. This respects the established, undeveloped streetscape which currently comprises single houses with large frontages and rear yards.

The open space provided on site meets the Design Principle requirements of Clause 6.1.5 and is acceptable.

Awnings, Verandahs and Collonades

The City’s Built Form Policy requires continuous awnings or an alternative pedestrian protection measure along the full length of the building frontage to the primary and secondary streets. The application proposes forms of pedestrian shelter along the Angove Street and Farmer Street frontage but the awnings/pedestrian shelters are not provided along the entire length of each frontage.

Continuous awnings/pedestrian protection is not provided to Angove Street but the entrance to the non‑residential tenancy has been provided with shelter to allow for pedestrian refuge and protection from the elements. Pedestrian shelter has also been provided over the visitor parking bay, bicycle bays, portions of the driveway, and entrance to the building to Farmer Street, which again ensure that shelter is provided for pedestrian protection and refuge from the elements. The pedestrian shelter to both street frontages have been designed to ensure pedestrian connectivity is not obstructed and clear access is provided between private and public spaces.

No. 116 Angove Street in listed on the City’s Municipal Inventory as Management Category B. The City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties (Heritage Management Policy) recommends conservation of properties under this management category. It is therefore unlikely the property would obtain development approval to be demolished and redeveloped in the future. For this reason, a continuous awning along this section of Angove Street is unlikely to be achieved.

The proposal satisfies the design principles and local housing objectives relating to Awnings, Verandahs and Collonades under the Built Form Policy and on this basis, the proposed pedestrian shelter is supported.

Visual Privacy

The application does not meet the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes relating to visual privacy, as it affects the property to the east. The associated design principles of the R Codes require development to be designed so as to minimise direct overlooking of active habitable spaces and outdoor living area of adjacent dwellings. In considering this matter, the following is relevant:

· The City received a submission from the adjoining property to the east which raised concerns relating to visual privacy.

· The eastern property (No. 116) is a mixed use building, with overlooking proposed to the commercial component of the dwelling.

· The cone of vision from the southern terrace of Apartment 1a will fall onto the front setback area of the adjoining property and over windows to front office, which is a non-residential component of the building. There will be no impact on any habitable rooms with major openings or active open spaces. The front office windows are also already visible from Angove Street.

· The northern balcony of Apartment 1a (raised outdoor living area) is angled away from the eastern adjoining properties rear outdoor living area so as to minimise impacts of direct overlooking and loss of privacy. The cone of vision will fall onto the parking spaces of the adjoining site accessed from Farmer Street; having no impact any habitable rooms with major openings or active open spaces.

· The northern balcony (raised outdoor living area) of Apartment 2a is angled away from the eastern adjoining properties rear outdoor living area so as to minimise impacts of direct overlooking and loss of privacy. The cone of vision will fall onto the parking spaces of the adjoining site accessed from Farmer Street and have no impact any habitable rooms with major openings or active open spaces.

The development satisfies the design principles of the R Codes as the subject cones of vision do not affect active habitable spaces and outdoor living areas of the adjoining properties. The variation is acceptable.

Car Parking

Suitability of Proposed Car Parking

The application proposes a one bay shortfall associated with the Office use. The City received submissions which raised concerns over the number of bays being inadequate for the non-residential aspects of the application, and the potential impact on existing on-street parking as a result.

To support the proposal, the applicant submitted justification (included as Attachment 6) and a parking management plan in accordance with the Non-Residential Development Parking Policy (included as Attachment 8).The justification for the proposed shortfall is summarised below:

· The non-residential component of the development has a small net lettable area (NLA) of 27 square metres. The NLA of the tenancy is consistent with similar tenancies nearby which have expected similar parking arrangements;

· The subject site is within walking distance of high frequency bus routes along Charles Street and Fitzgerald Street. The subject site is also walking distance from the North Perth activity precinct;

· There are continuous on-street parking spaces available on both sides of Angove Street with 5 hour parking limits from 8:00am to 6:00pm;

· There is public car parking lots within walking distance of the site that have the ability to be utilised for off street parking (Nos. 1 – 3 Pansy Street, North Perth);

· A total of four bike parking spaces are provided on site, two of which are located for the non-residential use, and two which are located for use of residents. The two spaces provided for the non-residential use exceeds the Non-Residential Parking Policy requirements, which require nil bays for the non-residential tenancy; and

· Taking into account the proximity of the subject site to the high frequency public transport, the non-residential tenancy will not require the provision of a dedicated bays. The on-street parking along Angove Street is adequate for the purpose of providing any required parking for the non-residential tenancy staff and customers.

In addition to the above, the following is relevant:

· There are a number of on-street parking options in close proximity to the subject site, which are time restricted including:

o 25 bays along Angove Street between Charles Street and Vine Street. Between 8:00am and 6:00pm these bays have a five hour time limit, and there is no time limit outside of these hours;

o 20 bays along Farmer Street between Angove Street and Mignonette Street. Two of these bays have a two hour time limit between 8am and 5pm, while the other 18 bays have no time limit applicable.

· Additional on-street parking is located in the wider locality, along with one off-street public car park located approximately 100 metres to the north-west of the subject site which provides for 24 hour parking Monday to Sunday (No. 1 – 3 Pansy Street, North Perth). This is considered to assist in providing sufficient parking to cater for visitors to the non-residential use;

· The development provides for a greater number of bicycle parking spaces than those required under the R Codes and Parking Policy. While there is no dedicated cycle lane along Angove Street, there are shared paths available along Angove Street to the south, Farmer Street to the North, and Charles Street to the west;

· The subject site is well serviced by public transport, with the site being approximately 100 metres from high frequency bus routes along Charles Street, and 500 metres from high frequency bus routes along Fitzgerald Street; and

· The subject site is in close proximity to high amenity areas, including approximately 400 metres from the North Perth activity precinct, and 1.5 kilometres from Northbridge, Leederville and Mount Lawley. Along with the network of pedestrian paths in the area, the subject site is highly accessible by pedestrians.

The development provides sufficient on-site parking for residents and visitors of the apartments. There is also sufficient on and off-street car parking available in the vicinity of the premises, as well as alternative modes of transport including walking, cycling and public transport. The car parking provided satisfies the objectives of the Non-Residential Development Parking Policy and is acceptable.

Cash-in-Lieu

Given that the non-residential use is supported by car parking provided within the public realm, it is reasonable to impose a condition requiring a cash-in-lieu contribution. The application involves a 0.63 bay shortfall which is equivalent to a contribution of $3,402. If the application is approved, it is recommended that a condition be imposed to that effect.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

The City’s Built Form Policy requires an Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) Report to be submitted, demonstrating the following:

P1.8.1 It maximises passive solar heating, cooling, natural ventilation and light penetration to reduce energy consumption;

P1.8.2 It is capable of recovery and re-use of rainwater, storm water, grey water and/or black water for non-potable water applications;

P1.8.3 Climate moderation devices can be incorporated to reduce passive solar gain in summer and increase passive solar gain in winter; and

P1.8.4 The development is capable of either achieving (i) a 5 star Green Star rating or (ii) a 50 percent reduction in global warming potential and a 25 percent reduction in water use.

The applicant has provided an ESD report to address the above provisions, which is included as Attachment 9. This Report lists the design strategies that will achieve the proposed greenhouse gas reduction and water use targets, and addresses the design principles and local housing objectives of Clause 1.8 of the Built Form Policy.

Landscaping

The proposal involves 16.8 percent deep soil zone, which meets the requirements of the Built Form Policy.

The Built Form Policy requires 80% of the rear or side setback area to be provided as canopy cover at maturity. The applicant provided a Landscape Plan by a registered Landscape Architect as part of the original application and Administration was satisfied that the species proposed met the City’s requirements in terms of water wise plant and tree selection. The applicant has not updated the Plan to reflect the amended proposal and therefore has not demonstrated whether the canopy cover requirement has been satisfied, although it is estimated that 81 percent canopy cover can be provided within the western side setback area, 88 percent within the eastern side setback area and 83 percent within the Farmer Street (rear) setback area. The applicant has agreed to a condition being imposed requiring canopy cover to meet Council’s Policy requirement.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

5.2 Shop 1 Nos. 228-232 (Lot: 88; D/P: 38153) Carr Place Carr Place, Leederville - Change of Use from Eating House to Tavern

TRIM Ref: D18/191040

Author: Stephanie Norgaard, Urban Planner

Authoriser: Jay Naidoo, Manager Development & Design

Ward: South

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

2. Attachment 2 - Development Plans ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Venue Management Plan ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - 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 Eating House to Tavern at Shop 1, Nos. 228-232 (Lot: 88; D/P: 38153) Carr Place, Leederville, 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 Eating House to Tavern on the approved plans dated 9 October 2018. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2 A maximum of 126 patrons shall occupy the Tavern at any one time; and

1.3 The hours of operation shall be limited to:

· 11:30am to 12:00am Monday to Saturday; and

· 11:30am to 10:00pm Sundays and Public Holidays;

2. Car Parking

Prior to the use commencing:

2.1 Details confirming that at least 14 of the on-site car parking bays are available for use by patrons of the tenancy during hours of operation shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the use commencing; or

2.2 A cash-in-lieu contribution shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of 14.12 car bays, based on the cost of $5,400 per bay as set out in the City’s 2017/2018 Schedule of Fees and Charges being a contribution of $76,259 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;

3. Bicycle Parking

A minimum of three short term bicycle bays shall be provided and designed in accordance with AS2890.3 prior to the Tavern use commencing;

4. Venue Management Plan

An amended Venue Management Plan prepared in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises and to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the use; and

5. Waste Management Plan

A Waste Management Plan confirming the bin store is of sufficient size and adequate for the waste generated from the proposed Tavern shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the commencement of the use. The bin store shall be provided in accordance with the plan approved by the City prior to the use of the Tavern and thereafter maintained to the satisfaction of the City.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Eating House to Tavern at Shop 1 Nos. 228-232 Carr Place, Leederville (subject tenancy).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to change the use of the subject tenancy from an Eating House to a Tavern. The business currently operating from the subject tenancy is La Vida Urbana, a venue that serves authentic Mexican cuisine. The Tavern is proposed to continue to operate as La Vida Urbana.

The Tavern is proposed to operate Monday to Sunday from 11:30am – 12:00am with the exception of public holidays, which will operate within the permitted public holiday trading hours. A maximum of 200 customers and 12 staff members are proposed to be on site at any one time. The application does not propose to modify the external façade of the building.

Background:

Landowner:	Maria Grinceri
Applicant:	La Vida Urbana
Date of Application:	9 October 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Regional Centre
Built Form Area:	Town Centre
Existing Land Use:	Eating House
Proposed Use Class:	Tavern – ‘A’ use
Lot Area:	1069m² site area and 180m² tenancy total floor area
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located within the Leederville Town Centre and is in the Entertainment Precinct of the Leederville Town Centre Masterplan & Built Form Guidelines. The subject site comprises of a three-storey mixed use building with 23 on-site car parking bays located to the rear of the building. 20 of these car parking bays are located behind security gates and currently sign-posted as being reserved for parking associated with other tenancies on-site. The remaining three car bays on-site are not sign-posted and are not located behind security access. The applicant has advised that currently La Vida Urbana does not have access to any on-site parking bays.

The building contains two eating houses on the ground level and offices on the upper two levels. The site is bound by an unnamed dedicated right of way to the north, Carr Place to the south, a mixed use building to the east and the Leederville Hotel to the west. The area further to the west of the site is characterised by a mix of single houses, grouped dwellings and mixed use developments. The location of the subject site is included in Attachment 1.

The subject site is in single ownership and contained in a single deposited plan. The tenancies located on the subject site are not strata tenancies and the car bays located at the rear of the subject site have not been formally allocated to each tenancy in a strata plan.

A copy of the development plans has been provided as Attachment 2, the applicant’s venue management plan has been provided as Attachment 3 and the applicant’s parking management plan has been included as Attachment 4.

Approval History

A summary of previous development approvals issued for the site is as follows:

· On 26 August 2003, Council at its Ordinary Meeting conditionally approved an application for a three-storey mixed use development comprising of one Eating House, two Shops and two Offices. The subject tenancy was approved as a Shop. The development resulted in an overall car parking shortfall of 5.17 car bays. A cash in lieu contribution for the car parking shortfall was imposed as a condition of approval. The cash in lieu contribution was paid to the City for the car parking shortfall.

· On 26 April 2005, Council at its Ordinary Meeting conditionally approved an application for a change of use from Shop to Eating House that included the subject tenancy. The proposal resulted in the entire development having an overall car parking shortfall of 5.92 car bays. A cash in lieu contribution for the car parking shortfall was imposed as a condition of approval. This application resulted in the former two Shop tenancies and one Eating House on the ground floor of the development being approved as an Eating House.

· On 26 July 2005, Council at its Ordinary Meeting considered an application seeking a reconsideration of the car parking cash in lieu amount imposed as a condition in the 26 April 2005 development approval issued by Council. The cash in lieu contribution for the 5.92 car bays was affirmed by Council.

· The cash in lieu contribution condition imposed as part Council’s decision was appealed to the State Administrative Tribunal. Council subsequently reconsidered the matter at its 13 September 2005 Ordinary Meeting. Council resolved to approve a reduction in the car parking cash in lieu amount to the equivalent of 2.46 car bays. The required cash in lieu amount was paid to the City.

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. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy) and the City’s Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises (Licensed Premises 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
Bicycle Parking		ü
Hours of Operation		ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

“P” Use

“A” Use

Car Parking
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Car Bays 0.15 car parking bays per person 30 car bays (based on 200 patrons) Bicycle Bays Short Term: 4 bicycle bays (3.8) Long Term: 9 bicycle bays (8.4)	Car Bays Nil available on-site Bicycle Bays Short Term: Nil Long Term: 7 bicycle bays
Hours of Operation
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises Sunday: 7:00am – 10:00pm	Sunday: 11:30am – 12:00am

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 21 days from 8 November 2018 to 29 November 2018. The method of consultation included a sign being placed on site, a notice being placed in the local newspaper and 59 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 one submission in support of the proposal and one submission in objection to the proposal. The submission received in support did not provide comments on the proposal. The submission received in objection raised the following concerns:

· Appropriateness of the land use;

· Impact on amenity;

· Antisocial behaviour;

· Car parking; and

· Hours of operation.

A summary of submissions and Administration’s response 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;

· Leederville Town Centre Masterplan & Built Form Guidelines;

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

· Policy No. 7.5.7 – Licensed Premises; and

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register.

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:

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 and surrounding area is zoned District Centre under the City’s LPS2. The proposed Tavern land use is an ‘A’ listed use within the District Centre zone, meaning the use is not permitted unless Council exercises its discretion.

During the consultation period, a submission was received objecting to the proposed land use and highlighting the lack of information provided by the applicant to justify the operations of the Tavern. The submission also objected to the intensification of the existing Eating House and the impact the proposal will have on the amenity of the surrounding area.

In considering the appropriateness of the use, Council shall have regard to the objectives of the District Centre zone under LPS2, as follows

· 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 areas for public 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.

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

· The subject site has an existing approval for an Eating House, and is located in the Leederville Town Centre and the area is characterised by commercial development. This means that the proposal will not encroach into any predominantly residential area;

· The proposed development does not involve any external modifications to the existing building, which provides a high level of glazing to Carr Place and facilitates activity and surveillance to the street;

· The proposal does not provide for any on-site car parking which encourages customers and staff to consider utilising alternative modes of transport such as the nearby train station and bus routes;

· The City’s Licensed Premises Policy identifies licensed premises as being concentrated within Town Centre areas and being the most compatible for these uses;

· The site is highly accessible by public transport being located within approximately 250 metres of the Leederville Train Station and 80 metres from the Oxford Street high frequency bus route; and

· The development contributes to the diversity of entertainment uses within the Leederville Town Centre and supports employment opportunities.

Hours of Operation

The operating hours proposed in the application for the Eating House previously approved for this tenancy were Monday to Sunday from 9.00am to 12.00am. Trading hours for an Eating House (now termed Restaurant/Café) are unrestricted under the Licensed Premises Policy.

The City’s Licensed Premises Policy provides a guide for appropriate operating hours in various zones. It does not give any indication for the appropriate hours for Taverns within the Regional Centre zone as the Policy was adopted in 2014, prior to the gazettal of LPS2 which introduced the Regional Centre Zone. It is appropriate to apply the District Centre zone trading hours of the Policy to the Regional Centre zone.

The City’s Licensed Premises Policy permits the following trading hours for Taverns located within the District Centre zone:

· 7:00am -12:00am for Mondays to Saturdays; and

· 7:00am - 10:00pm for Sundays.

The application proposes the use to operate from 11:30am to 12.00am seven days a week, with the exception of Good Friday, Anzac Day and Christmas Day. The applicant has provided a Venue Management Plan as required under the Licensed Premises Policy addressing car parking and transport options, hours of operation, patron and anti-social behaviour, noise control and rubbish disposal. The Venue Management Plan is included as Attachment 3.

The trading hours proposed for Sundays are inconsistent with the City’s Licensed Premises Policy requirements and not supported. A condition of approval has been recommended to be imposed aligning the trading hours on Sundays and public holidays with the Policy. Should the applicant seek to trade outside of these hours, an extended trading permit may be applied for and considered by the Department of Racing, Gaming and Liquor. Where an Extended Trading Permit is sought, the Licenced Premises Policy requires development approval to vary the extension of hours, along with the submission of a management plan. Additionally, a copy of the Public Interest Assessment submitted to the DRGL as part of the Extended Trading Permit application is also required to be provided.

Car Parking

In accordance with the City’s Parking Policy, a Tavern use is required to provide 0.15 car bays per person accommodated on-site. This results in a requirement of 30 car bays for the Tavern based on the proposed maximum capacity of 200 patrons. The proposed Tavern use will not have access to any of the car parking bays available on-site and therefore nil bays are provided.

A Parking Management Plan (PMP) has been prepared and submitted by the applicant. This is included as Attachment 4. The PMP identifies that the site is in proximity to the Leederville Train Station and bus routes through Leederville. Car parking and alternate modes of transport to the site is outlined in the applicant’s Venue Management Plan. The applicant refers to various modes of transport available to patrons such as public transport, taxis and ride sharing, public car parking, and via bicycle and walking as part of this. The applicant confirms in both the PMP and venue management plan that the subject tenancy has no access to on-site car parking.

During the consultation period, a submission was received objecting to the proposal and raising concerns in regards to the provision of car parking and the impact the car parking shortfall will have on the availability of the public and private car parks.

In considering the matter, the following is relevant:

· The development approval for an Eating House did not condition a maximum number of patrons permitted to be accommodated at any one time. The Eating House approval limited the total floor area accessible by patrons to 190 square metres. The proposed Tavern has a floor area accessible by patrons of approximately 172 square metres.

· The car parking requirement for an Eating House under the previous Parking Policy that was applicable when the application for a change of use to Eating House was considered at the time was calculated based on floor area. The approved Eating House required a total of 43 (42.2) car parking bays. Applying adjustment factors applicable under the previous Parking Policy, 21 (20.85) car bays were required for the tenancy. This amount of car parking accounted for adjustment factors relating to proximity to rail station, bus stop, public car parks, location within a District Centre zone and availability of bicycle parking facilities. The Office tenancies on the site required 10 (9.88) car bays after adjustment factors. Therefore the total car parking requirement for the development was 31 (30.73) car bays.

· Minus the 23 on-site car parking bays, Council resolved to approve a cash-in-lieu contribution equivalent to a total of 7.63 car bays to address the car parking shortfall on-site. This was subsequently paid and eliminated the car parking shortfall.

· Proportionately for the approximate 172 square metres of Tavern floor area accessible by patrons, it would have generated the demand for 19 (18.88) of the 31 car parking bays that were required when the previous change of use application was approved. The floor area of the Eating House would have generated the need for 15.60 car bays. The portion of the approved Eating House that the Tavern applies to would have generated the need for 14.12 of the 23 car bays approved and available on-site.

· The car parking requirement under the current Parking Policy for a Tavern is calculated at a rate of 0.15 per persons accommodated. This means that for the proportionate share of 18.88 car bays previously required for the 172 square metres of floor area, it would enable a maximum of 125.8 (126) patrons to be accommodated within the premises for a Tavern use.

· The City’s current Parking Policy has the same car parking requirements for a Tavern and Restaurant/Café (formerly Eating House) land uses.

· The 23 on-site parking bays approved for the site was to support the overall car parking demands of all tenancies in the development, including the Eating House. The applicant has indicated the proposed Tavern will not have access to any of the 23 on-site car bays. This is inconsistent with Council’s previous approvals pertaining to the site and this tenancy, and means that there will be no car parking bays on-site available for the proposed Tavern. This will result in a significant on-site car parking shortfall.

· The subject site is located within the Leederville Town Centre and is well serviced by public transport. The subject site is 250 metres from the Leederville Train Station and 80 metres from the Oxford Street high frequency bus route.

· The subject site is in close proximity to off-site car parking facilities. The site is located 140 metres from the Frame Court public car park which contains 170 car parking bays, directly adjacent to the Leederville Hotel car park which contains 66 car bays, and 150 metres from the Avenue public car park which contains 279 car bays.

· Carr Place contains a number of on-street car bays. Five one-hour time limited on-street car bays are located along Carr Place nearby the subject site; and nine two-hour time limited bays are located on the opposite side of Carr Place adjacent to the subject site.

· There are similar land uses within the locality that will potentially attract the same patrons, who may choose to attend a number of the venues in a single visit to the area.

· The PMP provided by the applicant does not demonstrate how car parking for the site will be managed for staff or patrons. Car parking demands for patrons driving to the tenancy are also proposed to be fulfilled based on the availability of off-site parking and therefore complete reliance on public car parking facilities.

· A cash-in-lieu contribution for the 30 car bays required under the current Parking Policy would amount to a payment of $162,000 (at a rate of $5,400 per bay). A cash in lieu contribution for the 14.12 car bays that the Eating House proportionately generated the need for based on the 23 car parking bays approved on-site equates to approximately $76,259.

It is not appropriate to support any increase in intensity for the proposed Tavern that will result in an increase in demand for car parking than that previously accepted by Council when considering and approving the existing Eating House. This is particularly given that the applicant has not submitted supporting information that provides new or additional justification to reduce car parking requirements than that which were already considered in applying adjustment factors based on the previous Parking Policy when the City considered the acceptability of the Eating House. The maximum number of 200 patrons proposed for the subject application is therefore not supported.

Car parking that was available on-site when approving the current Eating House has been confirmed by the applicant as not being available for the proposed Tavern use. This results in a substantial on-site parking shortfall that is required to be equalised. The public car parking and public transport options available in the Leederville Town Centre is sufficient to meet the car parking requirements of the Tavern, whilst also promoting alternative modes of transport. This is consistent with the objectives of the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirement. However, such a reliance on public car parking available off-site to meet car parking demands requires a cash in lieu contribution to be made.

It is recommended that either the applicant arrange and confirm through a Parking Management Plan that the proportionate share of the on-site car parking is available for the Tavern use, as was intended and supported by Council in approving the current eating house; or alternatively Council should require a cash in lieu car parking contribution be made for the resultant shortfall in on-site car parking bays that are no longer available for use by the proposed Tavern. This is recommended to be imposed as a condition in any development approval issued.

A condition of approval is also recommended permitting a maximum of 126 patrons to be accommodated on-site at any one time. This is equivalent to the intensity of the proportionate floor area of the approved Eating House.

The recommended conditions to be imposed relating to the maximum number of patrons accommodated and car parking availability on-site will ensure that the intensity of the development does not increase and will generate the same car parking demand based on the requirements of the City’s current Parking Policy for the change of use from Eating House to a Tavern.

Bicycle Parking

The development is required to provide four short term bicycle bays and nine long term bicycle bays for the proposed capacity of 200 patrons. Should the premises be restricted to a maximum of 126 patrons as recommended, the bicycle parking requirement will be reduced to six long term bays and three short term bays.

The subject site has an enclosed bicycle store that can accommodate seven long term bicycles and separate end of trip facilities for males and females. The seven long term bicycle bays are available to the other tenancies for use. The existing Offices and Restaurant/Café on the subject site operate during business hours, which is outside of the peak operating period for the Tavern. The existing long term bicycle bays are acceptable to service the Tavern and the existing tenancies within the subject site.

There are no short term bicycle bays currently provided for the subject site. A condition of development approval is recommended for the provision of a minimum of three short term bicycle bays.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

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

TRIM Ref: D18/194430

Author: Clair Morrison, Urban Planner

Authoriser: Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Ward: South

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

2. Attachment 2 - Development Plans ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions ⇩

4. Attachment 4 - Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES 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, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 4:

1. This approval relates only to the proposed two grouped dwellings at No. 5 Scott Street, Leederville, as shown on the plans dated 18 December 2018. No other development forms part of this approval;

2. Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary walls facing No. 3 Scott Street and No. 3A Scott Street in a good and clean condition prior to practical completion of the development to the satisfaction of the City. The finish of the boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

3. Car Parking and Access

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

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

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

4. 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;

5. 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;

6. Landscape and Reticulation Plan

6.1 A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge is to be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the 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;

· A minimum of 15 percent deep soil zone; and

· A minimum of 30 percent canopy cover; and

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

7. 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;

8. Stormwater

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

9. Street Walls and Fences

The portion of the front fence 1.2 metres above natural ground level shall provide visually permeability to the street in accordance with Clause 5.2.4 Street Walls and Fences of the Residential Design Codes;

10. Verge Tree

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

11. 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 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:	Tascone Design
Applicant:	Colin Carson
Date of Application:	22 August 2018 (amended plans submitted on 18 December 2018)
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R30
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Vacant
Proposed Use Class:	Dwelling (Grouped)
Lot Area:	607m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is as shown on the location plan included in Attachment 1 and comprise 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 could be developed.

This application was originally presented to Council for determination on 11 December 2018 for determination. At that meeting, Council resolved to defer application to allow the applicant the opportunity to amend the design to address the impact of overshadowing on the adjoining properties.

The applicant submitted amended plans on 18 December 2018 to address Council’s previous reason for deferral. These plans provide a total of 34.5 percent overshadowing onto the southern adjoining lots, which now meets the Deemed-to-Comply standards of the R Codes provisions relating to Solar Access for Adjoining Sites.

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
Density/Plot Ratio	ü
Street Setback		ü
Front Fence	ü
Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall	ü
Building Height/Storeys	ü
Open Space	ü
Outdoor Living Areas		ü
Landscaping (R Codes)	ü
Privacy	ü
Parking & Access	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

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.

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 submissions which raised new concerns. Feedback was provided which reiterated previous concerns received, including:

· 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:

The City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028 states:

“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 No. 10 Scott Street) to 9.1 metres (being No. 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 metres 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 metre greater setback and the proposed main portion of the building has a 2.2 metre 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 accommodates 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.

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 has 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.

Solar Access

The amended proposal results in a total 34.5 percent overshadowing onto the parent lot to the south. The application is now compliant with the deemed-to-comply provision relating to Solar Access of the R Codes which permits a maximum of 35 percent overshadowing.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

5.4 No's. 4 - 10 (Lots 13, 14 & 15) Cowle Street and No's. 199 - 241 (Lots 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 24& 25) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth - Local Development Plan

TRIM Ref: D18/195631

Author: Kate Miller, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser: John Corbellini, Director Development Services

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

2. Attachment 2 - Applicant's Original Submission and Response to DRP Comments ⇩

3. Attachment 3 - Applicant's Further Justification ⇩

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

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

6. Attachment 6 - Local Development Plan ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. Pursuant to Clause 47(d) of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 CONSIDERS that a local development plan is required over No’s. 4 – 10 Cowle Street (Lots 13, 14 & 15) and No’s. 199 – 241 (Lots 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth for the purposes of orderly and proper planning; and

2. Pursuant to Clause 52(1)(a) of the Deemed Provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 APPROVES the Local Development Plan contained in Attachment 6 for No’s. 4 – 10 Cowle Street (Lots 13, 14 & 15) and No’s. 199 – 241 (Lots 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 24 & 25) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth, subject to the applicant modifying the local development plan as follows and resubmitting the modified plan to the City:

2.1 Replacing Clause 1 with the following:

“1a) The following provisions replace the specified Deemed-to-Comply standards of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

1b) Unless provided for below, the provisions of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form apply.”;

2.2 Replacing Clause 2, dot point two with the following:

“Development must respond to the existing streetscape character.”;

2.3 Replacing the text above the Tables in Clause 3 with the following:

“The following provisions replace the Deemed-to-Comply standards in Clause 1.2 of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.”;

2.4 Replacing the setbacks set out under subclause 3 e) ‘Rear Edge’ with the following:

“Rear Edge – Lots 9, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 Fitzgerald Street

1 – 4 storeys: Nil

Above 4 storeys: As per Clause 1.2 of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

Rear Edge – Lot 15 Cowle Street

1 – 3 storeys: Nil

Above 3 storeys: 4 metres”

2.5 Replacing the text above the Table in Clause 4 with the following

“The following provisions replace the Deemed-to-Comply standards in Clause 2.1 of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form for Lots 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 Fitzgerald Street and Lots 12 and 13 Cowle Street only.”;

2.6 Replacing Clause 5 with the following:

“All of the provisions of Clauses 1.4 and 1.6 apply to the Internal Edge (North) and Internal Edge (South).”; and

2.7 Modifying the Local Development Plan Boundary to remove Lot 1006 from the Local Development Plan.

Purpose of Report:

To consider a Local Development Plan (LDP) for No’s. 4 – 10 (Lots 13, 14 and 15) Cowle Street and No’s. 199 – 241 (Lots 10, 11, 12, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth.

Background:

Landowner:	Italo-Australian Welfare & Cultural Centre Inc. and WA Italian Club Inc.
Applicant:	Creative Design and Planning
Date of Application:	14 May 2018
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Mixed Use R Code: R160 Zone: Commercial
Built Form Area:	Activity Corridor
Existing Land Use:	Office; Recreation – Private, Club Premises and Restaurant
Lot Area:	6,108m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Yes
Heritage List:	No

The subject sites are located adjacent to Cowle Street and Fitzgerald Street and are separated by a 5.0 metre wide State Government owned lot, which runs in an east to west direction and is covered by a Water Corporation easement. The sites north of the easement are zoned Commercial and the sites south of the easement are zoned Mixed Use R160 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No.2 (LPS2). All of these sites form part of the Activity Corridor Built Form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

The adjoining properties north of the subject site are zoned Commercial under the City’s LPS2 and also form part of the Activity Corridor Built Form area. The adjoining properties east of the subject sites, on the opposite side of Fitzgerald Street and on the west side of the subject sites (adjacent to No’s. 209 – 241 Fitzgerald Street) are reserved for public open space under the City’s LPS2. The adjoining properties south west of the subject sites (adjacent to No. 10 Cowle Street) and on the opposite side of Cowle Street are zoned Residential R80 under the City’s LPS2 and form part of the Residential Built Form area. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Details:

The LDP proposes to replace the deemed-to-comply setback and building height standards as prescribed by the Built Form Policy. The LDP proposes to permit a maximum building height of eight storeys and 31 metres across the site. The Built Form Policy permits a maximum height of six storeys and 22.5 metres for the site. The LDP also proposes additional requirements and objectives. Each of these design elements are discussed individually in the Comment section below.

Pursuant to Clause 7.3.1 of State Planning Policy 3.1 - Residential Design Codes (R Codes) a Local Development Plan may contain provisions that amend or replace the deemed to comply provisions of Clause 6.1.3 – Street Setbacks, Clause 6.1.3 – Lot Boundary Setbacks, C4.3 which relates to boundary walls and Clause 6.1.2 – Building Height. Notwithstanding Clause 7.3.1 and pursuant to Clause 7.3.2, the local government may, with the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), amend any other deemed-to-comply provision within the R Codes through a LDP.

The WAPC has confirmed an LDP at the aforementioned site is required for the purpose of orderly and proper planning so as to assist in coordinating and facilitating development of lots within the LDP area.

The applicant’s justification for the LDP is summarised as follows:

· The proposed redevelopment of the site seeks to deliver development up to eight storeys fronting Fitzgerald Street and will act as a key transition point and landmark between the Northbridge fringe area and the relatively undeveloped North Perth end of Fitzgerald Street strip;

· The intent of the LDP is to set future parameters and ensure aspects such as building envelopes, heights and design elements for future development of the site, whilst ensuring the future development will not have undue impacts on surrounding development or the streetscape;

· The LDP seeks to incorporate provisions that will promote active street frontages to engage with the streetscape and public spaces, provide improved passive surveillance, achieve a scale of development that is reflective of the desired future character of the areas as envisaged under the Built Form Policy and mitigate any perceived impact of bulk and scale.

The applicant’s full justification is included as Attachment 2 and Attachment 3.

Summary Assessment

The below table compares the deemed-to-comply standards set out in the Built Form Policy against those proposed by the LDP.

Street Setbacks
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Clause 1.2 of Built Form Policy First three storeys: Nil Development above three storeys is to be assessed against the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy.	Ballroom Edge First three storeys: Nil Fourth, fifth and sixth storey: 1.5 metres Above six storeys: 4.5 metres
	Fitzgerald Street First three storeys: Nil Fourth, fifth and sixth storey: 3.0 metres Above six storeys: 6.0 metres
	Piazetta Edge First three storeys: Nil Fourth, fifth and sixth storey: 3.0 metres Above six storeys: 6.0 metres
	Cowle Street First two storeys: Nil Third and fourth storey: 1.5 metres Fifth and sixth storey: 4.5 metres Above six storeys: 7.5 metres

Lot Boundary Setbacks
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Clause 1.2 of Built Form Policy Setbacks Adjoining Residential Built Form Areas First three storeys: 4.5 metres Fourth storey and above: 6.5 metres Unless a balcony is proposed adjacent to residential development in which the setback shall be 6 metres	Rear Edge (Adjoining Residential Built Form Area) First four storeys: Nil Above four storeys: As per Built Form Policy requirements
Setbacks Adjoining Non-Residential Built Form Areas First two storeys: Nil Side boundary setbacks for development three storeys and above: 4 metres	Rear Edge (Adjoining Non-Residential Built Form Area) First four storeys: Nil Above four storeys: As per Built Form Policy requirements
	Commercial Edge First three storeys: Nil Above three storeys: 3.0 metres
	Internal Edge (north and south) First three storeys: 1.5 metres Fourth, fifth and sixth storey: 4.5 metres Above six storeys: 7.5 metres
Building Heights
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Clause 2.1 of Built Form Policy Maximum of six storeys Top of external wall (roof above): 19.5 metres Top of external wall (concealed roof): 20.5 metres	Maximum of eight storeys Top of external wall (roof above): 30 metres Top of external wall (concealed roof): 31 metres

The above elements of the proposal are discussed in the Comment section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

The application was advertised in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation for a period of 21 days from 29 October 2018 to 18 November 2018. The method of advertising included 570 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers surrounding the site, two signs on site (located on Fitzgerald Street and Cowle Street) and a notification in the local newspaper.

A total of 11 submissions were received, being six objections, four in support and one submission neither supporting nor objecting to the proposal. Two of the submissions in support of the proposal included a total of 301 signatures. These submissions did not satisfy the City’s requirements for a petition and each is to be considered as a stand-alone submission.

A summary of the submissions objecting and expressing concerns of the proposal are summarised as follows:

· The height is not appropriate for the site as it will be out of character with the surrounding locality;

· The setbacks to the adjoining residential properties need to be better defined;

· Concerns the ground floor edges will not be adequately activated;

· The development will result in a loss of natural sunlight to adjoining properties and the street;

· The increase in density will cause access and parking issues for the surrounding residents;

· The development will have an adverse impact the heritage character of the locality;

· High density living will impact the locality; and

· The reduced ‘rear’ edge setback will result in a loss of privacy.

A summary of the submissions in support of the proposal are summarised as follows:

· The Local Development Plan will assist in achieving a better built form outcome by linking lot designs;

· The Local Development Plan will provide the future framework for a ‘landmark’ building to be pursued in this transitional part of Fitzgerald Street;

· The site is surrounded by large areas of open space and located on a high frequency bus route. The proposed framework will foster the creation of a place where people can stop, enjoy and appreciate their surroundings, rather than its current function as a transport corridor;

· The variations proposed, including height limits and setbacks, are consistent with the future desired built form along Fitzgerald Street; and

· Greater density and the mixture of residential and commercial, on a main road and close to Perth City is to be encouraged.

A summary of the submissions and Administration’s response is included as Attachment 4 and the applicant’s response to the submissions is included as Attachment 5. Following consideration of the submissions the applicant modified the proposed LDP and submitted this to the City (see Attachment 6).

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The proposal was considered by the City’s DRP on 8 November 2017. The comments raised by the DRP resulted in the following changes to the original submission of the LDP:

· Increased setback to the Piazetta Edge to allow for alfresco dining, informal seating, etc. so as to activate the easement, which will be publically accessible;

· Increased setbacks to the side lot boundaries and street boundaries; and

· Mandatory ‘active edges’ along Fitzgerald Street, Cowle Street and the easement frontages.

The comments provided by the DRP and the applicant’s response is included as Attachment 2.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2);

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

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause 77 (1) 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.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises its discretionary power to determine a local development plan.

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:

Street Setbacks

The City’s Built Form Policy prescribes a deemed-to-comply street setback of nil for the first three storeys of development in this location. The Built Form Policy does not prescribe deemed-to-comply street setbacks above three storeys and so permits a nil street setback for these floors.

The LDP proposes a nil deemed-to-comply setback for the first three storeys to all street frontages, with the exception of the Cowle Street frontage, which is permitted a nil setback for the first two storeys only. The LDP also prescribes specific deemed-to-comply setbacks above the second and third storeys.

The street setbacks proposed in the LDP are appropriate. The nil setback proposed for the first three storeys to Fitzgerald Street is consistent with the Built Form Policy. The ‘Piazzetta Edge’ setbacks will provide space to encourage active uses between Fitzgerald Street and the easement, which will act as a pedestrian access way. This is consistent with the intent of the City’s Built Form Policy to activate frontages.

The nil setback proposed for the first two storeys to Cowle Street also aligns with the Built Form Policy. The 1.5 metre setback proposed for any third storey fronting Cowle Street and the various setbacks proposed for development above three storeys is additional to the nil setbacks prescribed in the Built Form Policy. These setbacks will ameliorate some of the impact of the additional height proposed by the LDP.

Setbacks adjoining residential built form areas

The southern portion of the LDP’s Rear Edge, Lot 15, is adjacent to a residential built form area to the west. Where development abuts a residential built form area, the Built Form Policy prescribes a minimum setback of 4.5 metres for the first three storeys and a minimum setback of 6.5 metres for the fourth storey and above, unless a balcony is proposed in which case the setback shall be as per Clause 5.4.1 or Clause 6.4.1 of the R Codes.

The LDP proposes a nil setback for the first four storeys. The fifth storey and above is then required to be in accordance with the applicable Built Form Policy, as described above.

One submission was received during the consultation period which raised concerns with the developments interface with the adjoining residential properties.

The current development on the adjoining residential property comprises two storey multiple dwellings. There are two openings in the adjacent wall of this development that face the ‘Rear Edge’ of the LDP site. The rooms with these openings each contain another opening along the northern elevation, ensuring access to natural sunlight is maintained for these rooms. The development’s communal open space is located to the rear of the development towards the north western boundary, away from the LDP area.

The adjoining residential area is permitted a maximum building height of three storeys and a boundary wall to a maximum of two storeys. An adjoining four storey boundary wall will not result in an appropriate interface with the adjoining residential development or Cowle Street streetscape.

The sites are separated by a 3.0 metre wide right-of-way and so a boundary wall for the first three storeys will be more consistent with that permitted in the adjoining Cowle Street residential built form area and provide an adequate relationship between the subject site and adjoining residential property.

Setbacks adjoining non-residential built form areas

The northern portion of the LDP’s ‘Rear Edge’ is adjacent to non-residential built form areas, including the City’s Fitzgerald Street Car Park and club buildings occupied by the Azzurre Bocce Club. The LDP proposes a nil setback to this edge for the first four storeys. The fifth storey and above is then required to be in accordance with the Built Form Policy, being a minimum of 4 metres.

No submissions were received in relation to the rear setbacks adjoining the non-residential built form areas.

The nil setbacks for the first four storeys will have no adverse impact on any adjoining residential or commercial properties or the streetscape. A 3.0 metre wide right-of-way separates the LDP area from the City’s car park and club building. The club premises comprises a single storey building with nil setbacks to the right of way and contains no openings along the subject boundary. As there is no residential, commercial or other sensitive development which will be affected by the development abutting the subject site, a nil setback for the first four storeys is considered appropriate for future development.

There is mature vegetation between the car park and the subject site and between the public open space and the car park. The vegetation will provide some screening of the future development and ameliorate impacts of building bulk and mass that may be visible from the adjoining areas. Whilst ‘Active Edges’ are not required to the rear edge, the objectives of the LDP require a high-quality building interface and surveillance to the public car park at the rear. Design elements will be considered once a development application is lodged, and reviewed by the City’s Officers and DRP.

Internal Setbacks

Where development abuts a Non-Residential Built Form area, the Built Form Policy prescribes nil setbacks for the first two storeys and a minimum setback of 4 metres thereafter.

The LDP proposes the ‘Internal Edge’ of the development to comprise a minimum setback of 1.5 metres for the first three storeys, a minimum setback of 4.5 metres for the fourth, fifth and sixth storeys and a minimum setback of 7.5 metres for development above six storeys.

The proposed setbacks to the easement are appropriate. The 1.5 metre setback for the first three floors will provide some relief between the buildings and ensure access to natural sunlight and ventilation to the lower levels. The ‘Piazzetta’ setbacks will ensure and outdoor space is created on Fitzgerald Street either side of the easement that will provide suitable space to activate the street through alfresco dining, informal seating and the like. The setbacks for the fourth storey and above will result in a separation between the building of no less than 13 metres, which will ameliorate impacts of building bulk and mass for residents.

Side Setbacks

Where development abuts a Non-Residential Built Form area, the Built Form Policy prescribes a side boundary wall up to two storeys and a minimum setback of 4 metres thereafter.

The LDP proposes side boundary walls up to three storeys and a minimum setback of 3.0 metres thereafter.

No submissions were received in relation to the proposed side setbacks.

The LDP adjoins one property, zoned Commercial, to the north. The existing development on this site is two storeys in height and includes a two storey boundary wall adjoining the LDP boundary.

The adjoining commercial development will largely screen a three storey boundary wall. The side boundary setbacks proposed will not impact on Fitzgerald Street of Lawley Street, given the adjoining two storey commercial development will also largely screen the development from the street. The setbacks will also not affect any active habitable spaces of the adjoining commercial development itself. The side setbacks proposed will not cause adverse impacts and are acceptable.

Building Height

The City’s Built Form Policy permits six storeys with a maximum building height of 19.5 metres for external walls (roof above) or 20.5 metres for concealed roofs.

The LDP proposes a maximum of eight storeys with a maximum building height of 30 metres for externals walls (roof above) or 31 metres for concealed roofs.

A number of submissions were received during the consultation period which raised concerns relating to the proposed height not being in keeping with the existing or desired streetscape character and impacts caused by a loss of natural sunlight.

The northern and eastern portion of the LDP area is adjacent to commercial development, sites that sit within the six storey Activity Centre Built Form Area or public open space. For this portion of the LDP area, the setback requirements of the LDP, combined with the provisions of the Built Form Policy and R Codes, are adequate to ensure the height proposed will have no additional impact on the streetscape or surrounding properties.

The south-western portion of the LDP, incorporating Lots 14 and– 15 Cowle Street, is directly adjacent to the Residential Built Form Area. This portion of Cowle Street has a deemed-to-comply height of three storeys and is made up of residential development between one and three storeys in height. This includes a number of single storey heritage listed properties, two of which sit directly opposite Lots 14 and 15 Cowle Street.

Applying a height of eight storeys and 31 metres to Lots 14 and 15 in this context is not appropriate. The eight storey and 31.0 metre height proposed will create the potential for additional overshadowing of the lots on the southern side of Cowle Street and despite the setbacks will dominate the street. It is recommended that the LDP be modified to remove the eight storey height proposed for Lots 14 and 15 Cowle Street. These lots will then be covered by the six storey height set in the Built Form Policy for this area.

Active Frontages

Part 5 of the LDP proposes a number of provisions relating to active frontages along the Fitzgerald Street, Cowle Street and Internal Edges. The majority of these are already covered by the Ground Floor Design and Building Design provisions of the Built Form Policy and are not necessary.

In addition, the LDP excludes an auditorium from being required to meet the active frontage requirements and allows for up to 25 percent of the frontage to incorporate non-active elements.

These provisions are not consistent with the Built Form Policy’s Ground Floor Design and Building Design provisions and are not appropriate for inclusion in the LDP. The LDP also proposes to require the internal easement to be treated with an active frontage, which is appropriate.

It is recommended that the LDP be modified to remove Part 5 and to state that the Ground Floor Design and Building Design provisions of the Built Form Policy apply to the internal easement in the same way as they apply to the street frontages.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

6 Engineering

6.1 Tender No. 563/18 - Mount Hawthorn Lesser Hall Refurbishment – Appointment of a Successful Tenderer

TRIM Ref: D19/5229

Authors: Craig Wilson, Manager Asset & Engineering

James Hopper, Coordinator Asset Management

Kon Bilyk, Property Officer

Authoriser: Andrew Murphy, Director Engineering

Attachments: 1. Evaluation Worksheet - Confidential ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Geared Construction Pty Ltd for Tender No. 563/18 for the Mount Hawthorn Lesser Hall refurbishment.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the awarding of Tender No. 563/18 – Appointment of a Successful Tenderer.

Background:

The delivery of a refurbished public facility at the Mount Hawthorn Lesser Hall 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 4.11).

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. Demonstrated Understanding of the project a.) Submissions must contain the following information in an attachment labelled “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	50%
B. Key Personnel Skills and Experience b.) c.) Submissions must contain the following information in an attachment labelled “Key Personnel – Skills and Experience” d.) a) Respondents to provide as a minimum information of the proposed personnel to be allocated to this project including, b) Their role in the performance of the Contract c) Resumes of key staff (including Subcontractors) inclusive of appropriate certifications.	25%
C. Relevant Experience of the Contractor e.) Submissions must contain the following information in an attachment labelled “Relevant Experience of the Contractor”: a) Provide details of two similar projects undertaken including scope of the respondents involvement and confirming successful completion of the project; and b) (Provide references in relation to the projects so that the City can confirm the contractor’s role in the projects)	25%

The Request for Tender 563/18 was publicly advertised from 21 November 2018 and invited submissions until 14 December 2018.

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

· Geared Construction Pty Ltd

· DEVCO Holdings Pty Ltd

· Aurora Project Group Pty Ltd

· Tricrest Investments Pty Ltd

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 Asset & Engineering	Voting
Coordinator Asset Management	Voting
Assets Officer Projects	Voting
Procurement and Contracts Officer	Advisory

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
Geared Construction Pty Ltd	75	1
DEVCO Holdings Pty Ltd	70	2
Aurora Project Group Pty Ltd	68	3
Tricrest Investments Pty Ltd	40	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. 563/18 was advertised in the West Australian on 21 November 2018 and on the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 21 November and 14 December 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:

Mount Hawthorn Community Centre refurbishment will contribute to two of the six community priorities identified in the City’s Strategic Community Plan and the City’s Corporate Business Plan; namely – “Enhanced Environment’, and “Accessible City”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Mount Hawthorn Community Centre refurbishment will contribute to improving water efficiency and energy usage for the facility hence improving sustainability within the City of Vincent overall.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The project was allocated a total budget of $350,000, made up as follows:

· Design Documentation, Project Management and to cover Construction (inclusive of materials and labour).

These funds were made available in the 2018/2019 financial year.

Comments:

The Braithwaite Park Nature Playground is located on the northern side of Braithwaite Park, adjacent to Mt Hawthorn Lesser Hall, and was completed in July 2015. The playground has proven very popular with local families due to its innovative design. It was awarded the 2016 AILA National Landscape Architecture Award for Parks & Open Space.

In 2018 the Braithwaite Park public toilet upgrade was completed to provide a much improved amenity to park patrons. To follow on from the number of improvements within the park and surrounds a design has been developed to improve the Mt Hawthorn Lesser Hall amenities for its user groups and the general community.

The submission from Geared Construction Pty Ltd 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 Geared Construction Pty Ltd 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 Geared Construction Pty Ltd to deliver the project efficiently and to a high quality.

Reference checks were conducted for Geared Construction Pty Ltd on 18 January 2019.

The Evaluation Panel recommends that Council accept the Tender submitted by Geared Construction Pty Ltd for Tender No. 563/18 as the best overall value for money to the City.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

7 Corporate Services

7.1 Investment Report as at 31 December 2018

TRIM Ref: D19/5299

Author: Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments: 1. Investment Report ⇩

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 31 December 2018 and the interest earned year to date.

Background:

Funds surplus from 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 included in Attachment 1 which comprises:

· Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

· Investment portfolio data;

· Investment interest earnings; and

· Current investment holdings.

Details:

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

Total funds held as at 31 December 2018, including on call in the City’s operating account were $40,977,846; compared to $38,768,084 for the period ending 31 December 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 31 December 2018 were $38,667,039 compared to $42,678,504 for the prior month end, and $37,065,389 for the period ending 31 December 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	$40,977,846	$38,667,039
January	$39,498,741	$36,147,499
February	$39,217,278	$36,665,928
March	$36,377,700	$34,622,001
April	$33,647,074	$31,177,278
May	$30,338,407	$28,712,736
June	$28,409,157	$24,687,341

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 31 December 2018 is:

	Adopted Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$420,000	$273,300	$289,138	105.80%
Reserve	$246,060	$129,600	$140,042	108.06%
Sub-total	$666,060	$402,900	$429,180	106.52%
Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$68,841	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.

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.57% for current investments including the operating account; and 2.74% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days Accepted Bill rate for December 2018 was 2.02%.

As at 31 December 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 $26,280 (6.52%).

Sustainable investments

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. 36.35% of the City’s investments were held in institutions considered non-fossil fuel lending by Marketforces.org.au as at 31 December 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 early 2019.

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%	19.8%	30%	Nil	90%	44.1%
A1	25%	6.1%	30%	Nil	80%	6.1%
A2	20%	19.5%	n/a	Nil	60%	49.8%

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 detail 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.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

7.3 Financial Statements as at 31 December 2018

TRIM Ref: D19/8305

Author: Nilesh Makwana, Accounting Officer

Authoriser: Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

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

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 December 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 including the sources and applications of funds, and as compared to the budget.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 31 December 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

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 lower than budget by 1% ($132,987). This is mainly due to:

· Recreation and Culture revenue is lower by $281,486, which comprises $42,862 for Beatty Park memberships, $22,151 for swim school admissions and $21,730 for the café – sale of food; and

· $94,398 lower in variable outgoing recoups, due to refunds from overpayments and timing differences.

Operating revenue as presented in the ‘Nature or Type’ report is showing a negative variance of 1% ($277,059). This is mainly due to:

· Other revenue (reimbursements) is lower by $194,103; and

· Operating grants, subsidies and contributions is under budget by $38,169.

Operating Expenditure

Expenditure by Program is reflecting an under expenditure of $1,240,505 against the YTD budget. This is mainly due to lower expenditure in:

· Law, order, public safety of $165,553

· Health of $122,465

· Education and welfare of $174,327

· Community Amenities of $416,797

· Recreation and culture of $347,529; and

· Other property and services of $107,627.

The operating expenditure listed under the Nature or Type report also reflects a favourable variance of 4%, with the largest variances in:

· Materials and Contracts ($1,530,946 favourable), where the variance is due to timing on works and receipt of invoices; and

· Employee costs ($221,303 unfavourable), where the variance is largely due to seasonal labour requirements.

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. The opening surplus has now been adjusted in the financial accounts.

Surplus balance – 2018/19

There is currently a surplus of $24,987,670 compared to the year to date budget surplus of $21,524,557.

Content of statement of financial activity

An explanation of each report in 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.

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.

	Current Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Land and Buildings	2,663,391	1,139,039	623,628	76.6%
Infrastructure Assets	7,592,643	4,510,482	2,095,783	72.4%
Plant and Equipment	2,949,925	855,133	475,577	83.9%
Furniture and Equipment	1,217,958	759,341	215,926	82.3%
Total	14,423,917	7,263,995	3,410,914	76.4%


FUNDING	Current Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Own Source Funding - Municipal	10,572,873	5,616,537	2,458,985	76.7%
Cash Backed Reserves	1,546,190	297,190	133,796	91.3%
Capital Grant and Contribution	1,829,854	1,167,268	716,358	60.9%
Other (Disposals/Trade In)	475,000	183,000	101,775	78.6%
Total	14,423,917	7,263,995	3,410,914	76.4%

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

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 December 2018 is $12,298,520.

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

The Rates debtors balance as at 31 December 2018 is $8,620,797 (this includes deferred rates of $104,528). This represents 22.80% of collectable income compared to 22.61% at the same time last year.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 81)

Receivables of $2,015,385 are outstanding as at 31 December 2018, of which $1,102,826 has been outstanding over 90 days. This is comprised of:

· $785,923 (71.3%) 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;

· $167,489 (15.2%) relates to Cash in Lieu Parking. Some Cash in Lieu Parking debtors have special payment arrangements over more than one year; and

· $149,413 (13.5%) 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 December 2018 the operating deficit for the centre was $852,568 in comparison to the year to date budgeted deficit of $1,000,893.

10. Explanation of Material Variances

All material variances as at 31 December 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.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

8 Community Engagement

8.1 Amended Use of Les Lilleyman Reserve by Subiaco Football Club

TRIM Ref: D18/185452

Author: Carla Stevens, Community Partner

Authoriser: Rosslind Ellis, Manager Marketing and Communications

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

That Council;

1. RESCINDS Subiaco Football Club’s current agreement regarding conditions of use for Les Lilleyman Reserve;

2. DELEGATES approval and ongoing management of the agreement and usage of Les Lilleyman Reserve by Subiaco Football Club back to Administration;

3. NOTES Administration will allocate use of Les Lilleyman Reserve to Subiaco Football Club subject to the following conditions;

3.1 Subiaco Football Club to have priority use of the football oval area marked on the reserve on two (2) to three (3) nights per week (Monday – Friday) between the hours of 5.00pm to 7.30pm with the specified nights to be identified and displayed at the reserve;

3.2 The use of the designated area of the reserve by Subiaco Football Club for up to 60 persons being limited between January and September inclusive;

3.3 The use of the designated area of the reserve by Subiaco Football Club seniors or reserves sides is not permitted;

3.4 Parking around the reserve to be policed by City of Vincent Rangers, with all players vehicles being restricted to the Gill Street car park;

3.5 The Conditions of Use to cover the period from January to September inclusive, with any other requests for use of Les Lilleyman Reserve by Subiaco Football Club to be assessed and managed by Administration; and

3.6 A notice to be displayed at the reserve, no later than January each year, identifying the nights of the week Subiaco Football Club will utilise the reserve;

4. NOTES Administration will liaise with the Subiaco Football Club and with surrounding residents in relation to any changes or updates to the allocation of Les Lilleyman Reserve; and

5. CONSIDERS inclusion of the installation of perimeter fencing to partially enclose Les Lilleyman Reserve along London Street, North Perth on the 2019/2020 Budget.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the proposed usage conditions placed on Subiaco Football Club for their use of Les Lilleyman Reserve for football training and other requests by Administration which aim to bring the management of the reserve in line with other active reserves in the City.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 26 October 2004, Council approved the long term use of Leederville Oval by Subiaco Football Club (Subiaco FC) and East Perth Football Club, along with its’ development as a centre of football excellence. Subsequently in 2005, a lease arrangement for the development and use of Leederville Oval was entered into for a period of 25 years, with an option to extend for a further 9 years.

In addition to the lease arrangement, a Memorandum of Understanding for the Use of Leederville Oval by the East Perth and Subiaco Football Clubs, amended on 15 August 2003, provides further clarity regarding the obligations of the clubs and the City. The Memorandum of Understanding specifies:

“It is also an absolute given that the TOV [Town of Vincent] shall provide an alternative training venue for both clubs that is of a suitable standard.”

Administration undertook to fulfil its obligations through the allocation of various reserves, including Britannia Reserve and Woodville Reserve to meet both in season and pre-season training requirements of Subiaco FC.

The use of Les Lilleyman Reserve as a training venue for Subiaco FC was approved, following extensive community consultation, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 14 September 2004. Council resolved as follows:

“That the Council;

(i) APPROVES in principle the use of the Les Lilleyman Reserve by the Subiaco Football Club Colts as their alternative training ground, as detailed in this report subject to:

(a) Subiaco Football Club (SFC) Colts having priority use of the reserve on a maximum of three (3) nights per week (Monday-Friday) between the hours of 5.00-7.30pm. Where possible, specified nights will be displayed at the reserve building;

(b) the use of the reserve by SFC Colts only (up to 30-40 persons) being limited between March-October inclusive;

(c) the use of the reserve by SFC seniors and for WAFL development games not being permitted;

(d) parking around the reserve being strictly policed by the Town of Vincent Rangers, with all player’s vehicles being restricted to the Gill Street car park. The current verge prohibition signage to be upgraded;

(e) any traffic complaints around the reserve being promptly investigated by the Town;

(f) the reserve remaining as a “dog off leash” area (except for the hours of training) and an exclusive dog exercise area of 4000m² being specifically created to accommodate dogs on the training nights;

(g) the funds allocated to Britannia Reserve for upgrade of floodlighting being reallocated to Les Lilleyman Reserve. The floodlights to be kept on for an additional hour after training has finished, for residents use. The lights to be installed to minimise any possible impact on residents;

(h) SFC having exclusive use of changerooms on training nights;

(i) SFC having exclusive use of the canteen area on training nights and this being modified, if required (at SFC’s cost), for use as a gymnasium;

(j) changeroom alterations being investigated and costed and the matter to be further considered by the Council when details are available (there are no funds in the 2004/05 Budget);

(k) the conditions of the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve by SFC being included as a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) to be signed by both parties and included in the lease documentation;

(l) NOTES that the Memorandum of Understanding covers the period from March to October inclusively and that any other use by SFC from November to February inclusive be the subject of a report to Council;

(m) SFC paying $1,000 per annum (CPI indexed) for the use of the oval and a bond of $200 as part of the reserve hire conditions;

(n) the playground at Les Lilleyman Reserve being upgraded and fenced and this work to be carried out between September-November 2004 ($35,000 has been included in the 2004/05 budget for this project);

(o) the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve by SFC being reviewed at the end of each season. Consultation with the adjoining residents/ratepayers and the North Perth Precinct Group to form part of this review process, and any proposed changes being approved by the Council and park users will be notified of any changes;

(p) the use of any casual booking of the reserve by SFC be restricted to "once off" events; and

(q) a further period of 14 days consultation with the community and a further report being submitted to Council at the first meeting in September 2004;

(ii) APPROVES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the reallocation of the funds (as carried forward in the Budget 2004/05 - $58,500) listed for the upgrade of lights at Britannia Reserve to Les Lilleyman Reserve for the upgrade of reserve lighting;

(iii) REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to review the Town of Vincent Local Law Relating to Dogs to provide a "dog off leash at all times" exercise area of approximately 4,000m² at the southern portion of the reserve, as shown in Plan No 2277-CP-1;

(iv) AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to finalise the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve terms and conditions with the Subiaco Football Club; and

(v) ADVISES the respondents and Subiaco Football Club of the Council's decision.”

Further consideration was given to a suitable venue for pre-season training for Subiaco FC and at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 20 December 2005 the following resolutions were adopted:

“That the Council;

(i) RECEIVES the report concerning the request by the Subiaco Football Club Colts for the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve for pre-season training from 27 December 2005 to 28 February 2006 on Tuesday and Thursday nights;

(ii) NOTES that no complaints or objections were received by the Town during 2005 concerning the Club's use of Les Lilleyman Reserve for the 2005 Football Season;

(iii) REFUSES the Club’s request for the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve for pre-season training from 27 December 2005 to 28 February 2006 on Tuesday and Thursday nights for the reasons outlined in the report; and

(iv) REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to hold discussions with Subiaco Football Club with the view to assisting the Club to find an alternative ground for summer training.”

The most recent recommendations regarding Subiaco FC use of Les Lilleyman Reserve, adopted at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 13 February 2007, are as follows:

“That the Council;

(i) RECEIVES the report for an alternative summer training venue for Subiaco Football Club and response to community concerns;

(ii) APPROVES the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve by the Subiaco Football Club Colts as their alternative training ground for February to September and amends the Memorandum of Understanding to reflect the change in training dates from March to October to February to September; and

(iii) ADVISES the respondents, North Perth Precinct Group and Subiaco Football Club of the Council’s decision.”

Subiaco FC’s approval to train at Les Lilleyman Reserve concluded for the winter season on 30 September 2018 and as such, it is now necessary for Council to consider this again.

Details:

Sportsgrounds are a vitally important part of the City’s public open space network and provide the setting for a range of sporting clubs to provide physical activity and socialisation opportunities for residents.

Les Lilleyman Reserve is a large active sportsground comprising 35,511 square metres, with a usable playing area of 19,000 square metres. The reserve is bounded by London, Gill and Ellesmere Streets in North Perth, with residences on the western side of the reserve. There is a steep embankment which acts as a buffer zone of approximately 30 metres between the active portion of the reserve and dwellings.

The playing field portion of Les Lilleyman Reserve is 142 metres in length and currently accommodates football and cricket training, as well as match play by local clubs. The reserve is also designated as an "off-leash" dog area except when it is used for sports training or activities approved by the Council, when dogs are restricted to outside of the playing area. It is important to note that for the past 14 years Subiaco Football Club and dog-owners have co-existed at the reserve and Administration are of the opinion that the proposed recommendations will facilitate this to continue.

Winter Reserve Usage (April to September)

Of the approximately 84 hours of bookable time per week (based on 12 hours per day from 8.00am to 9.00pm), Les Lilleyman Reserve is used by Subiaco Football Club for a total of five (5) hours during the winter season. This equates to the reserve being used for organised sport for six (6) percent of the week. The following table details the club’s approved days and times of use for the 2018 winter season:

Club	Day/s	Start time	Finish Time	Total Hours
Subiaco Football Club	Monday	5.00pm	7.30pm	2.5
Subiaco Football Club	Thursday	5.00pm	7.30pm	2.5
Total hours of use per week:				5

Administration is of the opinion that the current level of use by organised sport during winter leaves a sufficient portion of each day available for residents and dog-walkers to recreate. The current Conditions of Use state that Subiaco have “priority use of the football oval area marked on the reserve” during their approved use times and the community coexist with the club on the reserve outside of this area during these times.

Summer Reserve Usage (October to March)

During the summer season Les Lilleyman Reserve is used by two cricket clubs for a total of 13 hours per week with the usage spread across three days. This equates to the reserve being used for organised sport 15 percent of the week during the summer season. As in the winter season, the community coexist on the reserve alongside the clubs during their training and matchplay. The following table details the club’s approved days and times of use for the 2018/2019 summer season:

Club	Day/s	Start time	Finish Time	Total Hours
Leederville Mount Hawthorn Junior Cricket Club	Wednesday	4.00pm	6.00pm	2
Leederville Mount Hawthorn Junior Cricket Club	Saturday	8.00am	12.00pm	4
Perth Last Man Stands (cricket)	Sunday	10.00am	5.00pm	7
Total hours of use per week:				13

Community Feedback

In September 2018, Administration received a letter from residents living in the vicinity of Les Lilleyman Reserve detailing their concerns with Subiaco FC’s use of the Reserve. Administration met with two residents to seek their views. Concerns raised in regard to Subiaco FC’s use of the reserve and Administration’s comments are detailed in the table below:

Comment	Administration Response
Concern that the number of nights per week the club is training is exceeding what has been permitted.	These concerns were raised at the conclusion of Subiaco FC’s usage period. The Rangers Team will conduct sporadic, proactive patrols and respond to complaints regarding breaches of conditions of use.
Exercise equipment is brought outside of clubrooms and blocking the footpath	Administration will advise Subiaco FC that footpaths must remain clear of obstructions at all times.
Rubbish left on the reserve after training, e.g. medical strapping tape.	Administration will advise Subiaco FC that all rubbish resulting from training sessions must be disposed of prior to the end of each session
Request to extend the perimeter fencing along London Street to partially enclose the southern portion of Les Lilleyman Reserve. The fence extension will provide greater safety for off-lead dogs using the southern portion of the reserve.	Administration have recommended Council consider the inclusion of the installation of perimeter fencing on the 2019/2020 budget.

Overall the residents indicated they were comfortable with Subiaco FC’s continued use of the reserve, provided the current Conditions of Use, adopted in 2004, were adhered to.

Administration is liaising with Subiaco FC coaches and players regarding the issues raised by the residents and will continue to monitor the club’s use of Les Lilleyman Reserve to ensure they are adhering to the Conditions of Use.

Subiaco Football Club

In November 2018 Administration met with the Chief Executive Officer and Talent Manager of Subiaco FC regarding the current Conditions of Use and to discuss the above mentioned concerns raised by surrounding residents of Les Lilleyman Reserve. In addition to this, Subiaco FC were consulted regarding potential changes to the Conditions of Use. Feedback provided by Subiaco FC during the meeting and comments from Administration are provided in the table below:

Comments	Administration Response
Excessive dog waste is often left on the reserve and some dogs remain off-leash during the club’s training sessions and run into playing area.	Administration will request for proactive and regular Rangers patrols to be conducted to monitor off-leash dog activity and management of dog waste.
Proposed increase of the number of players permitted on the reserve from 30-40 to 50-60 players per training session.	A player number increase has been recommended for approval by Council. Administration is of the opinion that the reserve has adequate space to accommodate an extra 10-20 players. Proactive monitoring will take place during the season.
Proposed removal of goal posts at the southern end of the reserve to allow the club to erect portable goals and create a longer field, in order to conduct game simulations one night per week.	Subiaco FC have been advised that Administration does not support the removal of the goal posts as they are used by the community and could also accommodate future usage by other parties.
Proposed access to the reserve from January to September instead of February to September to allow for pre-season training.	Administration advises that this request for an additional month of usage aligns with the standard pre-season training for WAFL football teams and is considered reasonable.
Proposed increase in the number of training sessions per week from 2/3 to 4 nights per week, to accommodate female teams.	Subiaco FC have been advised that Administration will recommend the number of permitted training sessions remain as is; 2 to 3 nights per week. This will allow for a balance of active and passive recreation (dog walking etc.) to take place on the reserve.

During the meeting Subiaco FC agreed to raise the residents’ concerns with all coaches responsible for training at Les Lilleyman Reserve to ensure that all conditions are being adhered to.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration will liaise with Subiaco Football Club and surrounding residents in relation to any changes or updates to the allocation of Les Lilleyman Reserve.

The Conditions of Use for Subiaco Football Club’s use of Les Lilleyman Reserve will be displayed at Les Lilleyman Reserve.

Legal/Policy:

In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, Council has a legal obligation to make available one of the City’s reserves for Subiaco Football Club’s training:

“It is also an absolute given that the TOV [Town of Vincent] shall provide an alternative training venue for both clubs of a suitable standard.”

Use of Les Lilleyman Reserve is allocated in accordance with Policy No: 2.1.7 - Parks, Reserves and Hall Facilities – Conditions of Hire and Use. The objective of the policy is to:

“Acknowledge the importance of both “active” and “passive” recreational needs and endeavour to manage parks, reserves and hall facilities in order to provide maximum access and sustainable usage on an equitable basis.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Possible negative perception by some residents as a result of changing Subiaco FC’s conditions of use for Les Lilleyman Reserve. These are considered to be minimal due to the changes being minor in nature and given the consultation that has occurred with residents and other stakeholders.

Strategic Implications:

The recommendation for Administration managing Subiaco Football Club’s future use of Les Lilleyman Reserve aligns with the following actions in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018 – 2028:

“Enhanced Environment

a) Our Parks and reserves are maintained, enhances and well utilised

i. Increase access to green space in high priority areas

Connected Community

b) Our community facilities and spaces are well known and well used.

Thriving Places

c) Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained

i. Prioritise investment in maintenance, repair and improvement programs to deliver high quality public places and facilities.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Subiaco FC pay $1000.00 (plus CPI) per annum for the use of Les Lilleyman Reserve.

Les Lilleyman Reserve is maintained as an active reserve to sustain Subiaco FC’s use in the winter and training and as a match play venue for two cricket clubs in the summer. Given this, no additional maintenance is required to accommodate the changes to Subiaco FC’s conditions of use.

Comments:

It is recommended that Council delegate management of Subiaco’s use of Les Lilleyman Reserve back to Administration to allow for flexible and efficient handling of future allocations and consistency with management of other reserve usage across the City.

Council Briefing Agenda 29 January 2019

8.2 Update: Notice of Motion - Cr Susan Gontaszewski – Strategies to improve participation and accessibility by women and girls at City of Vincent sportsgrounds and associated facilities

TRIM Ref: D18/185604

Author: Carla Stevens, Community Partner

Authoriser: Rosslind Ellis, A/Director Community Engagement

Attachments: 1. Facility Audit: Female specific sporting facilities and amenities ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, RECEIVES Administration’s update on the implementation plan to improve participation and accessibility by women and girls to City of Vincent sportsgrounds and associated facilities.

Purpose of Report:

To provide Council an update on the implementation of strategies to improve participation and accessibility by women and girls to City of Vincent sportsgrounds and associated facilities.

Background:

On 22 August 2017, Council endorsed the following Notice of Motion:

“That Council REQUESTS Administration obtain sporting club membership details by gender to directly inform strategies to improve participation and accessibility by women and girls, including the sportsground seasonal hire fees review currently being prepared by October 2017.”

There are nine (9) public open spaces located with Vincent that are classified as having a primary purpose as sporting grounds. Availability and access to sporting facilities can act to influence participation in sport as can facility/club operations. Participation is positively influenced by access to public sports facilities. Local governments can assist by taking a strategic approach to the provision of active recreation spaces and sporting infrastructure. Best practice planning can ensure that sporting facilities serve the widest possible participant base1

Many sporting codes and clubs have traditionally had a player and member base that is gender imbalanced. On a national level, whilst participation in sports or physical activities is similar for boys and girls, boys are more likely to be active through club sport than girls2. However, interest and participation in club sports is changing. Women and girls have demonstrated a strong interest in club sports, buoyed by the advent of the Women’s AFL and the success of Australian women’s soccer and cricket teams

Local government can play a proactive role by working with sporting clubs to understand and implement strategies to grow female participation in organised sporting activities by ensuring that access to sports facilities are available in the local setting. Local governments have developed strategies for improving female participation in club sports and improving access to sporting opportunities by considering inclusivity in the seasonal hire of sporting grounds”.

Furthermore, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 24 July 2018 it was resolved:

“That Council

1. RECEIVES Administration’s response to the Notice of Motion dated 22 August 2017 regarding strategies to improve participation and accessibility by women and girls to City of Vincent sportsgrounds and associated facilities;

2. APPROVES implementation of the following initiatives to improve sports participation by women and girls within the City of Vincent:

2.1 Expand and improve data collection, and subsequent monitoring of participation trends amongst local sporting clubs and associations, as the basis for future decision making;

2.2 Review and amend Council Policy No. 3.10.11 – Community Funding to provide local sporting clubs with access to funding that supports targeted programs, equipment, training, and policies;

2.3 Deliver targeted club development workshops in partnership with the Department of Local Government, Sport & Cultural Industries to assist local sporting clubs with the implementation of female friendly initiatives;

2.4 Implement a marketing campaign that recognises local sportswomen, coaches, officials and clubs while also providing a platform for consultation with local women and girls regarding current barriers to participation; and

2.5 Conduct an audit of sportsgrounds and associated facilities to determine the need for infrastructure improvements to support increased female participation for consideration within Council’s 2019/20 capital works budget.

3. NOTES that Administration will investigate a range of initiatives that may further support increased sports participation by women and girls within the City of Vincent:

3.1 Review the effectiveness of Council’s sportsground fees and charges rebates, and identify any other similar mechanisms, as incentives for local sporting clubs and associations to increase participation rates by women and girls;

3.2 Review existing programs and services at Beatty Park Leisure Centre and Loftus Recreation Centre to reaffirm and where applicable improve female friendly options;

3.3 Liaise with the Department of Local Government, Sport & Cultural Industries regarding findings from the recent ‘Come Out and Play’ pilot project to identify strategies that may support increased informal sports participation by women and girls; and

3.4 Specifically investigate opportunities to attract sporting codes with traditionally high female participation rates to Vincent through those Reserve Master Plans identified within the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22.

4. Requests that a report to provide an update on the implementation plan be presented back to

Council in February 2019.”

Details:

Expansion and Improvement of Data Collection

“Expand and improve data collection and subsequent monitoring of participation trends amongst local sporting clubs and associations, as the basis for future decision making”

Update

On 30 October 2018 community groups and sporting clubs who operate in a City of Vincent facility were asked to complete the annual Community Groups and Sporting Clubs Health Check. The Health Checks were conducted via the Imagine Vincent Engagement HQ platform. The Health Check asked to provide annual membership data for the current and previous year, broken down into categories:

· Junior Females

· Junior Males

· Senior Females

· Senior Males

· Social/other members.

The Health Check data is currently being collected, analysed and compared to previous year’s in order to obtain an overview of participation trends amongst sporting clubs and community groups over the past calendar year.

The sportsground hire process was reviewed to obtain more specific player data from sports clubs. This review included the form sent to sporting clubs for the summer 2018/19 season, which included the table below:

Team Information

Junior Males (under 18)

Junior Females (under 18)

Senior Males

(over 18)

Senior Females

(over 18)

Total

How many players are training on this reserve?

How many players are match playing on this reserve?

This data will monitor trends and create a dashboard of participation.

Female Participation in Sports Grants

“Review and amend Council Policy No. 3.10.11 – Community Funding to provide local sporting clubs with access to funding that supports targeted programs, equipment, training, and policies”

Update

On 18 September 2018, Council approved amendments to Policy 3.10.11 – Community Funding Policy to include Female Sports Participation Grants.

Since launching the grants, Administration has received several enquiries from local sporting clubs and associations.

These grants will continue to be promoted to within key focus periods.

Gender Equity Workshops for Local Sporting Clubs

“Deliver targeted club development workshops in partnership with the Department of Local Government, Sport & Cultural Industries to assist local sporting clubs with the implementation of female friendly initiatives.”

Update

On 7 November 2018 Administration hosted the first gender equity workshop facilitated by Jump Marketing and a female participation specialist from the Western Australian Cricket Association. The workshop at the Leederville Oval covered:

· The need for gender equity in sporting clubs;

· How to create gender equity;

· What clubs are currently doing to attract female members;

· What actions clubs can take to attract and retain female members;

· How to develop a three (3) year gender equity plan;

· Identifying projects eligible for Female Sports Participation Grant funding;

Representatives from ten (10) sporting clubs and state sporting associations within Vincent attended the workshop, each taking away a partially-developed gender equity plan and advice on how to complete and implement the plan with the help of their respective committees.

A second workshop is planned the winter 2019 season. For this workshop, the City will collaborate with Jump Marketing, Football West and Western Australian Football Commission.

Marketing Campaign – Spotlight on Female Local Athletes, Officials and Coaches

“Implement a marketing campaign that recognises local sportswomen, coaches, officials and clubs while also providing a platform for consultation with local women and girls regarding current barriers to participation.”

Update

Administration have selected seven (7) nominees from Vincent for inclusion in the Women in Sport marketing campaign. The online campaign will begin in February and one nominee profiled each week.

Nominee	Club	Position	What could the City do to encourage more women and girls to play, volunteer or coach sport?
Emma Gollagher	Leederville Mount Hawthorn Junior Cricket Club	Player	“I think they should make it seem more like something exciting.”
Karen Wickham	Volleyball Western Australia	Participation and Development Manager	“Maybe have an annual community sports day for women and girls where sporting clubs in the city that offer programs for females can come and promote their programs and run “Have a Go” activities to get them engaged.”
Sara Gunn	Loton Park Tennis Club	Grounds Coordinator	“Keeping girls in sport as they become teenagers and adults is not a new struggle. Maybe the City can offer support for membership or uniforms. Or perhaps some coaching or umpiring courses.”
Martine Pearman	Subiaco Football Club	Coach - Subiaco Women’s Football Club	“Provide more resources and funding towards female club and programs within the district. This in turn will allow for better facilities to train at, better lighting, quality coaching.”
Mikayla Morrison	East Perth Football Club	Captain - East Perth Youth Girls Team	To be advised.
Charlize Underwood	Western Firebirds Netball Club	Player	“I would love to see education sessions being held for both parents and students within local primary schools (mainly year 6’s) about the importance of an active life during high school and beyond as it would have a positive impact on the amount of female adolescents participating in sports. It would also be great to see open days at male predominant sporting clubs or athletes from different sporting backgrounds run clinics to engage females to play sports”
Stephanie Symes and Committee Members	Modernians Hockey Club	President and committee members	“It's important that the City invests in infrastructure that allows women and girls to be part of organised sport at a grass roots level. Failure to do this will not only see women and girls not engage in sport but also drop out as the facilities are inadequate.”

Female Specific Sporting Facilities and Amenities

“Conduct an audit of sportsgrounds and associated facilities to determine the need for infrastructure improvements to support increased female participation for consideration within Council’s 2019/20 capital works budget.”

Update:

An audit has been conducted of the City’s community pavilions and clubrooms (attachment 1). The audit will identify the current and future need for infrastructure improvements for consideration within Council’s 2019/20 capital works budget.

Ongoing Investigation and Information Gthering

Administration will continue to investigate and gather information on the range of initiatives listed within to determine how these initiatives can assist City sporting clubs to increase participation by women and girls.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Gender Equity Workshop were communicated via the City’s social media channels, corporate website and email invitation to all clubs.

Female Sports Participation Grants has been communicated on the City’s website and at the workshop.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Nil.

Strategic Implications:

Keeping in line with the City of Vincent’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028, the following priority areas state:

“Connected Community

We are an inclusive, accessible and equitable City for all.

· Integrate accessibility, diversity and inclusion into our operations and service delivery to meet the needs of everyone in our community

· Lead by example through decision making and communications to support the diversity and culture of our community.

Innovating and Accountable

Our resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner;

· Review and consolidate assets to ensure all buildings and facilities re well utilised and meet community needs.

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained;

· Prioritise investment in maintenance, repair and improvement programs to deliver high quality public places and facilities.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The 2019/20 capital budget will be informed by the findings of the facility audit of all sporting pavilions.

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ PAY PERIOD	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
Cheques	82471 - 82475	$1,115.12
EFT and BPAY Payments	2329 – 2352 (2330 paid last month)	$7,279,965.09
Sub Total		$7,281,080.21

Transfer of Payroll by EFT	27/11/18	$611,476.02
	11/12/18	$621,880.60
	20/12/18	$792,519.33
	November/December 2018	$2,025,875.95

Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits
Lease Fees		$385.00
Loan Repayments		$148,542.39
Bank Charges – CBA		$31,805.54
Credit Cards		$4,300.01
Total Bank Charges and Other Direct Debits (Sub Total)		$185,032.94

Total Payments		$9,491,989.10