AGENDA

 

 

Council Briefing

 

29 January 2019

 

Time:

6.30pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

No responsibility whatsoever is implied or accepted by the City of Vincent (City) for any act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  The City disclaims any liability for any loss however caused arising out of reliance by any person or legal entity on any such act, omission, statement or intimation occurring during Council Briefings or Council Meetings.  Any person or legal entity who acts or fails to act in reliance upon any statement, act or omission made in a Council Briefing or Council Meeting does so at their own risk.

In particular and without derogating in any way from the broad disclaimer above, in any discussion regarding any planning or development application or application for a licence, any statement or intimation of approval made by an Elected Member or Employee of the City during the course of any meeting is not intended to be and is not to be taken as notice of approval from the City.  The City advises that anyone who has any application lodged with the City must obtain and should only rely on WRITTEN CONFIRMATION of the outcome of the application, and any conditions attaching to the decision made by the Council in respect of the application.

Copyright

Any plans or documents contained within this Agenda may be subject to copyright law provisions (Copyright Act 1968, as amended) and that the express permission of the copyright owner(s) should be sought prior to their reproduction.  It should be noted that Copyright owners are entitled to take legal action against any persons who infringe their copyright.  A reproduction of material that is protected by copyright may represent a copyright infringement.


PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME

The City of Vincent Local Law Relating to Meeting Procedures prescribes the procedure for persons to ask questions or make public statements relating to a matter affecting the City, either verbally or in writing, at a Council meeting.

Questions or statements made at an Ordinary Council meeting can relate to matters that affect the City.  Questions or statements made at a Special Meeting of the Council must only relate to the purpose for which the meeting has been called.

1.    Shortly after the commencement of the meeting, the Presiding Member will ask members of the public to come forward to address the Council and to give their name and the suburb in which they reside or, where a member of the public is representing the interests of a business, the suburb in which that business is located and Agenda Item number (if known).

2.    Public speaking time will be strictly limited to three (3) minutes per member of the public.

3.    Members of the public are encouraged to keep their questions/statements brief to enable everyone who desires to ask a question or make a statement to have the opportunity to do so.

4.    Public speaking time is declared closed when there are no further members of the public who wish to speak.

5.    Questions/statements are to be directed to the Presiding Member and are to be made politely in good faith and are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely or be defamatory on a Council Member or City Employee.

6.    Where the Presiding Member is of the opinion that a member of the public is making a statement at a Council meeting, that does not affect the City, he may ask the person speaking to promptly cease.

7.    Questions/statements and any responses will be summarised and included in the Minutes of the Council meeting.

8.    Where practicable, responses to questions will be provided at the meeting.  Where the information is not available or the question cannot be answered, it will be “taken on notice” and a written response will be sent by the Chief Executive Officer to the person asking the question.  A copy of the reply will be included in the Agenda of the next Ordinary meeting of the Council.

9.    It is not intended that public speaking time should be used as a means to obtain information that would not be made available if it was sought from the City’s records under Section 5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 or the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1992. The CEO will advise the member of the public that the information may be sought in accordance with the FOI Act 1992.

 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

·         All Ordinary and Special Council Meetings are electronically recorded except when the Council resolves to go behind closed doors;

·         All recordings are retained as part of the City's records in accordance with the General Disposal Authority for Local Government Records produced by the Public Records Office;

·         A copy of the recorded proceedings and/or a transcript of a particular section or all of a Council meeting is available in accordance with Policy No. 4.2.4 – Council Meetings – Recording and Web Streaming.

·         Ordinary Meetings of Council and Council Briefings are streamed live on the internet in accordance with the City’s Policy – 4.2.4 - Council Meetings Recording and Web Streaming. It is another way the City is striving for transparency and accountability in what we do.

·         The live stream can be accessed from http://webcast.vincent.wa.gov.au/video.php

·         Images of the public gallery are not included in the webcast, however the voices of people in attendance may be captured and streamed.

·         If you have any issues or concerns with the live streaming of meetings, please contact the City’s Manager Governance and Risk on 08 9273 6538.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

4          Declarations of Interest 7

5          Development Services. 8

5.1             No. 118 (Lot: 89; D/P: 1823) Angove Street, North Perth - Mixed Use Development Comprising One Commercial Tenancy and Four Multiple Dwellings. 8

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. 172

5.3             No. 5 (Lot: 14; D/P: 1149) Scott Street, Leederville - Two Grouped Dwellings. 193

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. 212

5.5             LATE REPORT: No. 48 (Lot 5; D/P: 14389) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Two Grouped Dwellings - SAT S.31 Reconsideration. 358

5.6             Amendment to Municipal Heritage Inventory - No. 3 (Lot: 18) Mignonette Street, North Perth. 359

5.7             Amendment to Trees of Significance Inventory - Blackford Street Reserve. 368

5.8             Proposal to name nine (9) roads in Mount Lawley and Highgate. 382

5.9             Amendment to Policy No. 2.2.8 - Laneways and Rights of Way. 504

5.10           LATE REPORT: Request for Minor Amendment to Metropolitan Region Scheme - Vincent Street Other Regional Road Reserve. 523

6          Engineering. 524

6.1             Tender No. 563/18 - Mount Hawthorn Lesser Hall Refurbishment – Appointment of a Successful Tenderer 524

7          Corporate Services. 527

7.1             Investment Report as at 31 December 2018. 527

7.2             Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 14 November 2018 to  31 December 2018. 537

7.3             Financial Statements as at 31 December 2018. 564

7.4             City of Vincent ordinary election 2019 - appointment of Electoral Commissioner to conduct the election by postal vote [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 651

7.5             LATE REPORT: Council Recess Period 2018-2019 - Receiving of Reports. 656

7.6             LATE REPORT:  City of Vincent submission to WALGA - Local Government Act review (phase 2) 657

7.7             LATE REPORT:  Statutory Review of the City's wards and representation - consideration of submissions. 658

8          Community Engagement 659

8.1             Amended Use of Les Lilleyman Reserve by Subiaco Football Club. 659

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. 666

8.3             LATE REPORT: Draft Banks Reserve Master Plan Extended Public Comment Feedback. 672

8.4             LATE REPORT: Western Australian Football Commission JLT Series Fixture at Leederville Oval - Waiver of Fees. 673

 

9          Chief Executive Officer 674

9.1             Information Bulletin. 674

9.2             LATE REPORT: Inner City Councils - Memorandum of Understanding. 752

10        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 753

Nil

11        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 753

12        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed (“Behind Closed Doors") 753

Nil

13        Closure. 753

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

3            Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

4            Declarations of Interest


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5            Development Services

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


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

 


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


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

 


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


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

 


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


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5.5          LATE REPORT: No. 48 (Lot 5; D/P: 14389) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Two Grouped Dwellings - SAT S.31 Reconsideration

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL BRIEFING ON 29 JANUARY 2019.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5.6          Amendment to Municipal Heritage Inventory - No. 3 (Lot: 18) Mignonette Street, North Perth

TRIM Ref:                  D18/196511

Author:                     Hoping Au, Heritage Officer

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Heritage Assessment - No. 3 Mignonette Street, North Perth  

 

Recommendation:

That Council, pursuant to Section 45 of the Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990, ENTERS No. 3 (Lot: 18) Mignonette Street, North Perth onto the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as Management Category B – Conservation Recommended.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider entering No. 3 (Lot: 18) Mignonette Street, North Perth onto the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI).

Background:

The City’s MHI was first introduced in 1995 and aims to protect places that have cultural heritage value as assessed under the City’s policy framework.

 

On 13 September 2018, the City received a nomination from the owner of No. 3 Mignonette Street, North Perth to enter the subject place onto the MHI.

Details:

Administration has assessed the nomination and prepared a Heritage Assessment in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.6.2 – Heritage Management – Assessment.

 

The subject dwelling was one of the first constructed along Mignonette Street, which forms part of the first phase of the subdivision of North Perth, known as Christmas Hill. This subdivision was first advertised for private sale in 1895 by S. Herman & T.W. Williams and the dwelling at No. 3 Mignonette Street first appeared on the WA Post Office Directories in 1913.

 

The dwelling is a modest, tuck-pointed red brick dwelling with a corrugated metal roof, constructed circa 1912. It is a single storey symmetrical dwelling with a high-pitched hipped roof, typical of working class Federation Bungalow style residences, and is one of a set of two identical dwellings. Whilst some of the elements at the front façade have been restored or altered, the original shell of the building and a number of key features are completely intact.

 

The place has a moderate degree of authenticity by continuing to maintain a significant amount and quality of its original features. The place is a good example of the pattern of suburban development from the time when North Perth was first developed. The site has moderate cultural heritage value and aligns with “Management Category B – Conservation Recommended”.

 

The full Heritage Assessment is contained in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.6.5 – Heritage Management – Amendments to the Municipal Heritage Inventory, consultation was undertaken for a period of 14 days in a local newspaper and on the City’s website from 10 November 2018 until 24 November 2018. Notification was also sent to the State Heritage Office and local precinct groups.

 

One submission was received from the State Heritage Office; noting the proposed amendment to the MHI but advising that it does not provide specific comments on the inclusion of new places on MHIs as they are controlled by Local Governments.

Legal/Policy:

·       Heritage of Western Australia Act 1990;

·       Local Planning Policy No. 7.6.2 - Heritage Management – Assessment; and

·       Local Planning Policy No. 7.6.5 – Heritage Management – Amendments to the Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI).

Risk Management Implications:

It is low risk to the City’s operations to enter a property onto the Municipal Heritage Inventory.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Sensitive Design

 

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

Comments:

Given that it is one of the earliest houses constructed along the street during the 1910s, the place makes a significant contribution to the streetscape and character of the area and warrants entry onto the MHI as “Management Category B – Conservation Recommended”.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5.7          Amendment to Trees of Significance Inventory - Blackford Street Reserve

TRIM Ref:                  D18/182607

Author:                     Amanda Fox, Strategic Planning Officer

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Trees of Significance Inventory - Proposed (Tracked Changes)

2.       Attachment 2 - Arboricultural Report - Blackford Street Reserve  

 

Recommendation:

That Council AMENDS the City’s Trees of Significance Inventory by adding the entry for No. 232 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn - Ficus macrocarpa var. hillii (Hill’s Weeping Fig).

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider amending the Trees of Significance Inventory (the Inventory) by including the Hill’s Weeping Fig tree (Ficus macrocarpa var. hillii) situated within Blackford Street Reserve, No. 232 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn.

Background:

The Inventory was first adopted in 1997 and currently includes 24 sites (totalling approximately 300 trees). The purpose of the Inventory is to provide a mechanism for the City to recognise valuable trees and to ensure the protection and management of these trees by way of Supplemental Provision Clause 61(1)(k) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2. Clause 61(1)(k) which requires development approval to be obtained for any works to remove, destroy and/or interfere with any tree listed on the Inventory.

 

On 27 March 2011, Council adopted Policy No. 7.6.3 – Trees of Significance, which establishes a framework for the ongoing management of significant trees. On 25 June 2013, the Policy was subsequently amended to allow community members to nominate a tree within the public domain for inclusion in the Inventory.

 

The Trees of Significance Policy provides criteria for a tree to be included within the Inventory. A tree may be considered significant and worthy of inclusion in the Inventory if one or more of the following criteria apply:

 

a)       outstanding aesthetic quality;

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

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

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

e)       specimen of great age;

f)        outstanding example of a particular species;

g)       rare or unusual species;

h)       horticultural, genetic or propagative value; or

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

 

In accordance with the Trees of Significance Policy, Council must determine the inclusion of any tree within the Inventory.

Details:

The City received a nomination from a member of the public for the Hill’s Weeping Fig tree located within Blackford Street Reserve at No. 232 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn to be included within the Inventory.

 

In accordance with the Trees of Significance Policy, an assessment was undertaken of the tree against the abovementioned criteria. The tree is large and a good example of its species, with a well-structured crown and canopy spread. The tree meets the following criteria:

 

a)       outstanding aesthetic quality;

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

f)        outstanding example of a particular species.

 

The tree was also assessed by a qualified Arborist consultancy (Bowden Tree Consultancy) which provided the following comments:

 

Assessment has revealed a well-formed crown structure typical for the species and age-class of tree, whilst the health condition (vitality) was assessed currently as high, indicative of the capacity of the tree to maintain/ improve the current condition through self-optimisation and the production of response growth (new wood). A long useful life expectancy is deduced (40yrs+) and as such this tree is recommended for inclusion into the City of Vincent’s “Trees of Significance Register”.

 

The complete Arborist Report is included in Attachment 2.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City is not required to advertise the inclusion of the tree on the Inventory.

Legal/Policy:

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

·       Policy No. 7.6.3 – Trees of Significance.

Risk Management Implications:

It is low risk for Council to exercise its discretionary power to determine an amendment to the Inventory.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

 

·       Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The Hill’s Weeping Fig tree located within Blackford Street Reserve, Mount Hawthorn has been assessed against the criteria contained in the City’s Trees of Significance Policy and meets the required criteria for inclusion onto the Inventory. Trees of this size and quality are valuable aesthetic and environmental assets and warrant statutory protection.

 

It is recommended that Council supports the proposed amendment to the Inventory (as shown in Attachment 1) to include the Hill’s Weeping Fig tree (Ficus macrocarpa var. hillii) situated at Blackford Street Reserve, No. 232 Scarborough Beach Road, Mount Hawthorn.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5.8          Proposal to name nine (9) roads in Mount Lawley and Highgate

TRIM Ref:                  D19/2090

Authors:                   Georgia Lawrence, Place Manager

Jordan Koroveshi, Coordinator Policy & Place

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Name the Lanes Flyer

2.       Attachment 2 - Road Name Submissions and Vetting Outcomes

3.       Attachment 3 - Shortlisted Road Names

4.       Attachment 4 - Road Name Recommendations  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the Road Name Recommendations as at Attachment 4, in accordance with the process required under Appendix 1A of the Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia; and

2.       NOTES that Administration will:

2.1     forward the endorsed road names to Landgate for determination; and

2.2     provide notice of Landgate’s determination via notification:

2.2.1  in writing to all residents and businesses within a 250 metre radius of each of the subject roads; and

2.2.2  on the City’s website, E-News and social media pages.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing road name recommendations for nine roads in Mount Lawley and Highgate.

Background:

In September 2014, the Beaufort Street Network (BSN) town team requested the City name 12 unnamed roads in Mount Lawley and Highgate in order to complete two actions identified in Edition 1 of the Better Beaufort Action Plan. The City accepted the request and began the ‘Name the Lanes’ initiative by requesting potential names from the local community between 29 October 2015 and 15 January 2016. A copy of the advertising flyer, including a map showing the location of the roads, is included as Attachment 1.

 

Landgate is the statutory authority responsible for road naming in Western Australia. The flyer and advertising material noted that naming submissions must adhere to Landgate’s Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia.

Details:

The City received 251 naming proposals for the 12 unnamed roads, included in full at Attachment 2. At Landgate’s request, the number of road names was reduced from twelve to nine with all continuous navigable roads allocated one name. Roads 6 and 7 were combined and to be allocated one name, as were roads 9, 10 and 11.

 

The City assessed the proposals against Landgate’s Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia in consultation with the Department of Aboriginal Affairs (DAA), the Whadjuk Working Party (WWP) and the City’s Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group (RAPWG). The City shortlisted 45 names as at Attachment 3 and has prepared a recommendation for each road, as at Attachment 4.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Policy No. 2.2.8, between 29 October 2015 and 15 January 2016. Consultation was undertaken by requesting proposals in writing from all residents and businesses within a 250 metre radius of each road and publication via the Guardian Express, Perth Voice, City’s website and E-News.

 

The City consulted the DAA regarding the Aboriginal naming proposals in 2016 and 2017 and the findings are summarised in Attachment 2 and Attachment 3. The shortlisted Aboriginal names were presented to the WWP and the City’s RAPWG for comment, with neither objecting to the use of the names.

 

The City has continued to consult with the BSN throughout the initiative and the BSN do not have any objections to the recommended names. The City also notified all submitters of this item being presented to Council.

 

Landgate has confirmed that its consultation requirements have been satisfied in accordance with Sections 1.8, 9 and Appendix 1A of Landgate’s Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia.

Legal/Policy:

·       Land Administration Act 1997;

·       Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia (Landgate);

·       Policy No. 2.2.8 – Laneways and Rights of Way; and

·       Reflect Reconciliation Action Plan June 2017-June 2018:

“Incorporate recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures within the City of Vincent ‘Naming the Lanes’ project”.

RISK MANAGEMENT IMPLICations:

Low: It is low risk for Council to endorse road name recommendations for referral to Landgate.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

 

·       We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City;

·       Our many cultures are celebrated;

·       We recognise, engage and partner with the Whadjuk Noongar people and culture.

 

Thriving Places

 

·       Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority”.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with advertising and name plate installation will be met through the existing 2018/19 operating and capital budget.

Comments:

If endorsed, the nine recommended road names would be sent to Landgate for determination. If approved, the City would install nameplates and preserve the relevant information in the Local History Centre.

 

Name the Lanes was a community-driven initiative to improve wayfinding. Endorsing the recommended names is a necessary step in achieving improved wayfinding and sense of place for Mount Lawley and Highgate.

 

Throughout this project, improvements have been identified regarding the City’s road naming process in terms of efficiency and alignment with Landgate’s requirements. These improvements will inform the review of the naming requirements within the Policy No. 2.2.8 – Laneways and Rights of Way, which is an action that is required by Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans.

 

To better align the City’s approach to road naming with Landgate’s requirements, a separate report will propose to modify Section 5 of Policy No. 2.2.8 and the introduction of an administrative road naming procedure to guide future road naming processes within Vincent.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5.9          Amendment to Policy No. 2.2.8 - Laneways and Rights of Way

TRIM Ref:                  D19/3173

Authors:                   Georgia Lawrence, Place Manager

Jordan Koroveshi, Coordinator Policy & Place

Authoriser:                Luke Gibson, A/Director Development Services

Attachments:             1.       Attachment 1 - Analysis of Part 5 of Policy No. 2.2.8

2.       Attachment 2 - Amended Policy No. 2.2.8 - Laneways and Rights of Way

3.       Attachment 3 - Road Naming Procedure  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES that, in accordance with Section 26 of the Land Administration Act 1997, Landgate, on behalf of the Minister for Lands, is responsible for the naming of roads and laneways in Western Australia, and Landgate’s document ‘Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia’ governs road and laneway naming;

2.       AMENDS Policy No. 2.2.8 – Laneways and Rights of Way to remove Part 5, as included as Attachment 2, to enable the naming of roads and laneways within the City of Vincent to be administered in accordance with Landgate’s document ‘Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia’;

3.       ENDORSES the ‘Road Naming Criteria’ as included in the City’s Administrative Procedure ‘Road Naming Procedure’ to guide future recommendations on road naming from the City’s Administration to Landgate; and

4.       NOTES that the City’s ‘Road Naming Procedure’, included as Attachment 3, aligns with Landgate’s document ‘Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia’, and will guide Administration’s future naming of roads and laneways within the City.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider amending Policy No. 2.2.8 to align the City’s approach to road naming with Landgate’s Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia (Landgate’s Policies and Standards).

Background:

In 2015, the City commenced a project to name a number of unnamed roads in Mount Lawley and Highgate, in consultation with the local community. Throughout this project, it was evident that Part 5 of Council’s Policy No. 2.2.8 – Laneways and Rights of Way (Policy No. 2.2.8) was inconsistent with Landgate’s approach to naming roads. On 1 May 2018, Council adopted Volume 1: Vincent Town Centre Place Plans which identified a requirement to review Part 5 of Policy No. 2.2.8.

Details:

As part of the Name the Lanes project, the City undertook a review of the applicable naming requirements. The review found that:

 

·       The majority of Part 5 of Policy No. 2.2.8 is redundant as it is already covered by Landgate’s Policies and Standards;

·       There are inconsistencies with Landgate’s Policies and Standards with regards to transparency and consultation with surrounding residents and Aboriginal groups;

·       There are inconsistencies with the Local Government Act 1995 with regards to Absolute Majority decisions; and

·       It contains unnecessary provision relating to notifications, installation of nameplates, and recording historic information, which are administrative in nature and not required in a Council Policy.

A full analysis of each existing clause in Part 5 of Policy No. 2.2.8 is included as Attachment 1.

 

To address the policy inconsistencies and duplications, Policy No. 2.2.8 is proposed to be amended to remove Part 5 in its entirety. This is illustrated in the amended Policy No. 2.2.8 at Attachment 2.

 

To guide the future naming of roads and laneways, Administration has drafted an Administrative Procedure, which aligns with Landgate’s Policies and Standards. The Procedure sets out Landgate’s requirements in a succinct, legible format and includes a set of Road Naming Criteria to guide Administration’s road name recommendations to Landgate. The Road Naming Criteria is based on the criteria outlined in Policy No. 2.2.8 but refined to align with Landgate’s Policies and Standards. This criteria provides guidance around the City’s expectations for road names, aligns with Landgate’s requirements and will be used to assess future naming applications in conjunction with Landgate’s Policies and Standards. A full copy of the Road Naming Procedure is included as Attachment 3.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City’s Policy No. 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies does not require public consultation where an amendment is administrative in nature. Landgate’s Policies and Standards override the requirements in Part 5 of Policy No. 2.2.8 so removing these requirements is considered an administrative amendment and does not require consultation.

Legal/Policy:

·       Land Administration Act 1997;

·       Local Government Act 1995;

·       Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia (Landgate); and

·       Policy No. 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The proposed recommendations present a low risk to the City.

Strategic Implications:

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

2.          

Connected Community

 

·       We have enhanced opportunities for our community to build relationships and connections with each other and the City

·       Our many cultures are celebrated

·       We recognise, engage and partner with the Whadjuk Noongar people and culture”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The proposed Road Naming Criteria will ensure that Administration selects appropriate names and the proposed Road Naming Procedure would set out the process as required by Landgate’s Policies and Standards. This process will be followed for the 18 road name applications the City has received but not yet progressed.

 

It is intended that a full review of the Policy will be undertaken as part of the preparation of a Right of Way Hierarchy Study/Strategy, as required by item 2.4 of the 2018/19 Corporate Business Plan.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

5.10        LATE REPORT: Request for Minor Amendment to Metropolitan Region Scheme - Vincent Street Other Regional Road Reserve

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL BRIEFING ON 29 JANUARY 2019.

  


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

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

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

7.2          Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 14 November 2018 to
31 December 2018

TRIM Ref:                D19/3514

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT and BPAY December 18

2.       Payments by Cheque December 18

3.       Payments by Credit Card December 18  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 14 November 2018 to 31 December 2018 as detailed in attachment 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

EFT and BPAY Documents 2329 – 2352 (2330 paid last month)

 

 

including payroll 

 

$9,305,841.04

 

 

 

Cheque Numbers 82471 - 82475

 

$1,115.12

 

 

 

Total Direct Debits including credit cards

 

$185,032.94

 

 

 

Total Accounts Paid

 

$9,491,989.10

 

 

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 14 November 2018 to

31 December 2018.

 

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 1.14) the exercise of its power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

The list of accounts paid must be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

                                            

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 14 November 2018 to 31 December 2018, covers the following:

 

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

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 12(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

12.     Payments from municipal fund or trust fund, restrictions on making

 

(1)      A payment may only be made from the municipal fund or the trust fund —

·    if the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from those funds — by the CEO; or

·    otherwise, if the payment is authorised in advance by a resolution of Council.

(2)      Council must not authorise a payment from those funds until a list prepared under regulation 13(2) containing details of the accounts to be paid has been presented to Council.

 

Regulation 13(1) and (3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

13.     Lists of Accounts

 

(1)        If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared -

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

(3)      A list prepared under sub regulation (1) is to be —

·       presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared; and

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Management systems are in place which establish satisfactory controls, supported by the internal and external audit functions.

Strategic Implications:

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:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


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:

 

“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:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                     29 January 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

7.4          City of Vincent ordinary election 2019 - appointment of Electoral Commissioner to conduct the election by postal vote

TRIM Ref:                  D19/4553

Authors:                   Natasha Brooks, Governance and Council Support Officer

Meluka Bancroft, A/Manager Governance and Risk

Authoriser:                Kerryn Batten, Director Corporate Services

Attachments:             1.       Letter from WA Electoral Commissioner dated 19 October 2018 - conduct of City's 2019 ordinary elections  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

 

1.         DECLARES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 4.20(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, the Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of the City of Vincent 2019 ordinary election, together with any other elections or polls which may also be required at this time;

 

2.         DECIDES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 4.61(2) of the Local Government Act 1995, that the method of conducting the 2019 ordinary election will be as a postal election; and

 

3.         NOTES that the estimated cost of the Electoral Commissioner conducting the City’s 2019 ordinary election by postal vote is $102,000 (excluding GST).

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the process and method for conducting the City of Vincent’s (City’s) 2019 ordinary election.

Background:

Pursuant to section 4.7 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LG Act) ordinary elections are to be held on the third Saturday of October every two years. The next ordinary election will be held on 19 October 2019. Local governments can either be responsible for the conduct of the ordinary election, or appoint the Electoral Commissioner to conduct the ordinary election on its behalf. The method of conducting the election can either be via postal or in person voting.

Details:

The Western Australian Electoral Commissioner wrote to the City on 19 October 2018 (a copy of the letter is attached at Attachment 1) offering to conduct the election on the City’s behalf in accordance with section 4.20(4), and setting out its estimated costs.

 

In accordance with the City’s Policy 4.2.14 – ‘Local Government Elections’ the City’s ordinary election is to be conducted by the Electoral Commissioner by postal vote, unless there are any extenuating or special circumstances which precludes this. Administration is not aware of any extenuating or special circumstances that exist in relation to the October 2019 ordinary election.

 

Administration recommends that the Electoral Commissioner is appointed to conduct the ordinary election, on the basis that it has the following benefits:

 

1.         the election is conducted by professionally trained staff appointed for that sole purpose;

 

2.         the election is overseen by an independent person with the appropriate experience and resources; and,

 

3.         removes any conflict of interest that may arise or be perceived to arise between Elected Members and the Chief Executive Officer in his role as the Returning Officer, or other local government officers appointed in relation to the election.

 

The Electoral Commissioner has provided a cost estimate of $102,000 (excluding GST) to conduct the 2019 ordinary election for the City. The calculation of this estimate, including the assumptions the estimate is based on, is set out in the letter attached at Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Clause 1.2 of the City’s Policy 4.2.14 – ‘Local Government Elections’ states that:

 

“1.2    All Local Government Ordinary and Extraordinary Elections and Plebiscites shall be conducted by the West Australian Commission by postal vote, unless the Council resolves that there are extenuating or special circumstances which precludes this."

 

Section 4.20(4) of the LG Act allows local governments to appoint the WA Electoral Commissioner to conduct the election:

         

“4.      A local government may, having first obtained the written agreement of the Electoral Commissioner, declare* the Electoral Commissioner to be responsible for the conduct of the election, or all elections conducted within a particular period of time, and, if such declaration is made, the Electoral Commissioner is to appoint a person to be the returning officer of the local government for the election or elections.”

* Absolute majority required

 

Section 4.28(c) of the LG Act governs the fees and charges associated with the election:

 

“4.28  A local government is to –

          (a) …

          (b) …

(c)      if a declaration under section 4.20(4) has been made in relation to the election, meet the expenses of the Electoral Commissioner in connection with the election to the extent required by regulations.”

 

Section 4.61 of the LG Act sets out the choice of methods for conducting the election:

 

“4.61(1)        The election can be conducted as a –

                   Postal election…

                   Voting in person election …

          (2)      The local government may decide* to conduct the election as a postal election.”

          *Absolute majority required.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Appointing the Electoral Commissioner to conduct the 2019 ordinary election on behalf of the City is in accordance with the City’s Policy 4.2.14 and past practices. As the Electoral Commissioner has the requisite experience and will ensure compliance with the LG Act requirements it will have low risks for the City.

Strategic Implications:

Conducting the 2019 ordinary election by postal vote should result in higher participation rates than in-person voting, and therefore this method aligns with the objectives and principles of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

 

 

 

Innovative and Accountable

 

·       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 Electoral Commissioner estimates that the cost of conducting the 2019 ordinary election for the City by postal vote will be $102,000 excluding GST.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                      29 January 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

7.5          LATE REPORT: Council Recess Period 2018-2019 - Receiving of Reports

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL MEETING – 5 FEBRUARY 2018

 

 

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

7.6          LATE REPORT:  City of Vincent submission to WALGA - Local Government Act review (phase 2)

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL BRIEFING 29 JANUARY 2019

 

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                    29 January 2019

7.7          LATE REPORT:  Statutory Review of the City's wards and representation - consideration of submissions

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED PRIOR TO COUNCIL BRIEFING 29 JANUARY 2019

 

 

  


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 f