Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

9.2 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, A/Executive Director Planning and Place

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

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

3. Applicant's Further Justification ⇩

4. Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response ⇩

5. Administration's Comments on Submissions ⇩

6. Local Development Plan ⇩

7. LDP Objective Assessment Against R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments ⇩

pRecommendation:

That Council:

1. Pursuant to Clause654 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) Where this local development plan is inconsistent with the City’s local planning scheme, the local planning scheme prevails. Where this local development plan is inconsistent with an adopted Activity Centre Plan or Structure Plan, Local Planning Policy, Master Plan or Guidelines (e.g. Character Retention Area Guidelines), this Local Development Plan prevails.

1b) In accordance with the Clause 1.2.2 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2), this Local Development Plan contains provisions that amend or replace the Acceptable Outcomes set out in Part 2, 3 and 4 of the R Codes Volume 2. The Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 remain and apply. The provisions below detail which Acceptable Outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2 have been amended or replaced by Acceptable Outcomes of the Local Development Plan.

1c) Unless provided for below, the provisions of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes (R Codes) and Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form apply.

1d) Any State Planning Policy, Local Planning Policy or other legislation that is applicable to this LDP that is amended or replaced will continue to be applicable to the development that is the subject of the LDP.”;

2.2 Deleting dot points two and eight in Clause 2;

2.3 Replacing dot point 5 of Clause 2 with the following:

“The maximum number of parking bays shall not exceed the minimum parking requirements prescribed by State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartment and Local Planning Policy 7.7.1 – Non Residential Development Parking Policy.”;

2.4 Replacing dot point six of Clause 2 with the following:

“The ground floor and parking areas of the development shall be designed to be adaptive and convertible to cater for changing uses over time.”;

2.5 Replacing dot point seven of Clause 2 with the following:

“No vehicle parking shall adjoin or front Cowle Street.”;

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

“The following provisions replace the Acceptable Outcomes in Clause 2.3 and 2.4 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.”;

2.7 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

All buildings on Lots 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 shall be setback 0.5 metres from the right-of-way to allow for widening

1 – 4 storeys: Nil from the 0.5 metre right-of-way widening area (where applicable)

Above 4 storeys: Setback from the 0.5 metre right-of-way widening area (where applicable) as per the applicable Acceptable Outcomes in Clause 2.4 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments or as amended in accordance with Clause 1.2 4 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments

Rear Edge – Lot 15 Cowle Street

1 – 3 storeys: Nil

Above 3 storeys: 4 metres”’

2.8 Replacing the text above the Table in Clause 4 with the following:

“The following provisions replace the Acceptable Outcomes in Clause 2.2 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for Lots 9, 10, 11, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 Fitzgerald Street and Lots 12 and 13 Cowle Street only.”;

2.9 Replacing the term “Top of external wall” in Clause 5 with the following:

“Top of external wall (roof above)”; and

2.10 Replacing the term “Top of roof (concealed)” in Clause 5 with the following:

“Top of external wall (concealed roof)”; and

2.11 Replacing Clause 5 with the following:

“All of the Element Objectives in Clauses 3.2, 3.6, 3.7, 4.10 and 4.14 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments apply to the Internal Edge (North) and Internal Edge (South).”;

2.12 Inserting Clause 6 with the following text:

“6. Landscaping

The following provisions replace the Acceptable Outcomes in Clause 3.3 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments:

(i) Deep soil areas are provided as a minimum of 12% of the site area. Deep soil areas are to be co-located with existing trees for retention and/or adjoining trees, or alternatively provided in a location that is conducive to tree growth and suitable for communal open space.

(ii) Planting Areas* are provided as a minimum of 3% of the site area.

(iii) Landscaping includes existing and new trees with shade producing canopies in accordance with Tables 3.3a and 3.3b of the R Codes Volume 2 to achieve canopy coverage of 80% in the ground floor lot boundary setback.

(iv) Evergreen tree species where landscaping is used to reduce the impact of building bulk.

(v) Deciduous tree species to the north and south of development to allow natural light penetration to the development and adjoining buildings.

(vi) Where the required deep soil areas cannot be provided due to site restrictions, planting on structure with an area equivalent to two times the shortfall in deep soil area provision is provided to a minimum depth and dimension of 1 metre.

* Planting areas area defined as an area, which is not considered a deep soil area, with a minimum soil depth and dimension of 1 metre that supports growth of medium to large canopy trees.”

2.13 Modifying the Local Development Plan Boundary to remove Lot 1006 from the Local Development Plan; and

2.14 The applicant is to obtain necessary approval from the West Australian Planning Commission in accordance with Clause 1.2 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

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) are zoned Residential R80 under the City’s LPS2 and form part of the Residential Built Form area. The adjacent properties to the south on the opposite side of Cowle Street are zoned Residential R80 under the City’s LPS2 and form part of the Activity Corridor Built Form area. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

Details:

The local development plan 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. It is noted the Built Form Policy prescribes a maximum height (top of concealed roof) of 26.7 metres for eight storey developments and that 31 metres is equivalent to just over nine storeys under the Built Form Policy.

The LDP also proposes additional requirements and objectives. Each of these design elements are discussed individually in the Comment section below.

Pursuant to Clause 1.2.2 of State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments), a local government may prepare and adopt a local development plan that amends or replaces the Acceptable Outcomes of Part 2, which includes but is not limited to Clause 2.2 – Building Height, Clause 2.3 – Street Setbacks and Clause 2.4 – Side and Rear Setbacks. These amendments do not require the approval of the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

Pursuant to Clause 1.2.4, the local government may, with the approval of the WAPC, prepare a local development plan to augment the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments with Objectives to guide judgement about the merit of proposals relating to any aspect of apartment development that is not provided for under the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and is required within the local context.

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

Officer Comment

Clause 1.2 of Built Form Policy

Nil

Ballroom Edge

First three storeys: Nil

Fourth, fifth and sixth storey: 1.5 metres

Above six storeys: 4.5 metres

The setbacks proposed for development above the second storey for Cowle Street and the third storey for all other street frontages 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.

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

Officer Comment

Clause 1.2 of Built Form Policy

Rear Edge (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: 6.5 metres

Unless a balcony is proposed adjacent to residential development in which the setback shall be 6 metres

The adjoining residential built form area is permitted two storey boundary walls along the side lot boundaries. A four storey boundary wall as proposed would not create an appropriate interface.

A condition is recommended prescribing boundary walls for the first three rather than four storeys.

Rear Edge (Adjoining Non-Residential Built Form Area)

First two storeys: Nil

Above two storeys: 4 metres

Rear Edge (Adjoining Non-Residential Built Form Area)

First four storeys: Nil

Above four storeys: 4 metres

The proposed setbacks would have no adverse impact on any adjoining residential or commercial properties or the streetscape.

An objective is proposed requiring high quality building interface and surveillance to the public carpark and clarifying that the on ground landscaping provisions apply despite the nil setbacks.

Commercial Edge (Adjoining Non-Residential Built Form Area)

First two storeys: Nil

Above two storeys: 4 metres

Commercial Edge

First three storeys: Nil

Above three storeys: 3.0 metres

The subject site is adjacent to an existing commercial building which comprises a two storey boundary wall.

The proposal would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining property.

Internal Edge (Adjoining Non-Residential Built Form Area north and south)

First two storeys: Nil

Above two storeys: 4 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

The upper floor setbacks proposed are additional to the setbacks prescribed by the Built Form Policy and the Acceptable Outcomes of Clause 2.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

The upper floor setbacks would provide residential amenity including visual and acoustic privacy, natural ventilation, sunlight and daylight access and outlook.

Building Heights

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Officer Comment

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

As per recommendation 2.9, the eight storey building height would only apply to Lots 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 25 only. Those lots fronting Cowle Street (Lots 14 and 15) would be subject to the Built Form Policy and have a maximum building height of six storeys.

Landscaping

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Officer Comment

Clause 1.7 of Built Form Policy

As per Clause 3.3 of R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments which prescribes a minimum of 10 percent deep soil zones.

As the LDP proposes additional heights and setbacks that exceed the current provisions of the Built Form Policy, it is reasonable for additional landscaping to be provided on site. A new provision is recommended requiring 12 percent deep soil in ground and 3 percent on structure planting areas.

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 on 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 the applicant’s response to the submissions is included as Attachment 4, with Administration’s comment on each submission 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);

· State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments)

· 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.

WAPC’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Volume 2 Apartments

On 18 February 2019, the WAPC released the documentation for Design WA, which includes State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Volume 2 Apartments and Design Review Guide. The Minister for Planning has announced this will become operational on 24 May 2019.

The local development plan has been considered against this policy as the policy will be applicable to all future development.

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

The City has undertaken community consultation for amendments to the existing Built Form Policy. The community consultation period concluded on 11 December 2018.

The local development plan has been considered against the proposed amendments to the Built Form Policy, which are expected to be presented to Council in the first half of 2019 to consider its acceptability following community consultation.

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:

“Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Design Objectives

Each of the objectives proposed within the LDP have been considered against the relevant Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The appropriateness and relevance of these objectives is discussed within Attachment 7.

Building Design

The LDP proposes an objective for the building façade to present as a collection of smaller buildings, as per a recommendation from the City’s Design Review Panel. Although there are specific Element Objectives within R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments which relate to the appearance, bulk and scale of a building, the subject objectives provides guidance with regard to the expected design outcome of this development in the context of its locality.

The LDP also proposes objectives for the development to respond to the desired future built form and streetscape outcomes and for the building to be visually interesting. Relevant objectives are provided within the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and those objectives are not recommended to be included within the LDP.

The R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments provides a number of Element Objectives and supporting Acceptable Outcomes requiring street surveillance. The subject site is adjacent to a public carpark which would benefit from passive surveillance. The objective recommended within the LDP is necessary to ensure future development achieves this requirement rather than just the street surveillance outcome required by the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments.

Vehicle Parking

The LDP currently relies on the parking requirements prescribed within the R Codes and the City’s Local Planning Policy 7.7.1 Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy). These policies prescribe minimum parking requirements. To ensure the development does not result in an oversupply of parking, an objective is recommended so the maximum parking provided on site does not exceed the minimum parking required under the relevant policies.

The LDP also includes an objective for the vehicle parking areas to be designed so they minimise negative visual impacts on the streetscape. Clauses 3.8 and 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments provide a number of Element Objectives and Support Acceptable Outcomes requiring vehicle parking to be concealed from the street. These objectives are reasonable and acceptable to ensure vehicle parking does not dominate the Fitzgerald Street streetscape.

Cowle Street is a less intensive residential streetscape. It would not be appropriate for vehicle parking to be located on this frontage as this would result in a façade that does not align with the existing residential character of this streetscape. An additional objective is recommended for inclusion in the LDP that ensures that vehicle parking areas are not provided anywhere along the Cowle Street frontage.

Adaptive Reuse

The LDP has included an objective for the design of the development to allow for adaptive reuse. The R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments provides some guidance for buildings to be design for adaptive reuse though ground floors having large floor to ceiling heights. To ensure the ground floor and car parking areas can be adapted over time to different uses, noting the likelihood of changes in use and a lower reliance on private vehicles, an amended objective is recommended requiring these areas to be designed to be adaptive and convertible to cater for changing uses over time.

Noise

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.21 Sound Attenuation provides guidance for when an acoustic report is required to be considered as part of a development application. An acoustic report for future development on this site would be required for the City’s consideration.

Heritage Wetlands Trail

The City’s Heritage Wetlands Trail and Greenway currently runs along Lawley Street, onto Fitzgerald Street and through Robertson Park. The City has reviewed the ability for the Water Corporation easement to form part of the heritage trail/greenway. Due to the orientation of the easement, the lack of access to natural sunlight between the existing buildings and the significant below ground Water Corporation infrastructure, it would not be possible to provide sufficient canopy coverage along this easement to support the heritage trail/greenway. It should also be noted that the Water Corporation easement is Crown Land and as it is not owned by the applicant will fall outside of the boundary of the Local Development Plan.

The City’s Greening Plan has been part of the implementation of the heritage trail/greenway, with this section of Fitzgerald Street being planted with appropriate tree species to support this link in the last 18 ‑ 24 months. Lawley Street and Robertson Park are already provided with advanced trees to support this link. To respect the existing trail, an objective has been included requiring that appropriate landscaping be provided on site that would integrate with the City of Vincent Wetlands Heritage Trail/Vincent Greenway and nearby parklands.

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. A boundary wall for the first three storeys would 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 would have no adverse impact on any adjoining residential or commercial properties or the streetscape. A 5.0 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 would ensure an outdoor space is created on Fitzgerald Street either side of the easement that would provide suitable space to activate the street through alfresco dining, informal seating and the like. The setbacks for the fourth storey and above would result in a separation between the building of no less than 13 metres, which would 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 would also not affect any active habitable spaces of the adjoining commercial development itself. The side setbacks proposed would 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 would 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 metre height proposed will create the potential for additional overshadowing of the lots on the southern side of Cowle Street and despite the setbacks would 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 and Cowle Street. Clause 3.2 Orientation, Clause 3.6 Public domain interface, Clause 3.7 Pedestrian access and entries, Clause 4.10 Façade design and Clause 4.14 Mixed use contained within the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments contain Element Objectives, Acceptable Outcomes and Design Guidance to facilitate active frontages. The provisions contained within Clause 5 are not necessary.

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. This is not consistent with the intended outcome of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments 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. An objective is recommended to be included to ensure the internal edges provide active frontages as intended.

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 R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments apply to the internal easement in the same way as they apply to the street frontages.

Landscaping

The Acceptable Outcomes of Clause 3.3 Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas prescribes a minimum of 10 percent deep soil zones. The minimum requirements for trees are as follows:

· Up to 1,000sqm – 2 medium trees or 1 large tree and small trees to suit area; and

· >1,000sqm – 1 large tree and 1 medium tree for each additional 400sqm in excess of 1,000sqm or 1 large tree for each additional 900sqm in excess of 1,000sqm and small trees to suit area.

The LDP proposes nil setback to all boundaries and does not specify where the deep soil zones, mature tree planting or other landscaped areas will be provided, with these areas to be detailed at the development application stage.

The LDP proposes additional building height that exceeds the current provisions of the Built Form Policy. Specific requirements relating to landscaping that exceed the provisions prescribed by the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments would assist in offsetting the additional building height that would be permitted by the LDP. It is recommended that landscaping provisions be included in the LDP that require a minimum of 12 percent of the site to be provided as deep soil zones and to facilitate high quality landscaped outcomes.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

9.3 Review of Policy No. 3.8.12 - Mobile Food Vendor

TRIM Ref: D19/66026

Authors: Rachel Wells, Environmental Health Officer

Prue Reddingius, Co-ordinator Environmental Health

Authoriser: John Corbellini, A/Executive Director Planning and Place

Attachments: 1. Policy No. 3.8.12 - Mobile Food Vendor - Proposed Amendments ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the proposed amendments to Policy No. 3.8.12 – ‘Mobile Food Vendor’ as at Attachment 1; and

2. NOTES that at the conclusion of the public consultation period any submissions received will be presented to Council for consideration.

Purpose of Report:

To consider proposed amendments of Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor (Mobile Food Vendor Policy) for the purposes of public consultation.

Background:

The Mobile Food Vendor Policy was first introduced by Council for trial purposes over a three month period following endorsement at the 2 December 2014 Ordinary Meeting of Council. Following the trial, Council adopted the Mobile Food Vendor Policy on 25 August 2015, with amendments, subject to a review in 12 months.

The Mobile Food Vendor Policy in its current form was endorsed by Council on 23 August 2016 following the 12 month review. Since the policy came into effect, the City has issued 23 permits, spread across three financial years. The City has received 4 formal complaints in that time.

At the OMC held on 13 November 2018, Council resolved:

‘That Council:

1. MODIFIES the Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor by deleting Location 1 from the map of Hyde Park (Section 3, Page 3)

2. INITIATES a review of the Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors and requires a report to be presented to Council by no later than 30 April 2019 to consider a revised policy for the purposes of public consultation. That review is to consider:

2.1 Councils Approach to the use of City parks and reserves for commercial purposes;

2.2 Maximum number of hours that a vendor may remain in one location; and

2.3 Permitted trading locations throughout the district.’

Details:

The proposed amendments to Mobile Food Vendor Policy are as follows:

Vehicle Management

Consultation with vendors has raised awareness of the interaction between pedestrian/park users and vendors as vehicles are entering and exiting the trading zones, particularly on weekends and peak periods.

To ensure adequate management of vehicles is considered by vendors when applying to the City, Administration recommends the following amendment:

‘8. HOW TO APPLY FOR A VENDING VINCENT PERMIT

8.2(f) Submission of a statement detailing management measures to ensure safe entry and exit from trading zones.’

Administration will provide prospective vendors guidance material to detail the kind of measures that should be taken to ensure safe vehicle entry and exit to support them through the application process.

Waste management

An audit conducted by the City’s Waste Services across Feb/March 2019 found participating vendors were depositing commercial waste into the City’s bins.

The review identified improvements to waste collection streams by vendors should be made and provision for this explicitly included within the policy.

Administration recommends the following amendment:

‘4. MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING

4.4 No waste or litter may be disposed of in City rubbish bins. Mobile Food Vendors must provide three bins (general waste, recycling and FOGO) for collection and storage of waste generated by their business. Vendors should ensure the area around their position is kept clear of rubbish and refuse at all times and all waste generated/collected by the Vendor should be removed from site by the Vendor. The City does not permit any commercial waste or waste generated by Vendors to be disposed of in public space rubbish or recycling bins.’

Singe Use Plastics Ban

On 22 August 2017 Council adopted a Notice of Motion requesting investigation of the use of single use plastics and the mechanisms that could be used to encourage or prescribe their reduction or elimination. A survey by the City found that the current mobile food vendor permit holders support a single use plastics ban.

Administration recommends the following amendment:

‘4. MAINTENANCE AND CLEANING

4.5 Mobile Food Vendors must use fully compostable serving ware (including all plates, bowls, food containers, cups, straws and crockery). Vendors must display signage directing customers to dispose of all such compostable items in a general waste bin. Single use plastic must be limited to bottled drinks only and vendors must display signage directing customers to dispose of plastic drink bottles in a recycling bin.’

CEO Approval for extenuating circumstances

In case of extenuating circumstances caused by weather, an event or park maintenance, the CEO should be able to approve a temporary alternative trading location to allow vendors to continue trading.

Administration recommends the following amendment:

‘3. LOCATION AND SITING

3.1.7 An alternative trading location within the listed reserve may be considered in extenuating circumstances, at the sole discretion of the CEO for a maximum period of 4 months within a financial year.’

Amendment to trading location at Britannia Reserve

An amendment to the trading location at Britannia Reserve, Mount Hawthorn is proposed to increase visibility to the public and viability for food vendors. The amendment is included in Attachment 1.

Trading Hours at Charles Veryard Reserve

It is proposed to eliminate trading at Charles Veryard Reserve on Sundays following feedback received from clubs to not interfere with canteen operations on this day.

Amendment to Clause 1 ‘Amenity and Appearance’

It is proposed to include provision within the Mobile Food Vendor Policy to require vendors to consider the impact noise generated by their activities (namely mechanical type noise from equipment/generators) has on the amenity of users of the parks and reserves.

Administration recommends the following amendment:

‘1. AMENITY AND APPEARANCE

1.5 Consider measures to reduce sound emitted by mechanical devices and/or activities associated with Mobile Food Vendor operations to mitigate potential impacts on amenity of park users.

Amendment to Clause 1 ‘Amenity and Appearance’

It is proposed to remove the word ‘energy’ from Clause 1.3 of the Mobile Food Vendor Policy for the avoidance of any doubt in its application.

Administration recommends the following amendment:

‘1. AMENITY AND APPEARANCE

1.3 Have a vehicle whose presentation contributes to the character ~~and energy~~ of the area;.

Consultation/Advertising:

In accordance with Part 2 of the City’s Policy No. 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies, formal advertising of the proposal will occur for a period of 21 day by means of:

· Written notification to landowner/occupiers within proximity to trading zones;

· Written notification to current permit holders;

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

· Notice on the City’s website and social media platforms.

Concurrent to this 21 day period, the City will consult with users of the parks and reserves referenced within the Mobile Food Vendor Policy by means of:

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

· Signage within the parks and reserves captured by the Mobile Food Vendor Policy; and

· Feedback forms.

The results of community consultation will be presented to a Council Meeting along with the draft amendments to Mobile Food Vendor Policy for consideration.

Legal/Policy:

· Local Government Act 1995;

· City of Vincent Trading in Public Places Local Law 2008;

· City of Vincent Health Local Law 2004;

· Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

· Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 1997;

· Food Act 2008;

· Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code;

· Policy No 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor; and

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

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for the City to prepare an amendment to a City Policy for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Connected Community

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

Thriving Places

We encourage innovation in business, social enterprise and imaginative uses of space, both public and private.

Comments:

The Council resolution of 13 November 2018 requested that the review of the Mobile Food Vendor Policy considered three key areas as follows:

Councils Approach to the use of City parks and reserves for commercial purposes

The proposed amendments to the Mobile Food Vendor Policy will ensure that vendors continue to activate our public open spaces and attract users to our parks and reserves while promoting a safe and enhanced environment in keeping with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028.

During inspections in Hyde Park and Braithwaite Park, the City’s Health & Parks officers have consistently received positive comments from members of the public regarding the importance of the allowing the mobile food vendors to continue to operate in their current locations.

Maximum number of hours that a vendor may remain in one location

It is recommended that the current trading hours (7.00am – 9.00pm) remain without amendment. These hours allow mobile food vendors to offer food and beverage during the hours the City’s parks are used by the public, while not extending to times that would potentially impact on surrounding residential properties.

The City has only received 1 complaint in relation to the length of operating hours since commencement of the program. This complaint related to Location 1 in Hyde Park, which has now been removed.

Permitted trading locations throughout the district

Hyde Park

Council resolved at the meeting held 13 November 2018 that Location 1 be deleted from the map of Hyde Park. This took effect immediately. It is recommended the remaining trading location in Hyde Park remain without amendment. This location (the eastern end of the park) is furthest from permanent businesses, setback from surrounding residential properties, the access route is acceptable for vehicles and current vendors are satisfied with the location. Further, the guidelines contained within the Mobile Food Vendor Policy were developed to ensure locations of operation do not have a negative impact on wildlife in the park. Although the location of food trucks is in close proximity to the lakes, there is no evidence to suggest this will have any negative impacts on the turtle population as they remain in the lakes for most of the year and only come out at certain times of the year to nest in higher ground.

Braithwaite Park

It is recommended the current location remains without amendment. This location is suitable for access by vehicles, with the service gate directly adjacent to the area and it is also the location in the park furthest away from local businesses. A coffee vendor has attended this location for the past two years and the City has not received any complaints regarding this location. Through inspections, the City’s Health & Parks officers have received positive comments regarding the mobile food vendor from families who are at the park.

Charles Veryard Reserve

No vendors have traded in this location. Modernians Hockey Club, Cardinals Junior Football Club and Tuart Hill Cricket Club recommend that the trading locations remain without amendment as they would not interfere with clubs current operations.

Britannia Reserve

No vendors have traded in this location. It is proposed to move the current trading location further into the reserve to improve visibility to customers and encourage vendors to utilize this location. The amendment to the Mobile Food Vendor Policy is included in Attachment 1.

Banks Reserve

No vendors have traded in this location. The guidelines contained within the Mobile Food Vendor Policy were developed to ensure locations of operation do not have a negative impact on wildlife in the park. Consultation with the Parks team recommends that this location remains without amendment for access purposes.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

11 Community and Business Services

11.1 Investment Report as at 30 April 2019

TRIM Ref: D19/68136

Author: Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser: Michael Quirk, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments: 1. Investment report ending 30 April 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 30 April 2019 as detailed in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 30 April 2019 and the interest earned year to date.

Background:

The City’s surplus funds are invested in bank term deposits for various terms to facilitate maximum investment returns in accordance to the City’s Investment Policy (No. 1.2.4).

Details of the investments are included in Attachment 1 and outline the following information:

· 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 accredited financial institutions.

As at 30 April 2019, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $36,427,902, compared to $33,647,074 for the period ending 30 April 2018. This position is as a result of year to date capital expenditure being underspent relative to the year to date budget.

Total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 April 2019 are $31,019,902 compared to $32,739,750 in the previous month. The decrease in the balance of term deposits is to ensure cash flows are managed effectively to accommodate operational needs.

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

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	$42,109,674	$35,225,189
February	$39,217,278	$36,665,928	$44,227,308	$36,178,794
March	$36,377,700	$34,622,001	$39,157,958	$32,739,750
April	$33,647,074	$31,177,278	$36,427,902	$31,019,902
May	$30,338,407	$28,712,736	-	-
June	$28,409,157	$24,687,341	-	-

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 30 April 2019 is:

	Annual Budget (including midyear review changes)	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$420,000	$388,700	$468,355	120.49%
Reserve	$226,060	$191,700	$239,321	124.84%
Sub-total	$646,060	$580,400	$707,676	121.93%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$117,050	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 that is restricted.

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 2.47% for current investments including the operating account and 2.74% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for April 2019 is 1.68%. As summarised in the table above, year to date actual interest earnings are tracking higher than the year to date budgeted amount.

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-investments in fossil fuel related entities.

As at 30 April 2019, 34.92% of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

An intern has been engaged to review the City’s current investment policy with a view to revising the investment policy to optimise investment returns whilst considering factors such as fossil fuels and ethical investments.

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 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.

Council has delegated the authority to invest surplus funds to the Chief Executive Officer or his delegate to facilitate prudent and responsible investment.

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments, including maximum investment ratios as shown in the following table:

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Direct Investments Maximum % with any one institution		Managed Funds Maximum % with any one institution		Maximum % of Total Portfolio
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	26.2%	30%	Nil	90%	56.1%
A1	25%	0%	30%	Nil	80%	0%
A2	20%	20.2%*	n/a	Nil	60%	43.9%

* The maximum allowable position with an A-2 accredited institution (ME Bank) has exceeded the threshold. The total investment closing balance at the end of the month has decreased compared to when the investments were undertaken. This fluctuation in cash flows is a normal trend at this time of the year.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Administration has developed effective controls to ensure funds are invested in accordance with the City’s Investment Policy. This report enhances transparency and accountability for the City’s investments.

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

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

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The financial implications of this report are as noted in the details section of the report. Administration is satisfied that appropriate and responsible measures are in place to protect the City’s financial assets.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

11.3 Land exchange and reclassification of land (amendment no. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2) - portion of lot 75 Brentham Street (Brentham Street Reserve) for portion of lot 100 (no. 20) and Lot 37 (no. 26) Brentham Street (Aranmore Catholic Primary School) - consideration of submissions and conditional contract of sale

TRIM Ref: D19/54666

Authors: Jordan Koroveshi, Coordinator Policy & Place

Meluka Bancroft, Manager Governance, Property and Contracts

Authoriser: David MacLennan, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Community comments - Engagement HQ Survey ⇩

2. Submission from Rosewood Aged Care dated 1 April 2019 - Confidential

3. Submission from resident dated 6 March 2019 ⇩

4. Submission from resident dated 15 March 2019 ⇩

5. Plan of proposed land exchange ⇩

6. Subdivision application plan 415620 - prepared by Carlton Surveys ⇩

7. Feature survey showing the proposed land exchange (playground and trees) ⇩

8. Plan of connectivity between the Brentham Street Reserve and Britannia Reserve ⇩

9. Proposed Amendment No.4 Amendment Document Form 2A ⇩

10. Administration response to submissions ⇩

11. Plan of current use of land adjacent to the Aranmore Catholic Primary School ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the submissions received in response to the public notice of the proposed land exchange provided for the period 12 February to 1 April 2019, at Attachments 1, 2, 3 and 4;

2. APPROVES the City and McAuley Property Limited entering into a contract to exchange a 1,671m²portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville, and Lot 37 Brentham Street, Leederville (area of 539m²), for an equal portion (2,210m²) of Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville (Brentham Street Reserve), as shown in the plan at Attachment 5, which is conditional on:

(a) the reclassification of the portion of Lot 75 to be transferred to McAuley Property Limited from “public open space – restricted” to “public purpose – primary school” under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

(b) the registration of a plan of subdivision depicting the subdivision and amalgamation of the lots to effect the proposed land exchange, and McAuley Property Limited paying all associated costs;

3. NOTES that entering into a conditional contract as set out in Recommendation 2. does not provide any indication nor guarantee that the reclassification of land will be approved by the Minister for Planning;

4. NOTES that all costs associated with the subdivision and transfer of land processes would be paid by McAuley Property Limited;

5. AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the conditional contract to exchange the land as set out in Recommendation 2;

6. PREPARES Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2, as at Attachment 9, pursuant to section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, to reclassify a portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville from “public purpose – primary school” to “public open space” and a portion Lot 75 Brentham Street Reserve, Brentham Street, Leederville from “public open space – restricted” to “public purpose – primary school”;

7. CONSIDERS Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 a standard amendment under section 34 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as;

7.1 The amendment is consistent with the City’s Local Planning Strategy which recommends that primary and secondary school facilities have dedicated zoning provisions to ensure their long term use as education providers and public open space is provided and managed appropriately;

7.2 The amendment will have minimal impact on the surrounding area as the reclassification of land does not alter the existing built form on the subject sites;

7.3 The amendment does not alter the Urban zoning under the Metropolitan Region Scheme;

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

7.5 The amendment is not considered to be a basic or complex amendment, as defined within the regulations;

8. NOTES:

8.1 The City will forward Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority pursuant to section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

8.2 If no objection is received, the City will advertise Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of 42 days, pursuant to section 47 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

8.3 Following consideration of submissions by Council, Amendment No. 4 would be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission for consideration and approval by the Minister for Planning; and

9. Subject to the contract in Recommendation 2. becoming unconditional, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the Transfer of Land.

Purpose of Report:

To consider:

(a) the submissions received in response to the public notice of the proposed land exchange;

(b) entering into a conditional contract with McAuley Property Limited to exchange a 1,671m²portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville, and the whole of Lot 37 Brentham Street, Leederville (area of 539m²), for an equal portion (2,210m²) of Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville (Brentham Street Reserve), to align land ownership with current land use; and

(c) the proposed amendment to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS 2) to reclassify a portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville from “public purpose – primary school” to “public open space” and a portion Lot 75 Brentham Street Reserve, Brentham Street, Leederville from “public open space – restricted” to “public purpose – primary school”.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 11 December 2018 (Item 11.5), Council resolved to agree in principle to the exchange of a 1,761m²portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville, and Lot 37 Brentham Street, Leederville (area of 539m²), for an equal portion (2,300m²) of Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville (Brentham Street Reserve), as shown in Attachment 5.

Council also resolved that the Aranmore Catholic Primary School Board and the Catholic Education Office agree a communication plan with the City to explain the reasons for and the benefits of the land exchange to the school community and the public.

Details:

The City, the Sisters of Mercy, the Aranmore Catholic Primary School Board and the Catholic Education Office agreed on a communication strategy in January 2019. Public notice of the proposed exchange was subsequently provided in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995. In accordance with the communication strategy, the City undertook the following community consultation:

· A media release was posted on the City’s website on 12 February 2019 advising of the proposed exchange and inviting submissions until 18 March 2019 (this date was later extended to 1 April 2019);

· Public notice was provided in the Perth Voice on 16 February and 23 March and in the Guardian Express on 12 February and 26 March 2019;

· The school released an update to the school community on 8 March 2019;

· Leaflets were distributed to the properties abutting the land exchange area on 13 March 2019;

· Signs were installed on the school boundary fence on 19 March 2019; and

· Posts on the City’s social media platform were provided throughout the public notice period.

The deadline for submissions was extended from 18 March 2019 to 1 April 2019 to allow the adjoining landowners to be consulted and for signs to be installed on the school fence to notify the public that access between the two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve would not be possible if the proposed land exchange proceeded.

The City received four comments via its Engagement HQ platform, as detailed at Attachment 1. The City also received three written submissions, at Attachments 2, 3 and 4. Three submissions supported the proposed land exchange. The other four submissions raised concerns with the proposed exchange.

The concerns raised related to the loss in connectivity between the two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve, the safety and visibility of the park and the impacts associated with a direct interface between the school and Rosewood Aged Care. Administrations responses to the concerns raised in the submissions are at Attachment 10.

Rosewood Aged Care has requested that a set back of between 1 to 2 meters is maintained between the school (proposed Lot 821) and Rosewood Aged Care, in order to prevent a direct interface between an aged care facility and a school and to allow access between the two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve.

Administration does not support a set back as it is not in accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Designing Out Crime Planning Guidelines (Guidelines). The Guidelines set out the principles of designing out crime and include a tool box of design criteria to address crime prevention in local areas. The proposed set back creates a pedestrian access way which contravenes a number of criteria in the Guidelines as detailed below:

· avoid movement networks and routes that become entrapment spots;

· ensure that pedestrians have a clear view ahead;

· provide a visible exit point; and

· provide unimpeded sightlines along pedestrian pathways and avoid sharp blind corners.

The proposed land exchange would remove the current narrow pedestrian access way between the school and Rosewood Aged Care, which achieves the following objectives as set out in the Guidelines:

· vulnerable public spaces should become more liveable or be removed from public ownership;

· consider appropriate closure techniques and alternative uses to remove unsafe parts of an existing networks; and

· all open space should be well defined and purposeful.

The land exchange is also consistent with the objectives in the City’s Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan 2015-18, particularly action 3.1.1 – “identify vulnerable public places and community spaces for improved safety, accessibility and crime prevention through Crime Prevention through Environmental Design principles.” These principles include minimising areas that are uncontrolled or lack surveillance, minimising concealment areas and avoiding the creation of ‘left over’ spaces.

Removing the current access way will create a direct interface between a school and an aged care facility, which also provides an opportunity for positive interactions between these two uses. There are numerous examples, as detailed in Attachment 10, of these uses operating on adjoining lots and resulting in positive outcomes for the occupants and community.

In respect to the connectivity issue, the plan at Attachment 8 shows that there is pedestrian friendly connections between the two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve, including a connection from Wavertree Place to Britannia Reserve via Brentham Street Reserve, and from the “pocket park” to Brentham Street via Lot 37 (which would be landscaped and form part of the park).

The plan at Attachment 11 details the current use of a portion of the school land as public open space and a portion of the Brentham Street Reserve as a staff car park for the school and the kindergarten lease area.

No changes are proposed to the land exchange as a result of the submissions received from the community. Administration recommends that the City proceed with the proposed exchange as it will result in:

· consolidation of the school on one lot, which allows the school to be fully fenced;

· alignment of land ownership with the current fence boundary between the school and the “oval” section of the Brentham Street Reserve;

· the school and the City being responsible for their respective land holdings, including maintenance, upgrades and liability for loss or damage;

· security of the public access to the remaining portion of Brentham Street Reserve;

· creation of two areas of public open space which are easily accessible to the public and meet different community needs (playground area and passive recreation area);

· continued access to the “oval” area of the Brentham Street Reserve by the school, through a formal shared use arrangement with the City;

· improved visibility and access to the playground via Brentham Street through the landscaping of Lot 37, which aligns with the Guidelines and the City’s Community Safety & Crime Prevention Plan 2015-18; and

· removal of the one metre access way between the two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve which is currently unkempt and unsafe, as discussed above.

The subdivision application plan at Attachment 6 has been prepared to depict the proposed subdivision and amalgamation of lots 37, 38, 39, 75 and 100. Following the survey, the size of the portions of lots 100 and 75 to be exchanged has varied slightly to the estimated size previously presented to Council. These lots would become lots 820 (consolidating the school on one lot) and 821 (comprising the full extent of the Brentham Street Reserve). The proposed land exchange now comprises:

Land details	Current ownership	Proposed ownership
1,671m² portion of Lot 100 (No. 20) Brentham Street, Leederville	McAuley Property Limited	City of Vincent
Lot 37 (No. 26) Brentham Street, Leederville (539m²)	McAuley Property Limited	City of Vincent
2,210m²portion of Lot 75 Brentham Street, Leederville (Brentham Street Reserve)	City of Vincent	McAuley Property Limited

The feature survey at Attachment 7 shows that the proposed land exchange would result in:

· a direct interface between the school and the Rosewood Aged Care facility located at 5 – 9 (Lot 40) Britannia Road, Leederville;

· five mature trees becoming part of the school land; and

· the older playground abutting the boundary between the proposed lots 820 and 821 (the metal slide will encroach by 20mm).

The Sisters of Mercy confirmed that the current fence on the boundary between the Brentham Street Reserve and Rosewood Aged Care would suffice as the boundary fence between the school and Rosewood Aged Care. A permeable fence consistent with the current school fence would be installed along the extent of the remaining boundary of the school lot (Lot 821). Gates would be installed to facilitate access between the school and the Brentham Street Reserve. The school, in consultation with the City and community, would also investigate the removal of the portion of the older playground on the boundary between the lots to ensure a safe set back of the fence from the playground. The newer playground would be wholly comprised within the Brentham Street Reserve (Lot 820) and would remain, with the City to maintain and upgrade it as required.

As previously indicated at the 11 December 2018 Ordinary Council Meeting, the contract between the City and McAuley Property Limited would be conditional on the following:

1. The reclassification of the portion of Lot 75 (being transferred to McAuley Property Limited) from Public Open Space – Restricted to Public Purpose – Primary School; and

2. The completion of the subdivision/amalgamation process to create the new lot 821.

To commence the process of reclassification, this report seeks to prepare Amendment No. 4 to LPS 2. Amendment No. 4 would reclassify the subject lots as described below and as shown in Attachment 9.

Land to be exchanged	Current LPS 2 reservation	Required reservation
Portion of Lot 100 (to City)	Public Purpose – Primary School	Public Open Space
Portion of Lot 75 (to MPL)	Public Open Space – restricted	Public Purpose – Primary School

The intent of Amendment No. 4 is to reclassify the zoning of the subject lots to best suit their future intended purpose and to match the future land owner intentions. The proposed Amendment No. 4 is considered to be in accordance with the City’s Local Planning Strategy as it proposes dedicated zoning provisions for primary and secondary school facilities to ensure their long term use as education providers. The reclassification of Lot 75 to Public Purpose – Primary School would allow the existing primary school to operate over the full extent of its grounds, subject to future development applications. The reclassification of the portion of Lot 100 to be transferred to the City to Public Open Space would align with the City’s intention to provide public recreation areas over the full extent of the property. This process would likely take up to 18 months.

The City will commence the subdivision process to create lots 820 and 821 concurrently with Amendment No. 4. The Sisters of Mercy have agreed to pay all associated costs for the entirety of the process. This process would likely take 3-6 months.

Consultation/Advertising:

No further advertising is required for the proposed land swap itself. However, in accordance with Regulation 47 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the proposed Amendment No. 4 must be advertised for public consultation. Amendment No. 4 also must be referred to the Environmental Protection Authority to assess the environmental impacts of the proposal and to determine whether any formal environmental assessment is necessary.

Amendment No. 4 is considered to be a ‘standard amendment’ and must be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days. Advertising is to occur in the following manner, consistent with the requirements of the City’s policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

· advertisement in a local newspaper;

· display notice of the proposal at the Administration Centre;

· referral in writing to affected persons/agencies; and

· display on the City’s website.

Following the 42 day advertising period, a summary of submissions and the City’s responses to those submissions will be included in a report to Council for consideration of whether to support Amendment No. 4 with or without modifications.

Legal/Policy:

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

· Local Government Act 1995. Section 3.58 – Disposing of Property.

McAuley Property Limited is a religious and educational body that is registered as a charity and its members would not receive any pecuniary profit from the proposed land exchange. As the proposed disposition is to a registered charity which falls within the scope of regulation 30(b) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 the City would not be required to comply with section 3.58.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The proposed exchange would resolve the liability and maintenance risks for the City which currently exist due to the undefined boundary between Lot 75 and Lot 100.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

Connected Community

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

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

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

As equal portions of land are proposed to be exchanged it is recommended that there be no exchange of funds. There are no costs to the City in connection with the amalgamation and subdivision process or preparation and registration of the transfer of land, as McAuley Property Limited has committed to covering these costs. If the City requires that the contract of sale be independently reviewed that will result in a cost to the City of approximately $1,000 - $1,500.

The proposed scheme amendment is not included in the operational budget. The scheme amendment process would likely take at least 12-18 months from commencement to final approval.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

11.4 Financial Statements as at 30 April 2019

TRIM Ref: D19/72210

Author: Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser: Michael Quirk, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments: 1. Financial statements as at 30 April 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 30 April 2019 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 30 April 2019.

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 30 April 2019:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or 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.	Debtors Report	81
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	82

Comments on the Statement of Financial Activity (as at Attachment 1):

Operating revenue is reported separately by ‘Program’ and ‘Nature or Type’ respectively. The significant difference between the two reports is that operating revenue by ‘Program’ includes ‘Profit on sale of assets’ and the report for Nature or Type’ includes ‘Rates revenue’.

Revenue by Program is tracking higher than the year to date budgeted revenue by $690,430 (4%). The following material items relating to Community Amenities contributed to this position:

- Recognition of monies transferred from trust for contributions relating to Percent of Art - $200,000; and

- Recognition of additional income due to unclaimed monies that have been held in trust for greater than 10 years - $321,248. This is in accordance with s.6.9 (4) of the Local Government Act 1996.

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking higher than the budgeted revenue by $516,103. The following items materially contributed to this position:

· A budget to actual surplus of $379,504 in ‘Operating grants, subsidies and contributions’ that is materially contributed from the receipt of monies from percentage of art contributions ($200,000);

· A budget to actual surplus of $148,633 in ‘Other revenue’ that is materially contributed from the recognition of unclaimed monies from the trust fund ($321,248). However, this increase is offset by $153,910 from recoups for ongoing variable outgoings not being finalised as yet;

· A budget to actual surplus of $164,440 due to an increase in ‘Interest earnings’ from investments; and

· A budget to actual deficit in revenue from interim rates by $100,742 due to a decline in new development for the current financial year.

Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $1,256,745 (3%) compared to the year to date budget.

Majority of the programs reflect an under-spend, however ‘Transport’ reflects an over-spend of $112,434 largely contributed by the budget phasing of depreciation expenditure relating to roads.

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $1,083,263 (2%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position:

· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $1,739,004. This variance is largely contributed by timing of on-going works and operating projects that have not commenced as yet resulting in the works being carried forward to 2019/20;

· Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $414,861 largely contributed to operating projects not having commenced and will be carried forward to 2019/20;

· Employee costs reflects an over-spend of $591,680 largely contributed to budget phasing due to April having 3 payroll payment runs and a one-off redundancy payments;

· Depreciation on non-current assets reflects an over-spend of $433,315 largely due to budget phasing for depreciation relating to roads. The overall impact of depreciation will be on par with the budgeted amount at the end of the financial year.

Opening Surplus Bought Forward – 2018/19

The opening net surplus position brought forward for 2018/19 was $5,524,405 as stated in the 2017/2018 audited financial statements.

As at 30 April 2019, the surplus amount is $13,511,705 compared to the year to date budgeted amount of $8,771,056. This variance is largely comprised of a reduction in expenditure for works relating to capital works. The table in Note 5 provides a summarised breakdown of the expenditure activity in each asset category.

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 including variance commentary.

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

The Table below summarises the ‘2018/2019 capital expenditure budget by program’ as at 30 April 2019. 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	2,535,542	1,880,595	1,107,051	56.3%
Infrastructure Assets	7,474,682	6,927,400	3,898,516	47.8%
Plant and Equipment	2,972,882	2,018,351	856,429	71.2%
Furniture and Equipment	969,870	848,414	99,056	89.8%
Total	13,952,976	11,674,760	5,961,052	57.3%


FUNDING	Current Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Own Source Funding - Municipal	9,603,667	7,811,808	4,232,458	55.9%
Cash Backed Reserves	1,996,478	1,542,121	356,625	82.1%
Capital Grant and Contribution	1,872,868	1,872,868	1,089,780	41.8%
Other (Disposals/Trade In)	479,963	447,963	282,189	41.2%
Total	13,952,976	11,674,760	5,961,052	57.3%

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 provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserves portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 30 April 2019 is $13,153,249.

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

Total rates collected, as at 30 April 2019 is $34,739,356. Furthermore, the outstanding rates debtors balance is $1,169,721 including deferred rates ($95,513).

Final instalment notices have been issued to ratepayers that have defaulted on their instalment payments. Thereafter the debt will be handed over for further debt collection.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 81)

Trade receivables outstanding as at 30 April 2019 is $2,495,126, of which $1,484,200 has been outstanding for over 90 days. Administration has been regularly following up all outstanding items by issuing reminders when they are overdue, subsequently initiating a formal debt collection process for when payments remain outstanding for long periods of time.

Below is a summary of the items that have been outstanding for over 90 days:

· $1,326,087 (89.3%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee. The debtor balance has improved by 2.5% ($186,705) compared to last month.

Due to the aged nature of some of the unpaid infringements, the provision for doubtful debts has been increased this year and an amount of $1,066,403 has been transferred to long term infringement debtors (non-current portion); and

· $181,140 (12.2%) relates to cash in lieu of car parking debtors. Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with cash in lieu parking debtors that prefer to pay over a fixed term of five years.

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

As at 30 April 2019, the operating deficit for the centre is $1,521,906 compared to the year to date budgeted amount of $1,450,905.

10. Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 – 64)

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and/or $20,000 respectively. 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).

In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 30 April 2019 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

11. Treatment of Assets Less Than $5,000

The following amendment has been made to s6.10 Regs.17 (A) (5) of the Local Government Act:

An asset is to be excluded from the assets of a local government if the fair value of the asset as at the date of acquisition by the local government is under $5,000.

As a result, Administration has reallocated the expenditure relating to the affected assets under this new threshold from capital to operating. The impact of this change is an increase in year to date operating expenditure by $240,642 resulting in a negative impact on the net position for the year.

Administration is currently reviewing the assets that have been acquired in the previous financial years and will perform a similar exercise to be fully compliant with the new legislative requirements.

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 to Council fulfils relevant statutory requirements and is consistent with good financial governance.

Strategic Implications:

Reporting on the City’s financial position is aligned to with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

Innovative and Accountable

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

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

11.5 Realignment of City of Vincent district boundary at the intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth and dedication of adjoining private right of way

TRIM Ref: D18/152272

Authors: Caroline Ngunjiri, Property Officer

Meluka Bancroft, Manager Governance, Property and Contracts

Authoriser: David MacLennan, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Plan of proposed district boundary realignment at intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth ⇩

2. Plan of lots 305, 231 and 232 ⇩

3. Analysis of criteria in clause 5.2 of Schedule 2.1 of the Act ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council

1. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to make a request to the Local Government Advisory Board to realign the City of Vincent district boundary at the intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth, as shown as “option 2” at Attachment 1, subject to the City of Stirling supporting this request;

2. REQUESTS the Minister for Lands to dedicate the portion of the right of way that lies within the area of the proposed intersection upgrade, described as Lot 305 on Plan 28281 and being part of the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2217 Folio 814 (Lot 305), as road, pursuant to section 56(1)(c) of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA);

3. REQUESTS the Minister for Lands to acquire the balance of Lot 305 as Crown land pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Land Administration Act 1997 subject to:

3.1 advertising the proposed acquisition in the local paper;

3.2 advising all suppliers of public utility services to Lot 305 of the proposed acquisition;

3.3 stating in the notices referred to in 3.1 and 3.2 above that submissions must be lodged within 31 days of the date of the notice;

3.4 considering and responding to any submissions and objections received;

3.5 referring the proposed acquisition to the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (Planning Division) for comment;

4. NOTES that any objections received in 3 above will be considered by Administration and incorporated into the request to the Minister for Lands; and

5. REQUESTS the Minister for Lands to reserve the balance of Lot 305 as a reserve for the purpose of a public right of way and place the care, control and management of the reserve in the City pursuant to sections 41 and 46(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997.

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the realignment of the City of Vincent district boundary at the intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets, North Perth, as shown as “option 2” at Attachment 1.

Background:

Council at its Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 18 September 2018 resolved in part as follows:

“That Council:

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

In accordance with recommendation 5 Administration has contacted the City of Stirling in respect to the realignment of the district boundary so that it aligns with the road centrelines and cadastral information as required by the Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia.

Details:

District boundary realignment

The district boundary between the Stirling and Vincent local government areas at the intersection of Charles, Green and Walcott Streets in North Perth follows an earlier alignment of Walcott Street and does not align with the present layout of the road. The City is currently responsible for managing the footpath and verge along Charles Street (Wanneroo Road) north of Green and Walcott Streets. Realigning the district boundary would formalise the control and management of the road reserve and would not impact local government rates as the affected land is road reserve and City freehold land which is non-rateable.

No infrastructure would be affected by the proposed boundary realignment. The City of Stirling would take on the responsibility for the maintenance of the small grass area within the intersection. The bore used to water this grass area is located within the City of Stirling.

Dedication of portion of Lot 305 and reservation of the balance as a public right of way

During the course of considering the realignment, it came to the City’s attention that there is a private right of way that will be partially comprised within the proposed intersection realignment. The right of way is described as lot 305 on plan 28281, and being the land comprised in Certificate of Title Volume 2217 Folio 814 (Lot 305) and is highlighted in pink in Attachment 2. Lot 305 is owned by the City in freehold and is currently used as a rear access way by the lots abutting it, as shown in the plan at Attachment 2. These lots have an implied right of access over Lot 305 pursuant to section 167A of the Transfer of Land Act. Lot 305 is sealed, 5 metres wide and has no lighting.

Lots 231 and 232, highlighted blue in Attachment 2, are being transferred to the State of Western Australia for the purpose of dedication as a road. As a portion of Lot 305 will form part of the proposed intersection, it is recommended that this portion is dedicated as road pursuant to section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997 (LAA).

The process for the Minister for Lands to acquire Lot 305 as Crown land is as follows:

· Council resolves that Lot 305 should be acquired by the Minister as Crown land pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the LAA, subject to Administration advertising its intention to make the request and considering any objections;

· The City advertises its intention in the local paper and notifies the adjoining land owners and occupiers and the relevant utility providers, and invites submissions and objections for a 31 days period from the date of the notice;

· The City considers and responds to any submissions / objections received;

· The City makes a request to the Minister for a portion of Lot 305 to be acquired as Crown land, which includes the following details, as required by regulation 6 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998:

o written confirmation that the City has resolved to make this request;

o details of the reasons for the City making this request;

o plan of Lot 305;

o written confirmation that the City has taken all reasonable steps to identify and notify the adjoining land owners and the utility providers, as specified in section 52(3)(a) of the LAA;

o copies of any submissions / objections received in response to the public notice, and the City’s comments on these submissions / objections; and

o written confirmation that the City has complied with section 52(3) of the LAA.

· The City pays the document lodgement costs, which are approximately $169.

If the Minister grants the City’s request, the portion of Lot 305 not dedicated as a road will become unallocated Crown land. Unallocated Crown land is not under the local authority’s care, control and management and does not have a particular purpose. The City is requesting that the unallocated Crown land is reserved as a public right of way pursuant to section 41 of the LAA.

Once the land is reserved, the Minister would place the care, control and management of the reserve with the City pursuant to section 46(1) of the LAA. This means that Lot 305 would become Crown land vested in the City for the purpose of a public right of way. Administration would be responsible for the management and maintenance of the ROW and will monitor its use to determine when lighting should be installed. Once lighting is installed and the width increased to 6m the City could relinquish its management order and request that it be dedicated as a road pursuant to section 56 of the LAA.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City of Stirling is supportive of the proposal and is presenting it at the 4 June Community and Resources Committee meeting and to Council on 11 June. The Local Government Advisory Board will determine if the proposed realignment is a “minor” change in accordance with Schedule 2.1 of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act). Administration has reviewed the criteria and believe it is a minor change and as such no public consultation is required. The analysis of the criteria in clause 5.2 of Schedule 2.1 of the Act is set out in Attachment 3.

It is necessary for Administration to provide public notice of the acquisition and dedication process for Lot 305 and allow 31 days for submissions and objections to be provided.

Legal/Policy:

District boundary realignment

Section 2.1(1) of the Act provides that:

“(1) The Governor, on the recommendation of the Minister, may make an order –

(a) declaring an area of the State to be a district; or

(b) changing the boundaries of a district; or

(c) abolishing a district; or

(d) as to a combination of any of those matters.

(2) Schedule 2.1 has effect.

Schedule 2.1 of the Act provides that:

· A local government may make a submission to the Local Government Advisory Board (LGAB) clearly setting out reasons for the request and including a plan showing the proposed boundary change;

· If the proposal is considered to be of a minor nature then the LGAB may simply make a recommendation to the Minister to accept or reject the proposal, and if accepted the change comes into effect on the date set out in a Governors Order;

Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia

Section 6.1.5 of the Policies and Standards for Geographical Naming in Western Australia provides that:

· boundaries shall align with road centrelines (major highways, divided carriageways and railways), cadastral information or obvious topographical features such as rivers, shorelines, creeks.

Request for the acquisition and dedication of the private right of way (Lot 305)

Section 52 of the LAA sets out the process for requesting the Minister to acquire Lot 305 as Crown land.

Regulation 6 of the Land Administration Regulations 1998 sets out the requirements for a local government to make a request pursuant to section 52(1)(b) of the Act.

Section 56 of the LAA sets out the process for dedicating acquired land as road.

Section 41 of the LAA provides that the Minister may by order reserve Crown land and place care, control and management in any person (local authority) for one or more purposes in the public interest.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Realigning the district boundary and the dedication and reservation of Lot 305 as proposed will resolve maintenance and liability issues associated with the management of the intersection and the adjoining private right of way.

Strategic Implications:

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

“Thriving Places

· Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no financial implications associated with the realignment of the boundary. Realigning the local government boundary does not impact local government rates as the affected land is not rateable.

The City has engaged a consultant to assist with this process, with the total estimated cost being $2,000 including GST.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

11.7 Public Open Space proposal for Sydney and Haynes Street site, North Perth

TRIM Ref: D19/56422

Author: Meluka Bancroft, Manager Governance, Property and Contracts

Authoriser: David MacLennan, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Haynes Sydney Street Site Plan ⇩

2. Kidz Galore Pty Ltd Proposal for Haynes Sydney Street Site (March 2019) - Confidential

3. Deed of Trust Legal Advice (November 2016) - Confidential

4. Correspondence to Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (December 2017) - Confidential

5. Deed of Trust Variation Legal Advice (April 2019) - Confidential

6. Haynes Sydney Street Site Valuation Report - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES that the City’s Public Open Space strategy identifies a shortfall of public open space in the North Perth area and includes a key action of repurposing City land as public open space in strategic locations, including North Perth;

2. REQUESTS that the Chief Executive Officer prepares a development plan for 25 and 31 (Lots 93 and 100) Sydney Street, North Perth and 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, North Perth, identifying the type and size of public open space suitable for the site and the level of amenities required;

3. NOTES that the current tenure arrangements for 25 and 31 (Lots 93 and 100) Sydney Street, North Perth and 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, North Perth will expire on:

Lot:

Lessee / Licensee:

Tenure:

Expiry:

Kidz Galore Pty Ltd

North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)

Lease

31 Dec 2020

30 June 2021

100

North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)

Department of Health (Dental Health Services)

Lease

30 June 2021

93 (car park)

Kidz Galore Pty Ltd

Department of Health (Dental Health Services)

Licence

30 June 2021

4. ADVISES the North Perth Playgroup Inc, Department of Health (Dental Health Services) and Kidz Galore Pty Ltd that the City will liaise with them in respect to the preparation of the development plan in Recommendation 2. above;

5. RECEIVES Kidz Galore Pty Ltd’s proposal for the purchase and conversion to public open space of a 2,384m² portion of 31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street and 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, North Perth, at Attachment 2, and ADVISES Kidz Galore Pty Ltd that:

6.1 this proposal will be considered as part of the development plan in Recommendation 2. above;

6.2 there is no commitment that the City will progress with this proposal or accommodate a commercial child care centre within this site;

6.3 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, North Perth is encumbered by a Deed of Trust which provides that the land is to be used for the purpose of public recreation and a commercial child care centre is inconsistent with this purpose; and

6.4 the City does not support varying the Deed of Trust to remove Lot 9 on the basis that Lot 9 should be used for public recreation in accordance with the Deed of Trust;

6.5 any disposal of a portion of the site would be subject to compliance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the conversion of the City’s freehold land at 15 (lot 9) Haynes Street and 25 and 31 (lots 93 and 100) Sydney Street, North Perth (Haynes Sydney street site), to public open space, in order to achieve one of the key actions in the City’s Public Open Space strategy (POS Strategy).

Background:

The Haynes Sydney street site, as shown in Attachment 1, comprises the following lots:

Lot Area

Lot 9 (No. 15) Hayes Street 2,026m²

Lot 100 (No. 31) Sydney Street 1,367m²

Lot 93 (No. 25) Sydney Street 562m²

TOTAL 3,955m² (0.4ha)

The background to each of these lots is discussed in turn below:

Lot 9 (No. 15) Haynes Street, North Perth

Lot 9 was transferred to the City of Perth by James Ewart on 2 March 1927. The land was originally used by the City as a park. At the City of Perth Council meeting held on 13 October 1941, Council resolved that lot 9 be included in a Deed of Trust for ‘the purpose of recreation for the people’. The Deed of Trust dated 2 October 1941 (Trust) is secured by a Registrar’s caveat over the land.

Lot 100 (No. 31) Sydney Street, North Perth

Lot 100 is an amalgamation of lots 94, 95 and 96 Sydney Street. These three lots were resumed for public work by the City of Perth in 1945. The 8 June 1945 government gazette states that these lots were “compulsorily taken and set apart for the purposes of the following public works, namely:-Recreation Ground, Sydney and Haynes Streets, North Perth”.

Lot 93 (No. 25) Sydney Street, North Perth

This lot was purchased in 1958 from Joseph Samuel Foulkes.

The lots listed below currently comprise a child care centre, a playgroup, a dental health clinic and a car park. The lots are subject to the following leases and licences:

Lot	Lessee/ Licensee	Expiry
9	Kidz Galore Pty Ltd North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)	31 December 2020 30 June 2021
100	North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion) Department of Health (Dental Health Services)	30 June 2021 30 June 2021
93	Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (car park licence) Department of Health (Dental Health Services) (car park licence)	30 June 2021 30 June 2021

Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (Kidz Galore) has leased lot 9 since 2004. Kidz Galore contacted the City in 2016 requesting to purchase lot 9. Lot 9 cannot be sold without removal of the Registrar’s caveat. The City obtained legal advice on 18 November 2016 to determine if the Registrar’s caveat could be permanently withdrawn and the lot sold. The legal advice is at Attachment 3. The key points are:

· the current use of lot 9 (commercial child care centre) is in breach of the Trust; and

· to remove the caveat from the certificate of title for lot 9, so that lot 9 can be sold or used for an alternative purpose (commercially leased), the Trust must be varied so that lot 9 is no longer comprised within the Trust. This can be done in accordance with a scheme approved pursuant to the Charitable Trusts Act 1962.

The City has discussed the implications of the Trust with Kidz Galore. By letter dated 18 December 2017 (at Attachment 4) the City formally advised Kidz Galore that it was unlikely to sell lot 9 to Kidz Galore given that the land was acquired for the purpose of public recreation.

On 12 December 2018 representatives of Kidz Galore met with the City to present a proposal to purchase a portion of the Haynes Sydney street site from the City, with the remainder of the site to be converted to public open space. Following discussions with Administration, Kidz Galore submitted a revised proposal on 5 April 2019, at Attachment 2. The proposal is that a portion of the Haynes Sydney Street site be sold to Kidz Galore for the construction of a child care centre (2,384m²), with the remainder of the site (1,571m²) plus a portion of the adjacent road reserve (1,879m²) being converted to a local park with an area of 3,450m².

Details:

Trust implications

As the current use of lot 9 is in breach of the Trust, the City must either:

· vary the Trust so that lot 9 is no longer comprised within the Trust; or

· convert lot 9 to public open space so that the land use complies with the Trust.

The process for varying the Trust is detailed in the legal advice at Attachment 3. The City has received a quote to proceed with varying the Trust, at Attachment 5. The estimated cost is $20,000 and the time frame is likely to be in excess of six months. For the variation of the Trust to succeed the City would need to show that it is “impossible, impracticable or inexpedient” for lot 9 to remain subject to the Trust. To satisfy this, the City would need to demonstrate that lot 9 is excess to the City’s public recreation requirements. This position does not align with the POS findings and key actions, as detailed below.

POS Strategy implications

The key findings of the POS Strategy are that:

· the level of POS in the City is relatively low compared to surrounding local government areas – 3.37ha per 1000 people compared to City of Stirling - 4.38ha per 1000 people (2011 census data);

· If no additional POS is provided the City will see a gradual decline in POS provision per head of population (forecast to decline to 2.05ha per 1000 people by 2036 based on current POS supply);

· The level of local open space provision is low in the City (only 0.65 per cent of land is local open space);

· Local open space is typically 0.4 – 1.0 hectare in size;

· North Perth has only 0.92 ha of local open space; and

· A 10 per cent level of functional POS should be achieved across the City.

Key actions proposed in the POS Strategy to address the POS shortfall in North Perth are:

*No.*	*Key Action*	*Tasks*	*Priority*
4.	Repurpose City owned or controlled land as POS in strategic locations where gaps have been identified within the network.	Identify opportunities to repurpose land upon expiry or cessation of existing leases or other similar changes in land management, with specific focus on ley locations in Vincent: · Within the suburbs of Mt Hawthorn, North Perth and West Perth.	Medium term
6.	Initiate a POS development and land acquisition reserve fund	· Investigate the sale of underperforming and/or surplus City owned land and facilities. · Specifically ring-fence any land disposal proceeds for the purposes of the POS Reserve Fund. · Implement a program of regular contributions to these reserve funds to ensure the availability of sufficient funding over the long-term. · Follow the appropriate planning process for rezoning, subdivision, and development applications to optimise value prior to sale. · Investigate the feasibility of attracting developer contributions for community infrastructure (POS) in accordance with State Planning Policy 3.6.	Medium term
7.	Assess the effectiveness of converting road reserves (or part of) to POS, and identify further opportunities in strategic locations where gaps have been identified within the network	· Assess the effectiveness of converting underperforming and/or surplus road reserves to POS. · Identify further sites of unused road reserve and re-purpose as POS. · Establish a high quality civic open space within each Town Centre: o Implement North Perth Common o Implement Axford Park improvements o Maintain and manage Oxford Street Reserve and Mary Street Piazza. o Identify opportunities within remaining Town Centres	Short – medium term

While these are medium term priorities, the POS Strategy recommends that these key actions should be undertaken as the opportunities arise. In respect to the Haynes Sydney street site, the above key actions indicate the following outcomes as appropriate for the site:

· the whole site is converted to local open space – total area of 3,955m2 (approximately 5,834m2 if a portion of the adjacent road reserve is also converted to POS);

· lot 9 is converted to local open space – total area of 2,026m2; or

· a portion of the site is sold to fund the conversion of the remainder of the site to local open space, with any additional funds used to create a POS development and land acquisition reserve fund.

Administration has obtained land valuations for the whole or various portions of the site, as summarised below. The valuation report is at Attachment 6.

Option	Details	Area	Land valuation (excluding GST)
1	Whole site (lots 9, 93 and 100)	3,955m²	$4 million
2	Lot 93 and portion of lot 100	1,300m²	$1.69 million
3	Lot 93 and small portion of lot 100	770m²	$960,000
4	Lot 93	562m²	$785,000

In order to determine whether the whole or a portion of the site is converted to local open space, and whether any of the site is sold to fund the conversion to local open space and/or fund POS acquisition and development more broadly within the City, a development plan for the site is required. A development plan is a vision for the site which focuses on more effectively utilising the existing infrastructure and land to achieve the City’s strategic vision for the site. Administration can reprioritise its projects so that a development plan for this site is prepared by November 2019. This means that the recommendations of the development plan could be implemented upon the expiry of the leases, which is 31 December 2020 (Kidz Galore) and 30 June 2021 (other leases and licences).

Implications for current users of the site

Administration recognises the community service and connection with this site provided by the North Perth Playgroup Inc, Kidz Galore and the Dental Health Services. Administration proposes to complete the development plan for the site by November 2019, so that the lessees can be advised of the future use of the site in advance of the termination of their leases.

The current leases and licenses are due to expire on 31 December 2020 (Kidz Galore) and 30 June 2021 (North Perth Playgroup Inc and the Dental Health Services). The three leases include a holding over provision which provides that the lessee may continue to occupy the premises pursuant to the terms of the current lease, and that the lease may be terminated at any time by either party by providing one month’s written notice. The two licences contain the same holding over provision, except that only one day’s written notice is required.

In the event that the development plan cannot be implemented prior to the termination of the leases, due to the holding over provision in the leases and licences it is possible for the status quo to be maintained if the City does not exercise its right to terminate the lease / licence. This does not prevent the lessees terminating the lease / licence at any time by providing a month / days’ notice.

It is not possible for the City to grant a new lease to Kidz Galore without complying with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, as discussed below. Furthermore, it would not be in accordance with the Trust for a new lease for the purpose of a child care service to be granted over lot 9. A commitment to not terminate Kidz Galore’s lease until a set time, such as the implementation of the development plan could be construed as an agreement to extend the term of the lease or a new lease. On this basis it is not recommended that the City provide this level of commitment to Kidz Galore.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration has consulted with the North Perth Playgroup Inc, Kidz Galore and the Dental Health Services in respect to the implications of the Trust for the site, the POS implications and the proposed future use of the site.

Legal/Policy:

In considering the options for the Haynes Sydney street site regard must be had to the POS Strategy and also the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) requirements in respect to the disposal of land.

Section 3.58 of the Act - Disposing of Property, provides that, at sub section (2), a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to lease) to:

“(a) the highest bidder at public auction; or

(b) the person who at a public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.”

A local government can also dispose of property by complying with sub section (3), if, before agreeing to dispose of the property –

“(a) it gives local public notice of the proposed disposition –

(i) describing the property concerned; and

(ii) giving details of the proposed disposition; and

(iii) inviting submissions to be made to the local government before the date to be specified in the notice, being a date not less than 2 weeks after the notice is first given;

(b) it considers any submissions made to it before the date specified in the notice and, if its decision is made by the council or a committee, the decision and the reasons for it are recorded in the minutes of the meeting at which the decision was made.”

If complying with sub section (3), the details required to satisfy sub section (3)(a)(ii) include –

“(a) the names of all parties concerned; and

(b) the consideration to be received by the local government for the disposition; and

(c) the market value of the disposition –

(i) as ascertained by a valuation carried out not more than 6 months before the proposed disposition; or

(ii) as declared by a resolution of the local government on the basis of a valuation carried out more than 6 months before the proposed disposition that the local government believes to be a true indication of the value at the time of the proposed disposition.”

Section 3.58(5) provides that section 3.58 does not apply to certain types of dispositions, including dispositions which are provided by the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 to be exempt. A disposition to a commercial child care operator, such as Kidz Galore Pty Ltd, does not fall within the scope of an exempt disposition.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The recommendation would facilitate the transition of the use of the Haynes Sydney street site to compliance with the Trust and would align with the POS Strategy.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Connected Community

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

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

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

Thriving Places

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

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Innovative and Accountable

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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The City’s expenses to date in respect to this matter are as follows:

· Legal advice on the Trust $2,325 excluding GST

· Valuation report $4,500 excluding GST

$6,825 excluding GST

The cost of engaging a consultant to prepare a development plan for the Haynes Sydney street site is estimated at $20,000 excluding GST. This cost would need to be budgeted for in the 2019/20 financial year.

The cost of converting the site to local open space is estimated to range from $250,000 – $320,000, dependant on whether the whole or only a portion of the site is converted, and the level of amenities provided. This cost will include the demolition of the two current buildings on the site which are owned by the City. The third building was installed by Kidz Galore and is required to be removed at Kidz Galore’s cost, pursuant to the lease.

The cost of preparing the development plan and converting a portion of the site to local open space could be covered by selling a portion of the site. Depending on the portion of the site sold, the income from the site is estimated to be between $785,000 and $1.69 million.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

PDF Creator

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

11.11 Draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022

TRIM Ref: D19/39800

Authors: Karen Balm, Senior Community Partner

Cara Finch, Community Partner – Community Safety

Authoriser: Michael Quirk, Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments: 1. Draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council;

1. RECEIVES the draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022;

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to advertise the draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 for public comment for a period of 21 days inviting written submissions in accordance with Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

3. NOTES that a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting in July 2019 detailing any submissions received during the public comment period; and

4. NOTES that the draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication.

Purpose of Report:

To receive the draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 (Attachment 1) for the purposes of advertising for public comment prior to further consideration and adoption.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 25 August 2015 the Safer Vincent Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2015–2018 was adopted to provide strategic direction, and ensure that community safety and crime prevention was addressed in a timely and coordinated manner. The Plan represented the City’s ongoing transition towards contemporary community safety and crime prevention methods in response to changing community needs.

The Plan included 11 objectives and 30 actions across the following priority areas:

· Community safety promotion and awareness;

· Safety through effective partnerships; and

· Safe places and safe spaces.

With the implementation period concluding in 2018, Administration recently completed a comprehensive review of the Plan in consultation with the Safer Vincent Advisory Group, including WA Police and Nyoongar Outreach Services. It is evident that through the 2015–2018 period each of the 11 community safety and crime prevention objectives were achieved with 28 actions were effectively implemented, one action partially implemented, and one action not effectively implemented. The actions deemed not fully implemented include:

2.3.1 Adopt a process of continual research and review of effective technology applications applicable to enhancing and promoting community safety and crime prevention initiatives (partially implemented); and

3.2.3 Support and encourage the installation of CCTV and other security requirements with local community and business representatives (not implemented).

The review of the Safer Vincent Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan 2015–2018 and analysis of community safety and crime prevention feedback received through the Imagine Vincent community engagement initiative has highlighted the need to streamline and strengthen the key priorities within any future community safety plans to meet emerging challenges and trends within the Vincent community.

Details:

The draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 builds upon the strategies and objectives within the previous Plan and aims to provide a framework that:

· Provides the community with an overview of current local community safety priorities; and

· Promotes strong community partnerships and connections that contribute to positive community safety outcomes within the City.

Three key themes emerged from the review and consultation process that will underpin a range of actions and deliverables:

Safer Spaces

Vibrant, welcoming and safe places are integral to Vincent’s identity, economy and appeal. Our town centres, local neighbourhoods and other gathering spaces must provide environments that reduce opportunities for criminal behaviour, positively impact perceptions of community safety, and support utilisation and activation. The City recognises that community safety and crime prevention principles must inform the planning, design and management of town centres, open spaces and streets. We will work with government agencies, businesses, and community organisations to promote and support activities and programs that make our public spaces safer.

Key actions include:

· Establish Town Centre specific community safety priorities;

· Improve and expand lighting infrastructure within the public realm;

· Provide support to organisations working with people experiencing homelessness and their clients;

· Plan for the expansion and management of the City's CCTV network;

· Promote the State CCTV Register to the community;

· Review and prepare local emergency management procedures and plans;

· Manage the risk of terrorist activity in crowded places;

· Undertake public health planning to reduce the risks of anti-social behaviour in entertainment precincts;

· Manage anti-social behaviour in parks and public spaces; and

· Investigate security patrol services.

Community Connection

Vincent has a diverse, welcoming and engaged community that wants to connect with those around us. Building and maintaining these strong community connections creates a sense of safety within local neighbourhoods, provides support networks where people look out for each other, and strengthens passive surveillance. Activities that promote community involvement are particularly important for people in our community who are socially isolated and more vulnerable as they are already at a higher risk of being a victim of crime. The City recognises that activated and thriving public places provide opportunities for residents to connect and build relationships.

Key actions include:

· Increase local community events that build connections;

· Support organisations that create a safer and more connected community; and

· Utilise the Safer Vincent Advisory Group to workshop ideas and concepts and provide advice on community safety matters.

Crime Prevention

Responsiveness to crime trends and the perception of crime, and the implementation of evidence based crime prevention strategies, requires a close working relationship between the City of Vincent and WA Police. Residents and businesses can also assist through the timely reporting of any criminal activities and helping to address any disparity between actual incidents of crime and community perceptions of crime. The City recognises that the provision of information, education, awareness, and resources to both businesses and residents will reduce their risk of becoming a victim of crime.

Key actions include:

· Review the community safety resources program;

· Share crime prevention messages with the public;

· Improve the management of squatting in vacant properties;

· Prevent and remove graffiti vandalism within the City; and

· Promote the WA Police Eyes on the Street Program.

CONSULTATION/ADVERTISING:

As per Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation it is proposed to seek community feedback and input on the draft Safer Vincent Strategy 2019–2022 through a 21-day public comment period. This will include notices on the City’s website and social media channels, dedicated project page on the City’s Imagine Vincent community engagement portal, notices at the City’s Administration & Civic Centre and community buildings, and targeted engagement with key stakeholders including Town Teams.

As the draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 remains subject to amendments following the public comment period Attachment 1 does not reflect the appearance of the final document that will be formatted and styled before publication.

LEGAL/POLICY:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There is no legislative requirement to adopt a Community Safety and Crime Prevention Plan; however, the development and implementation of such a Plan will promote and maintain a collaborative, whole of community approach to crime prevention and overall community safety.

Strategic Implications:

· This Plan aligns 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.

Thriving Places

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

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Specific actions and deliverables within the draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 will be delivered through allocations in the draft 2019/20 operating budget and subsequent budgets subject to Council consideration. Administration will seek grant funding through the Australian and State Governments as opportunities arise.

Comments:

The draft Safer Vincent Plan 2019–2022 aims to deliver safe spaces, improved community connections, and help to prevent crime through 19 actions and 62 deliverables. The Plan places a strong emphasis on collaboration and partnerships with WA Police, Nyoongar Outreach Services, Safer Vincent Advisory Group, City Homelessness Framework Committee, Western Central Local Emergency Management Committee, Vincent Liquor Accord, local businesses and residents.

Upon adoption, the Plan will guide the strategic direction of community safety and crime prevention initiatives that effectively respond to key challenges and trends within our community. Targeted actions and deliverables will ensure that community safety and crime prevention is addressed in a timely, coordinated and appropriate manner.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 28 May 2019

12 Chief Executive Officer

12.1 Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy

TRIM Ref: D19/63248

Author: Anita Marriott, Sustainability Officer

Authoriser: John Paton, Executive Manager - Office of the CEO

Attachments: 1. Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016 Actions Status Update ⇩

2. Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 ⇩

3. Draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Implementation Plan ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019 – 2024 for public comment for a period of 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

2. NOTES the draft Implementation Plan that accompanies the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019 – 2024.

Purpose of Report:

To consider the draft Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019 – 2024 for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Background:

The City’s first Sustainable Environment Strategy (SES) was adopted in 2011 in response to the need for strategic decision making on matters related to the built and natural environment.

SES 2011 – 2016 set out 65 actions across five focus areas. An Administration review of the Strategy completed in 2016/2017 with the support of the City’s Environmental Advisory Group (EAG) found that:

- 45 actions had been delivered and were ongoing in the form of programs and recurring activities;

- Six had been completed as one-off projects;

- Three had not commenced due to capacity constraints; and

- 13 needed reconsideration in light of changing circumstances, technologies and Council/community priorities and expectations.

The same review identified a need for the following changes to the next iteration of the Strategy:

- Clearer objectives;

- Meaningful and measurable targets;

- Key performance indicators;

- Alignment to the SCP and CBP to ensure resourcing and delivery; and

- Greater clarity around the remit of local government and the degree of control over outcomes.

In April 2017 Council agreed to extend the implementation period of SES 2011 – 2016 to 2019 to allow time for a new SES to be developed in alignment with the City’s current Strategic Community Plan (SCP) adopted in 2018. Attachment 1 shows a summary table of SES 2011 – 2016 actions and their updated status as of 2018/2019.

Details:

Draft SES 2019 – 2024 (Attachment 2) has now been completed, along with a draft five-year Implementation Plan (Attachment 3).

Baselines, targets and strategies to achieve desired outcomes are set out in the draft Strategy. Actions to achieve those targets and outcomes are captured in the draft Implementation Plan, along with estimated resourcing requirements over the five-year life of the Strategy. The Implementation Plan will inform the City’s Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP), Corporate Business Plan (CBP) and annual Budgets.

Draft SES 2019 – 2024 and its Implementation Plan were developed following the process outlined below:

1. Responses from the SCP engagement process in 2017 were analysed to identify the environmental issues of greatest concern to the City’s community;

2. Key areas of environmental impact over which the City can exert control or influence were identified and aligned with the major areas of community concern;

3. Corporate and community baselines were established for the key areas of environmental impact (key opportunity areas) to enable future evaluation of progress;

4. Measurable targets were set for corporate and community outcomes (informed both by baselines and the actions available the City); and

5. A five-year Implementation Plan was created to capture relevant actions, grouping them according to their mode of delivery to reflect the remit of local government – control, influence or advocacy.

Key opportunity areas, the outcomes we will work towards in each area and the key performance indicators we will use to measure progress are set out in the table below.

Key opportunity area

Outcomes we will work towards

Key performance indicators

Energy

- Reduced use of energy derived from fossil fuels;

- Reduced greenhouse gas emissions from energy use;

- Improved energy efficiency and increased use of renewable energy.

- Proportion of energy from fossil fuels versus renewable energy sources;

- Greenhouse gas emissions from energy use.

Transport

- Increased use of public and active transport;

- Shift to vehicles powered by renewable energy.

- Mode share shift to public and active transport;

- Adoption of zero emission vehicles.

Water

- Reduced use of scheme water and ground water;

- Increased water capture and reuse;

- Progress toward becoming a water sensitive city.

- Groundwater and scheme water consumption;

- Water Sensitive Cities Index score.

Waste

- Reduced waste generation and increased resource recovery;

- Substantial reduction in landfill and associated greenhouse gas emissions;

- Progress toward a circular economy.

- Waste to landfill;

- Waste recycled;

- Greenhouse gas emissions from landfill.

Urban Greening and Biodiversity

- Increased tree canopy;

- Increased habitat and biodiversity.

- Tree canopy cover;

- Length of Greenways planted;

- Area of eco-zoning completed.

An outcome that cuts across several key opportunity areas is the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. There are separate targets relating to greenhouse gas emissions for Energy, Transport and Waste, but an overarching target of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 has been nominated in the draft SES. This target date is the deadline set by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) for avoiding catastrophic climate impacts.

The City’s net zero greenhouse gas emissions target will primarily be achieved through efficient resource management, use of renewable energy, adoption of emerging technologies and innovation. Any residual greenhouse gas emissions that remain at the target date will need to be offset through the purchase of carbon credits.

In 2019 accredited carbon credits range in price from one dollar to over forty dollars per tonne of carbon dioxide (CO₂) equivalent. International credits from large projects (e.g. wind farms in India) are at the low-cost end of the scale. Credits from Australian projects are more expensive.

Organisations can choose from a combination of offset types to suit their budget. Advice received by Administration from local governments currently offsetting residual greenhouse gas emissions is that an average price of four to eight dollars per tonne funds an acceptable mix of international and local offset projects.

What this would look like in terms of cost for our City based on current and future emissions is set out in the table below. Emissions scenarios for five and ten years into the future are based on the emissions trajectory predicted by the draft SES. Prediction beyond 2030 becomes difficult due to the rapidly changing nature of technology and regulation related to energy and emissions.

	Corporate greenhouse gas emissions (tonnes CO₂ equivalent per annum)				Estimated cost of offset	Estimated cost of offset
	Energy (electricity and gas)	Transport (total fleet)	Waste	Total	$8 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent	$4 per tonne of CO₂ equivalent
Baseline (2017/18)	5,374.85	773.07	2,235.00	8,382.92	$67,063.34	$33,531.67
Estimated emissions for 2023/24	4,434.25	688.297	1,117.50	6,240.05	$49,920.39	$24,960.19
Estimated emissions for 2029/30	3,493.65	603.53	223.50	4,320.68	$34,565.44	$17,282.72

Consultation/Advertising:

The 2016/17 review of SES 2011 – 2016 was completed in consultation with the EAG.

Community feedback obtained through the 2017 Imagine Vincent engagement campaign for the SCP informed both the key opportunity areas within draft SES 2019 – 2024 and the actions in the draft Implementation Plan.

In 2018 feedback from the EAG and Council Members shaped the key opportunity areas and guided the overall development of the draft Strategy and Implementation Plan.

Following approval to advertise, further consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy and the results of the consultation will be reported back to Council following assessment by Administration.

Legal/Policy:

The Local Government Act 1995 requires each local government to have a plan for the future in the form of a SCP, supported by other informing strategies and plans.

Risk Management Implications:

Low. Adopting the draft policy will guide long-term planning for the sustainability of the built and natural environment.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

Our parks and reserves are maintained, enhanced and well utilised.

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Accessible City

Our pedestrian and cyclist networks are well designed, connected, accessible and encourage increased use.

We have better integrated all modes of transport and increased services through the City.

We have embraced emerging transport technologies.

Connected Community

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

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

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

Sensitive Design

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

Innovative and Accountable

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

Our community is aware of what we are doing and how we are meeting our goals.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

An up-to-date SES will ensure that the City implements and promotes the principles of environmental sustainability and that it continues to demonstrate leadership by proactively addressing issues of environmental concern in line with community expectations.

Financial/Budget Implications:

$500,000 is listed on the draft Budget for 2019/20 to prepare for the roll-out of food organic green organic waste collection. A further $722,000 is listed on the draft Budget for 2019/20 for the implementation of other SES actions listed in the draft Implementation Plan. The City’s LTFP will require amending to incorporate funding for implementation of SES strategies in the medium and longer term.

Comments:

Achievement of targets in the draft SES is tied to the completion of actions in the draft Implementation Plan. The Implementation Plan will inform the City’s LTFP, CBP and annual Budgets. Actions deferred due to budgetary or other constraints may delay the reaching of targets. Actions brought forward to take advantage of external funding or partnership opportunities may bring the achievement of targets closer. These factors must be considered as projects and Budgets are prioritised each year.

Environmental sustainability is a rapidly evolving area, both technologically and politically. The SES Implementation Plan needs to be a flexible, responsive document, allowing for actions to be removed if they become redundant and replaced with new actions as technologies develop and new opportunities arise. For this reason it should remain an administrative document, separate to the SES which is to be adopted by Council.

Policy No.	Policy Name	Action	Commentary
2.1.1	Public Open Space – Maintenance of Naturally Vegetated Areas	REPEAL	This policy content is now contained within the Greening Plan and Sustainable Environment Strategy and the remainder is operational content.
2.1.6	Parks and Reserves – Playgrounds. Barbeques, Outdoor Exercise Equipment and Lights	REPEAL	This policy provides guidelines for the installation of various items of parks furniture and infrastructure. Administration considers that this policy is no longer necessary as the Public Open Space strategy now outlines the required levels of service for each respective park category.
2.1.8	Parks and Reserves – Water Conservation Design Guidelines	REPEAL	This policy contains operational content that does not require a specific policy.

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ BATCH NUMBER	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
EFT and BPAY Payments	2388 - 2397	$3,228,493.45
Payroll by Direct Credit	April 2019	$1,861,255.88
Sub Total		$5,089,749.33

Cheques
Cheques	82495 - 82500	$13,192.56
Sub Total		$13,192.56

Direct Debits, including credit cards
Lease Fees		$77,913.75
Loan Repayments		$149,995.51
Bank Charges – CBA		$116,895.37
Credit Cards		$12,068.46
Sub Total		$356,873.09

Total Payments		$5,459,814.98