AGENDA

 

 

Council Briefing

 

3 December 2019

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

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

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

Copyright

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


PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          a) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

          b) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken on Notice. 7

4          Declarations of Interest 9

5          Strategy & Development 10

5.1             No. 12 (Lot: 829; D/P: 40498) Newcastle Street, Perth - Proposed Third Party Digital Billboard Sign. 10

5.2             No. 160 (Lot: 307; D/P: 29908 and Lot: 84; D/P: 1106) Lincoln Street, Highgate - Proposed Single House. 11

5.3             City of Vincent Submission - Design WA Stage 2 Precinct Design. 35

5.4             No. 14 (Lot: 3; S/P: 32001) View Street, North Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Office to Office and Consulting Rooms (Medical) 177

5.5             Nos. 514-516 (Lot: 14-16; D/P: 1106) William Street, Highgate - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings. 197

5.6             City of Vincent Submission on Single Residential Building Reforms - Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement 297

5.7             Parklet Proposal - No. 711 Newcastle Street, Leederville. 410

5.8             Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - Outcomes of Advertising. 413

6          Infrastucture & Environment 414

6.1             Response to Petition Requesting the Relocation of Parking on Turner Street, Highgate Adjacent Jack Marks Reserve. 414

6.2             Making the Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 415

6.3             City Homelessness Framework Committee Action Plan Update. 471

6.4             Street Tree Removal Requests. 502

7          Community & Business Services. 504

7.1             Lease of Beatty Park Leisure Centre Cafe to Hospitality Service Providers Pty Ltd. 504

7.2             Review of Draft Annual Report 2018/19. 505

7.3             Request for waiver of fees - Leederville Oval - AFLW.. 506

7.4             Investment Report as at 31 October 2019. 509

7.5             Financial Statements as at 31 October 2019. 518

7.6             November 2019 Budget Review (Including Carry Forwards) 589

7.7             Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 22 October 2019 to 18 November 2019. 604

8          Chief Executive Officer 626

8.1             Lease of 246 Vincent Street, Leederville to Minister for Works - Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries. 626

8.2             Appointment of Elected Member to the Metropolitan Regional Road Sub-Group (Central) 647

8.3             Council recess period 2019-20 - Delegated Authority to the Chief Executive Officer [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 649

8.4             Acquisition of the right of way known as Lot 305, bounded by Charles, Walcott and Hilda Streets, North Perth as Crown land, and vesting in the City as a public right of way. 652

8.6             Leederville Gardens Inc. 657

8.6             Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee meeting held on 26 November 2019. 691

8.7             Information Bulletin. 692

9          Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 734

Nil

10        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 734

13        Closure. 734

 

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

3            a)      Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

b)     RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS PUBLIC QUESTIONS TAKEN ON NOTICE

3.1          Response to questions from Mr Dudley Maier taken on notice at the Ordinary Council Meeting held on 12 November 2019.

Questions - Fairfield Street:

 

1.     Can you confirm that the Special Council Meeting of 19/11/14 that Council explicitly decided to pursue zoning at 40-60 Fairfield Street as R40?

 

18 November 2014 – yes as follows:

 

AMENDMENT 3

 

Moved: Cr Cole, Seconded: Cr Topelberg

 

That a new Recommendation 3.4.1 (d) be added as follows:

3.4.1 (d) To abandon the advertised zoning changes at 40-60 Fairfield Street, Mount Hawthorn from Residential R30 to Residential R60 and to instead prescribe a new coding of Residential R40.

 

AMENDMENT 3 PUT AND CARRIED (6-2)

 

2.     Can you confirm that the Gazetted scheme map shows 40-60 Fairfield Street coded as R60 (except for 50 Fairfield Street which is coded as R40)?

 

No, the Gazetted map currently shows all of 40-60 (even numbers only) as R60. 50 Fairfield is R60 as of Amendment 1 to LPS gazetted 3 August 2018. Prior to Amendment 1, 50 Fairfield Street was R40.

 

3.     Can you confirm that on 29/5/18 the Council approved amendment to scheme map – coding to 50 Fairfield Street from R40 to R60?

 

Council ‘prepared’ the amendment, they did not ‘approve’ it.

 

4.     Why have the properties at 40-60 Fairfield Street been coded R60 when council explicitly decided to code them as R40?

 

On 8 December 2017, the A/Minister for Planning Ben Wyatt decided to modify the City’s proposed Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to code 40, 42, 44, 48, 48A, 48B, 52, 54, 56, 58 and 60 Fairfield as R60.

 

5.     Were the owners of the affected properties consulted on the changes to the approved after the 18/11/14 decision?

 

The affected owners were informed by letter following Gazettal of LPS2.

 


 

6.     Were council members made aware of the changes prior to the gazette of the LPS2?

 

Yes, on 28 February 2018 at a Council Workshop. Also, Mayor Emma Cole signed the modified LPS 2 Mt Hawthorn map prior to forwarding to the WAPC for endorsement by the Minister for Planning.

 

Questions - Baker Avenue:

 

1.     Did the City apply the standard condition about finishing boundary walls when approval was given to– 9 Baker Avenue on either the (28/1/16 or 25/5/18)?

 

Yes, the City imposed the following condition (Condition 1) as part of the development approval issued on 28 January 2016 for the subject building:

 

“The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary (parapet) walls facing 7 Baker Avenue and 11 Baker Avenue, in a good and clean condition. The finish of the walls are to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City”.

 

The development approval issued on 25 May 2018 related to unauthorised alterations to the building and did not relate to the finish of the boundary walls.

 

2.     Did the plans for either of these approvals show the external walls would be rendered brickwork?

 

The plans in the development approval issued on 28 January 2016 that is applicable to the finish of the boundary walls of the building does not show that the walls would be rendered. Condition 1 of the development approval requires the boundary walls facing 7 Baker Avenue and 11 Baker Avenue to be either fully rendered or face brickwork finish.

 

3.     Given that the development plans in the Agenda on 15/10/19 Council meeting show that all external walls are to be rendered brickwork and that these plans date back to 2016 will the City be requiring the owner to render those walls?

 

The development approval issued on 15 October 2019 relates to a change of use of the building to a Music Studio only and does not relate to the finish of the boundary walls. The finish of the boundary walls are required to be rendered or face brickwork as per Condition 1 in the development approval issued on 28 January 2016.

 

4.     If so by when – if not why not?

 

The boundary walls are not required to be finished in render. This is because the boundary walls of the building have been finished in face brickwork which satisfies Condition 1 of the development approval issued on 28 January 2016.

 

Questions - Cheriton Street:

 

1.     Can you confirm that at the Special Council Meeting of 18/11/14 the Council decided to code 34 Cheriton Street as either public purpose or mixed use R100?

 

No. 34 Cheriton was shown as Public Purpose under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS). This was not a decision, it was a reflection of the current MRS Zone.

 

2.     Can you confirm that the current scheme map shows this lot as being coded ‘commercial’.

 

Yes.

 


 

3.     Why was the lot coded commercial rather than mixed use R20 [it is mixed use R100 to the west and R80 to the north] like all the surrounding lots?

 

On 8 December 2017, the A/Minister for Planning Ben Wyatt decided to modify the City’s proposed Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to zone 34 Cheriton Street as Commercial. The reasons for each of the A/Minister’s modifications have not been made public

 

4.     Were Council members made aware of the changes from public purpose to commercial – if so, when?

 

Yes, on 28 February 2018 at a Council Workshop.

 

Questions - Public Registers:

 

1.     Who’s responsible for updating the publicly available Council registers – such as Contact with Developers, gifts, contracts register, tenders, community funding grants, etc? Why aren’t these being updated in a timely manner?

Registers are updated by the relevant officers as required to ensure the information remains relevant and accurate:

·         Common Seal Usage – updated as the Common Seal is applied

·         Contact with Developers – updated as disclosures are received

·         Current Register of Gifts – updated as disclosures are received

·         Freedom of Information Requests – updated as cases are received

·         Register of Complaints – updated after any minor breach findings are determined

·         Conflicts of Interests at Meetings – updated after each Council Meeting

·         Council Members and Employee Business Dealings / Contracts Register – updated as disclosures are received

·         Contracts Register – updated as contracts are entered into (currently reviewing and updating register)

·         Tenders Register 2019 – updated as tenders close

·         Lease Register – updated annually - currently being reviewed 

·         Community Funding Grant Registers – updated as grants are processed – currently being updated.

 

Questions - Purchase of iPad for Councillor:

 

1.     Can you confirm that the city paid $1,855 for an iPad and keyboard for the former Cr Harley on 19/3/19?

Yes, this is correct.

 

2.     Why was the iPad brought for the former Cr Harley but not any other council members?

Cr Harley’s iPad had some operating/ technical issues, which meant it was not fit for purpose and required replacement.

 

3.     Was the model purchased consistent with others provided for other council members?

It was a newer version, but consistent with the model provided to all other Elected Members.

 

4.     Did the former Cr Harley purchase that iPad at the end of her term and office and how much did she pay?

Cr Harley was given the option to purchase the iPad in accordance with the City’s Policy 4.2.7 “Council Members – Allowances, Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses” but chose to return it to the City.  It was returned on 19 November 2019.

4            Declarations of Interest

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5            Strategy & Development

5.1          No. 12 (Lot: 829; D/P: 40498) Newcastle Street, Perth - Proposed Third Party Digital Billboard Sign

 

 

REPORT WITHDRAWN BY THE APPLICANT.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.2          No. 160 (Lot: 307; D/P: 29908 and Lot: 84; D/P: 1106) Lincoln Street, Highgate - Proposed Single House

TRIM Ref:                  D19/157728

Author:                     Natasha Trefry, Urban Planning Advisor

Authoriser:                Jay Naidoo, Manager Development & Design

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Plans

2.       Development Plans

3.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Single House at No. 160 (Lot: 307; D/P: 29908 and Lot: 84; D/P: 1106) Lincoln Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 3:

1.       Amalgamation

Prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit application for the proposed development, Lot: 84; D/P: 1106 and Lot: 307; D/P: 29908 (‘The lots’) are to be amalgamated into a single lot on a Certificate of Title; or alternatively, the owner entering into a legal agreement with the City and secured by an absolute caveat lodged over the certificates of title to the Lots requiring the amalgamation to be completed within twelve months of the issue of a Building Permit for the proposed works.

The owner shall be responsible to pay all costs associated with the City’s solicitor’s costs incidental to the preparation of (including all drafts) and stamping of the agreement and lodgement of the absolute caveat;

2.       Boundary Walls

The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the practical completion of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City. The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick; or material as otherwise approved; to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Landscaping Plan

3.1     A detailed landscape and reticulation plan for the development site and adjoining road verge, to the satisfaction of the City, shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to lodgement of a Building Permit. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following:

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

·       The provision of a minimum of 15 percent deep soil area and no less than 22.3 percent canopy coverage at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 ‑ Built Form;

·       The provision of trees within deep soil areas on site to maximise the amount of canopy coverage. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list; and

·       The provision of two Paperbark trees within the verge of Lincoln Street adjoining the development site. The trees are to be a minimum size of 200 litres; and

3.2     All works shown on the plans as identified in Condition 3.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers; and

4.       Sightlines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within the 1.5 metre of where:

4.1     Walls, letterboxes or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site; or

4.2     A driveway meets a public street; or

4.3     Two streets intersect;

Unless otherwise approved by the City of Vincent;

5.       Stormwater

Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any other property or road reserve;

6.       Car Parking and Access

6.1     The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1;

6.2     All driveways, car parking and manoeuvring area(s) which form part of this approval shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained thereafter by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City; and

6.3     Vehicle access points are required to match into existing right of way levels;

7.       Visual Privacy

Prior to occupancy of the development, all privacy screening shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed to comply provisions, to the satisfaction of the City;

8.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennaes, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive; and

9.       Colours, Materials and Finishes

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the approved schedule of finishes which forms part of this approval.

10.     Right of Way

The landowner shall remove any development or other works and shall seal, drain and grade to match the existing right of way within 1.5 metres of the north eastern lot boundary at the time the portion of ROW widening is ceded to the City. Any costs associated with the above are the responsibility of the owner.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a three storey single house at No. 160 Lincoln Street, Highgate (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a three storey single house fronting Lincoln Street. Two lots comprise the subject site, being Lot 307 and Lot 84. The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling and construction of a three storey single house. There is an existing shopfront that is proposed to be retained and which would be incorporated into the proposed dwelling.

 

The development plans subject of this report are included as Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:

Claire Miranda Giumelli

Applicant:

Chindarsi Architects

Date of Application:

30 July 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Single Dwelling ‘P’

Lot Area:

390m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – City of Vincent, 3.0m drained and sealed

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Lincoln Street to the south-west and a ROW to the north-east. The adjoining property to the north-west comprises of a single storey single dwelling, and the south-east lot comprises of three storey multiple dwellings. A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The subject site currently presents to Lincoln Street as a shopfront with a residential component.  The City’s records indicate the shopfront component of the site ceased operation in March 2011. The residential dwelling and shopfront component of the dwelling do not have any heritage significance.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R50 and is affected by Clause 32(4) of the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) which states “notwithstanding any other provisions in this scheme, multiple dwellings are not permitted.”

 

The subject site is located within the Residential Built Form Area prescribed by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), and has a deemed-to-comply building height of two storeys. The north-west adjoining lot and northern lots on the opposite side of the ROW are zoned Residential R50, and the south‑east adjoining lot is zoned Residential R80. The adjacent lot to the south of the subject site on the opposite side of Lincoln Street is a Public Reserve for the purpose of primary school. The subject site is within close proximity to Beaufort Street. The lots adjoining Beaufort Street to the west of the subject site are zoned Mixed Use with a density coding of R100.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the Built Form Policy and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Privacy

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Developments on Rights of Way

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 5.2

 

4.4 metres

 

 

Ground Floor

Nil to shopfront

3.1 metres to porch

 

First Floor

Nil to Roof Terrace 1

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.1.3

 

Northern Lot Boundary

First floor roof terrace: 3.0 metres

First floor dwelling: 2.0 metres

 

Southern Lot Boundary

Second floor roof terrace: 4.0 metres

 

 

Northern Lot Boundary

First floor roof terrace: 0.674 metres

First floor dwelling: 1.8 metres

 

Southern Lot Boundary

Second floor roof terrace: 2.5 metres

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 5.6

 

Two storeys permitted

Concealed roof height permitted: 7.0 metres

 

 

Three storeys

9.0 metres to top of concealed roof

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.1

 

Setback of unscreened roof terrace: 7.5 metres

 

 

0.674 metres to northern adjoining property

Development On Right of Ways

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 5.31

 

1.0 metre setback from the lot boundary following ROW widening

 

 

Nil setback to the lot boundary following ROW widening

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days between 13 August 2019 and 26 August 2019. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification with 25 letters being sent to surrounding landowners and occupiers, as shown in Attachment 1, and a notice on the City’s website.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, the City received one submission expressing concern relating to the condition of the ROW in terms of overgrown vegetation and graffiti. The concern does not relate to and is outside the scope of the development proposal. The concern relates to the condition of the City-owned ROW. The concern raised has been referred to the City’s Parks and Urban Green team for investigation and action.

 

Following community consultation, Administration identified that it had erroneously advertised the proposal as being two storeys in height, rather than being three storeys in height. Being a two storey deemed‑to‑comply site, the application was re-advertised for a 14 day adverting period from 30 October 2019 to 12 November 2019 by means of written notification to those who were previously consulted, as well as a notice on the City’s webpage. No submissions were received in response to the re‑advertised application.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

As the proposal sought departures to the deemed-to-comply building height, the proposal was referred to the Chair of the Design Review Panel (DRP) for comments. Comments were sought with respect to the appropriateness of the proposed built form outcome in the streetscape context, and the extent that the additional storey had been mitigated through articulation, colour and materials. The DRP Chair noted the following comments in regards to the proposal:

 

·       The architect has taken measures to minimise the impact of the third storey by substantially curving the building away from the eye and view at ground level and setting the third floor part of the building well back from the street and rear boundary;

·       The retention of the original shop and setting the new development back from the street frontage does effectively mitigate a departure from the height requirements;

·       Setting back the new part of the development from the shopfront and street, in addition to the retention of the original face brickwork to the shop section and new face brickwork, are positive architectural gestures of correspondence to the existing street character; and

·       The layering of materials finishes between floors and setting back the third floor component work well to reduce the impact of this three storey building in a traditionally two storey gable roofs residential context.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

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

 

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

At the 23 July 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting, the proposed Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy was approved for the purposes of advertising. The development has not been assessed against the proposed amendments to the Built Form Policy as the amendments are in draft form and are not considered to be ‘seriously entertained’. This is because they have not received approval from Council following community consultation, which concluded on 22 November 2019. The amendments are not certain nor imminent in coming into effect in their current advertised form.

 

The submissions from community consultation for the amended Built Form Policy are expected to be presented to Council in the first quarter of 2020 to consider its acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development is a dwelling that is three storeys in height which does not meet the deemed-to-comply standard of two storeys in height permitted.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

 

The proposed porch is setback 3.1 metres, and the existing shopfront on the ground floor together with the roof terrace proposed atop of this have a nil setback to Lincoln Street. This is in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement of 4.4 metres.

 

The proposed street setbacks are consistent with the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The dwelling bulk itself is setback 4.8 metres on the ground floor, with the porch projecting forward to 3.1 metres. The first and second floor setbacks of the dwelling are stepped back to 4.4 metres and 6.8 metres respectively. These setbacks to the walls of the dwelling are consistent with the deemed‑to‑comply requirements of the Built Form Policy. This approach to the first and second floors provides articulation of the dwelling to the primary street, and would reduce the appearance of building bulk and scale. The second floor has an increased setback to further reduce the perception of bulk and scale on the streetscape;

·       The porch is a roofed open platform that is not enclosed with solid walls. This open framed structure would not contribute to building bulk and rather would contribute towards articulation of the development and would assist in a stepped approach between the existing shopfront to the remainder of the dwelling on the ground floor;

·       Major openings from habitable rooms (Guest Bed on the ground floor and Bed 1 on the first floor) on the primary street elevation would ensure the proposal maintains an open and interactive relationship with the street. Roof Terrace 1 projects forward of the main dwelling, on top of the roof form of the retained shopfront. This roof terrace would provide a greater level of passive surveillance which consequently allows for a greater level of street interaction;

·       The nil setback of the existing shopfront aids in the preservation and retention of established built form within the City. Although not a heritage listed building, the shopfront contributes towards the existing local character and provides a unique feature and interface for the dwelling, with the internal space of the shopfront to be used as a Study;

·       Roof Terrace 1 on top of the existing shopfront is open in nature and would not contribute towards building bulk that is typically associated with solid walls and enclosed buildings. Roof Terrace 1 is a clever and effective use of space of the roof of the existing shopfront;

·       The façade of the dwelling incorporates a range of colours and materials which aids to break up the vertical and horizontal scale of the development. Timber cladding, steel finishes, mixed render (grey, white and cement) and facebrick provide a palette which is cohesive with the established Lincoln Street streetscape. The major openings provided to the ground floor and first floor contribute towards an articulated façade and break up the perception of building bulk to the street. Roof Terrace 2 on the second floor is provided with landscaping around the perimeter to further assist in achieving a perceived separation and softened boundary edge; and

·       The proposal incorporates deep soil and canopy areas within the front setback of the dwelling, which includes two Orchid Trees within the lot and two proposed Paperbark Trees within the verge area. The provision of landscaping within the front setback assists in partially screening the development and ameliorating the bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the street. The proposed landscaping would soften the appearance of the dwelling and contribute to the landscaping amenity of the street.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

Northern Lot Boundary

The applicant proposes a lot boundary setback from the first floor roof terrace to the northern lot boundary of 0.67 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 3.0 metres.

 

The proposed northern boundary setback is consistent with the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The wall of the shop is existing, and the application proposes additional screening and balustrade to the northern elevation which are between 0.3 metres and 0.9 metres higher than the existing wall and have resulted in the departure. The articulation of development along the northern boundary would provide an improved physical and aesthetic amenity to the subject property and neighbouring property;

·       Screening has been provided along the northern boundary edge of the roof terrace to restrict overlooking of the adjoining property to the north. The extent of screening is minimised to the extent necessary along the side of the roof terrace to prevent overlooking, while still maintaining an external outlook to Lincoln Street with access to natural sunlight for occupants and minimising building bulk from screening to this boundary;

·       The roof terrace on the first floor would not result in a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property to the north in relation to overlooking, given any direct overlooking falls onto the front setback area which is already visible from the public realm;

·       The roof terrace on the first floor would not result in a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property to the north in relation to overshadowing, given the shadow falls to the south being onto the Lincoln Street road reserve and a portion of the front setback area of the subject site itself; and

·       The application was advertised to the northern adjoining landowner/occupier, who did enquire about the proposal during the consultation period. The neighbour did not provide any submission on the proposal.

 

The applicant proposes a lot boundary setback of 1.8 metres on the first floor of the dwelling from Bed 3 to the Gym on the northern lot boundary. This is in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement of 2.0 metres.

 

The proposed northern boundary setback is consistent with the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The first floor of the dwelling is articulated and stepped away from the parapet wall to the ground and first floor of the dwelling. The stepped approach reduces the vertical massing of the northern elevation and alleviates the visual impact of the reduced setback of this portion of wall from Bed 3 to the Gym to the abutting property;

·       The northern elevation incorporates a mix of materials and finishes being white and concrete renders, timber cladding as well as metal cladding and sheeting to ameliorate the actual and perceived bulk of the dwelling. Openings on the ground and first floors of the dwelling to the alfresco, Bed 3 and Bed 4 presents as an open and interactive elevation void of blank solid walls that further assists in reducing bulk and scale impacts to the northern boundary; and

·       The favourable orientation of the site results in no overshadowing and subsequent loss of direct sunlight to the adjacent dwelling to the northern side.

 

Southern Lot Boundary

 

The applicant proposes a lot boundary setback from the roof terrace of the second floor to the southern lot boundary of 2.5 metres in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement of 4.0 metres.

 

The southern boundary setback is consistent with the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The façade of the dwelling incorporates a range of materials including metal sheeting, timber cladding, render, concrete and painted brickwork, and the proposal incorporates an articulated design to mitigate the impact of building bulk on the adjoining property;

·       The adjoining southern property is R80 coded land that provides for multiple dwellings that are three storeys in height. The reduced setback does not impose overshadowing to habitable outdoor spaces of the multiple dwellings, with the majority of overshadowing falling onto the existing car parking facilities and front setback area. There would still be access to sun during winter months to the existing outdoor living areas on the adjoining property. The overshadowing generated by the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply requirements;

·       The dwelling and roof terrace would not result in a detrimental impact on the neighbouring property to the south in relation to overlooking, given any direct overlooking falls onto the front setback area which is already visible from the public realm; and

·       The application was advertised to the southern adjoining landowner/occupier, who did not provide any submission on the proposal.

 

Building Height

 

The application proposes three storeys and a maximum height of 9.0 metres to the top of the concealed roof in lieu of the two storey and maximum concealed roof height of 7.0 metres set as the deemed-to-comply standard in the City’s Built Form Policy.

 

The building height proposed satisfies the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The third storey and maximum height of the dwelling applies to the stairs, Lounge and Roof Terrace 2 of the dwelling. The third storey element of the proposal is centrally located to mitigate the imposition of actual and perceived bulk and scale to the north-west and south-eastern properties;

·       The proposal incorporates a range of materials and finishes including elements of render, timber, brick and metal trim details. The juxtaposition of materials provides visual breaks and clearly distinguishes one part of the dwelling from another, reducing the horizontal and vertical massing of the dwelling. Positioning of windows and terraces to the street on the first and second floors of the dwelling ensures that areas of the building façade which present as solid blank walls are minimised and recessed. These design approach creates visual interest and assists to reduce the impact of building bulk to the streetscape and neighbouring dwellings, and has been supported by the DRP Chair;

·       The central location and increased setback of the second floor to 6.8 metres from the street creates a tiered built form outcome when viewed from the adjacent properties. The incorporation of highlight windows and articulation of the upper floor reduces the appearance of blank walls to the neighbouring properties;

·       The proposal incorporates landscaping to the front setback area and across the site, with species which range in canopy size from 3 metres to 6 metres at maturity. Landscaping within the front setback area would soften the appearance of the development when viewed from the street and assists in creating a sense of open space;

·       The intended building height and built form outcome is specified in the Built Form Policy for the density coding assigned to the subject site and adjoining properties. The R50 and R80 residential density coding and corresponding two storey and four storey permitted building heights which abut either side of the subject site indicates the intended transition of development height and scale along this portion of Lincoln Street. The three storey scale of the development reflects and is consistent with the intended transition in building scale and height of this portion of the street in the planning framework. It is also consistent with the current scale of development in the immediately locality of the site;

·       The central location of the second storey ensures the dwelling would not result in detrimental overshadowing to the southern adjoining property. The overshadowing meets the deemed‑to‑comply standards of the R Codes; and

·       The building height and finished floor levels of the proposal have been stepped in line with the natural ground levels of the site that slopes down approximately 0.5 metres from front to rear. This reduces the overall height of the building. The development is considerate of and responds to the natural slope of the site, with minimal fill and excavation required.

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out additional deemed-to-comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.

 

The Built Form Policy requires 15 percent of the site to be provided as deep soil zone and 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 24.0 percent deep soil zone and 22.3 percent canopy cover.

 

The landscaping proposed satisfies the design principles of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposal includes 47 per cent canopy coverage within the front setback area facing Lincoln Street. This would soften the appearance of the dwelling from the street and adjoining properties;

·       The location of trees– Delonix Regia (Flame Tree) and Lagerstoemia Indica (Crepe Myrtle) – to the rear of the site would soften the impact of building bulk and scale on adjoining residential properties and the ROW;

·       The variety of tree species proposed on site are all consistent with the City’s recommended tree species list and are appropriate for development of a residential scale and setting within the City. This includes Flame Tree, Crepe Myrtle, Forest Pansy and Orchid Tree. The tree species are capable of growing and providing between 3 to 6 metres each at maturity;

·       The applicant is proposing two additional tree plantings within the verge area of the lot, shown as Broad Leaf Paperbark trees on the development plans. Although located outside of the lot boundary, the trees would contribute to additional greening and provision of canopy coverage in the Lincoln Street streetscape and for the broader locality. The City’s Parks Team has confirmed that this tree species is appropriate;

·       The amount of deep soil areas proposed exceed the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Built Form Policy. This would be capable of supporting additional canopy coverage. A condition of approval has been recommended requiring the submission of a landscape plan at building permit stage that maximises the amount of canopy coverage at maturity within deep soil areas on site;

·       The landscaping design would provide for greater natural amenity of the outdoor living areas for residents; and

·       The application proposes garden areas on the ground floor and a planter bed adjacent to Roof Terrace 2 on the second floor, effectively reducing hardstand or paved areas on site. This together with canopy coverage proposed on site and in the adjacent street verge would contribute to the reduction of the impact of urban heat island effect and increase the urban air quality of the locality.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The Roof Terrace 1 on the first floor is setback 0.674 metres to the northern lot boundary in lieu of the deemed-to-comply requirement of 7.5 metres.

 

The proposed roof terrace is consistent with the design principles of the R Codes relating to visual privacy for the following reasons:

 

·       The extent of direct overlooking falls primarily onto the front setback area of the adjoining northern property which is already visible from the public realm;

·       The cone of vision that extends behind the front setback area would fall onto the roof of the adjoining property that is single storey and would not impact any habitable rooms with major openings or other active open spaces; and

·       The affected neighbour did not provide any submission during the advertising period for the proposal.

 

Development on Right of Ways

 

The redevelopment of this property is subject to ROW widening in accordance with the Built Form Policy and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Planning Bulletin 33: Rights of Way or Laneways in Established Areas - Guidelines (PB33). The current ROW that borders the site to the north east is 3.0 metres in width. The recommended 6.0 metre ROW width standard included in PB33 would require future widening of 1.5 metres to be provided for this site. The development has been setback outside of the future ROW widening area, with no permanent structures or active open space proposed within this area.

 

PB33 recommends a ROW width of 6.0 metres for ROWs to ensure appropriate space is available to manoeuvre a vehicle in and out of a garage, carport or parking space at right angles to the ROW. Car parking on the subject lot is proposed to be accessed from the ROW on the eastern lot boundary and the 1.5 metre widening on the eastern side of the lot is necessary to provide adequate manoeuvring for vehicles to and from this car parking area. Road widening to neighbouring dwellings would similarly be required should these be developed and subdivided. This is a long term consideration and is necessary to ultimately facilitate the delivery of a 6.0 metre wide laneway.

 

The area of ROW widening would be required and dedicated should the lot be subdivided or amalgamated. The application has been appropriately conditioned notifying the landowner that the ROW widening is to be ceded as road reserve at the time of subdivision or amalgamation in accordance with the PB33 and reflected in Condition 1.

 

ROW setback

 

Under clause 5.31 of the Built Form Policy, the deemed-to-comply setback provision for development on ROW’s is 1.0 metre, after road widening has been applied. The portion of the ground floor (garage) is proposed to be setback nil from a 6.0 metre wide ROW. A portion of the first floor is also proposed to be at a nil setback from the ROW, with the remaining portion of the dwelling setback 5.9 metres. The proposed ROW setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles of the Built Form Policy and are acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The major openings the Living/Dining area and Bed 3 break up the bulk of the wall and provide passive surveillance to the ROW;

·       The first and second floors of the dwelling are setback at 6.0 metres and 9.1 metres respectively. The upper storeys of the development are setback from the ROW far greater than the 1.0 metre deemed-to-comply standard, resulting in development which appears to recede from the ROW on the upper levels. The receding element of the upper storeys assists in mitigating building bulk to the ROW;

·       The setback of the garage of the dwelling provides 6.0 metres of manoeuvring space for vehicles. This would facilitate sightlines and vehicle movement to the ROW and achieve the Australian Standard requirements (AS2890.1);

·       The ground and upper floors of the dwelling include articulated walls addressing the ROW. The stepped nature of the dwelling to the rear, in addition to the incorporation of highlight windows and major openings, creates an interactive street frontage;

·       The proposed dwelling is setback behind the 1.5 metres from the current ROW, allowing for future ROW widening when required; and

·       The development provides pedestrian access to the public street (Lincoln Street) for postal, rubbish collection and public utilities. Suitable space is available for service areas and waste management. The proposed ROW setbacks do not detrimentally impact pedestrian or vehicle access to the site.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.3          City of Vincent Submission - Design WA Stage 2 Precinct Design

TRIM Ref:                  D19/157747

Author:                     Amanda Fox, Strategic Planning Officer

Authoriser:                Stephanie Smith, A/Executive Director Strategy and Development

Attachments:             1.       Design WA Stage 2 - Draft Precinct Design Policy

2.       Design WA Stage 2 - Draft Precinct Design Guidelines

3.       Design WA Stage 2 - Precinct Design Discussion Paper

4.       Design WA Stage 2 - City of Vincent Submission  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the City’s submission on Design WA Stage 2 – Precinct Design, included as Attachment 4; and

2.       NOTES that Administration will forward the submission to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing the City’s submission on Design WA Stage 2 – Precinct Design.

Background:

The State Government’s Design WA initiative started in 2016 with the release of Stage 1 for public comment. The initiative aims to ensure that good design is at the centre of all development, from the early stages right through to delivery. Stage 1 of Design WA focussed on:

 

1.       Creating a new overarching State Planning Policy (SPP) 7.0 – Design of the Built Environment to set out the principles of good design;

2.       Introducing a new SPP 7.3 – R Codes Volume 2 Apartments to provide detailed assessment guidance on the design of apartment buildings; and

3.       Providing a Design Review Guide to embed design review into the preparation and assessment process for apartment developments.

 

These documents came into effect on 24 May 2019.

 

The State Government released the Design WA Stage 2 – Precinct Design suite of documents for public comment on 13 August 2019. These documents intend to guide the preparation and evaluation of planning proposals for areas that require a high level of planning and design focus due to their complexity. The Stage 2 documents include:

 

1.       Draft SPP 7.2: Precinct Design (SPP 7.2), included as Attachment 1;

2.       Draft SPP 7.2: Precinct Design Guidelines (Precinct Design Guidelines), included as Attachment 2; and

3.       Precinct Design Planning Framework Discussion Paper (Discussion Paper), included as Attachment 3.

Details:

There are three key components included in Design WA Stage 2 summarised below.

 

1.       Draft SPP 7.2

 

The draft SPP 7.2 sets out overarching principles such as where the Policy applies, what a precinct is and that the Policy’s purpose and objectives are to:

 

·       Ensure that precinct planning and design processes deliver good quality built environment outcomes;

·       Ensure consistency of precinct planning across the state; and

·       Enable design review to be incorporated to the precinct planning process.

 

2.       Precinct Design Guidelines

 

The Precinct Design Guidelines provide detailed guidance for practitioners, assessors and decision makers on the process for preparing a Precinct Plan and the design considerations that should be addressed. The Precinct Design Guidelines propose that Precinct Plans give consideration to seven performance based Design Elements including:

 

·       Urban Ecology;

·       Urban Structure;

·       Movement;

·       Built Form;

·       Land Use;

·       Public Realm; and

·       Services and Utilities.

 

3.       Discussion Paper

 

The Discussion Paper acknowledges that further changes to the planning framework would be required to introduce Precinct Plans as a new planning instrument.  The Discussion Paper identifies options to simplify and streamline the introduction of precinct planning, while recognising the complex context of the areas to which precinct design would apply. The purpose of the Discussion Paper is to obtain stakeholder input into the proposed changes and options, and to canvas alternative options and ideas on how to give effect to Precinct Plans. The various options presented in the Discussion Paper would be subject to a separate implementation process, such as an amendment to planning legislation.

Consultation/Advertising:

The closing date for submissions on the draft documents was 15 October 2019. The City was granted an extension until the 11 December 2019 to allow for the item to be presented to the December Council Meeting.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:  It is low risk for the City to prepare a submission on the State Governments draft document for Design WA Stage 2 – Precinct Design.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Sensitive Design

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The City commends the State Government for undertaking this project to improve design outcomes at the precinct scale. The City supports the intent of the draft Design WA Stage 2 documents and agrees that improved design guidance is required for established areas to achieve transit oriented development outcomes.

 

The City supports the proposed Precinct Design Guidelines and the Design Elements contained within and recommends they are implemented through the many planning instruments that are currently in place, such as local planning policies and local planning schemes, rather than introducing an additional planning instrument. A detailed submission on the documents is included as Attachment 4. If endorsed by Council the submission will be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.4          No. 14 (Lot: 3; S/P: 32001) View Street, North Perth - Proposed Change of Use from Office to Office and Consulting Rooms (Medical)

TRIM Ref:                  D19/169804

Author:                     Kate Miller, Senior Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Jay Naidoo, Manager Development & Design

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Parking Management Plan and Parking Survey

4.       Strata Plan and Previously Approved Site Plan

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

6.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response

7.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Change of Use from Office to Office and Consulting Rooms (Medical) at No. 14 (Lot: 3; S/P: 32001) View Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 7:

1.       This approval is for Change of Use from Office to Consulting Rooms (Medical) on the ground floor of the building as shown on the approved plans dated 2 September 2019 and 18 October 2019. The first floor of the building shall remain as Office. No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       This approval is for Consulting Rooms as defined in the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the subject land may not be used for any other use without the prior approval of the City;

3.       The proposed Consulting Rooms shall be limited to the following hours of operation:

·      8:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Friday;

·      8:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

·      11:00am to 5:00pm Sunday and Public Holidays; and

·      Closed Christmas Day, Good Friday and ANZAC Day;

4.       A maximum of two consultants shall operate from the premises at any one time;

5.       The owner/occupant shall notify patients of parking options and alternative methods of transportation available to the site as provided within the Parking Management Plan dated 18 October 2019;

6.       Prior to commencement of the use, copies of Consultants’ certificates from a relevant legitimate and reputable association or organisation shall be provided to the City;

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

8.       Prior to occupancy or use of the development all off street parking is to be available onsite during business hours for all customers and staff; and

9.       A minimum of three bicycle parking bays (one short term and two long term) shall be provided on site prior to occupation of the development. The design and construction of the bike bays shall be in accordance with Australian Standards AS2890.3:2015 Parking Facilities Part 3: Bicycle Parking.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Office to Consulting Rooms at No. 14 View Street, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to use the ground floor of the premises as Consulting Rooms, comprising two consulting rooms, an administration area, a waiting area, toilets, end of trip facilities and a kitchenette. The proposal is categorised as Medical Consulting Rooms for the purposes of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms with clients attending the tenancy requiring the investigation or treatment of injuries and ailments. There would be a maximum of two consultants operating full time, one full time receptionist and four customers on the premises at any one time. Customers would attend the premises by appointment only. Appointments would run for 15 minutes to 30 minutes, depending on the appointment type. The proposed operating hours for the Consulting Rooms would be from 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Saturday. The proposal would not result in any changes to the existing built form.

 

The upper floor of the subject tenancy is approved as an Office and would continue to operate as existing.

Background:

Landowner:

Trandcorp Pty Ltd and Butmor Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Peter Webb & Associates

Date of Application:

29 August 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Commercial        R Code: N/A

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Office

Proposed Use Class:

Consulting Rooms ‘P’

Lot Area:

1,380.3m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at the corner of View Street and Woodville Street and is also bound by a right-of-way to the north, as shown in Attachment 1. Under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the properties to the north and north-east of the subject site are zoned Residential R60, the properties east and south of the subject site are zoned Commercial and the properties to the west of the subject site are zoned for Public Purpose (Civic Uses).  All of the adjoining properties form part of the Residential built form area, as prescribed under Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

In 1999, a mixed use two storey commercial development was approved at the subject site comprising six strata lots and 26 onsite parking bays. A surplus of parking was provided onsite, with 22 bays being required for the development. An additional 11 bays were provided within the Woodville Street road reservation at the cost of the applicant. As a result, a total of 37 parking bays were provided, creating an overall surplus of 15 parking bays. The bays provided within the Woodville Street road reservation are public car bays and are not for the exclusive use of the development.

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Parking and Access

 

ü

Bicycle Parking

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Consulting Rooms (4 bays per consulting room)

2 consulting rooms requires 8 bays

 

 

 

 

2 bays for subject tenancy

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days from 23 September 2019 to 7 October 2019. The method of advertising included a letter being mailed to all adjoining owners and occupiers (as shown in Attachment 1) and a notification placed on the City’s website, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

A total of four submissions were received comprising one submission in support of the proposal and three submissions objecting to the proposal. The submissions received during the community consultation period are summarised as follows:

 

·       The proposed parking shortfall will exacerbate the existing parking issues within the locality; and

·       Poor scheduling of customers could result in a greater parking demand and result in a greater parking shortfall.

 

Administration’s and the applicant’s response to the submissions are provided within Attachment 5 and Attachment 6, respectively.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

·       Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms; and

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

 

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the application proposes a greater shortfall than five car parking bays under the minimum parking requirements of Table 1 of Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non‑Residential Development Parking Requirements.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Comments:

Parking

 

In accordance with Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy), Consulting Rooms within the Residential built form area is required to provide four bays per consulting room. The application proposes two consulting rooms to be provided on the ground floor of the building, thereby requiring eight parking bays. The ground floor of the building was previously approved as an Office, requiring two bays. Similarly, the first floor of the building was previously approved as an Office, also requiring two bays.

 

There are four bays available on site for the exclusive use of this strata lot provided in a tandem configuration, as shown on the Strata Plan and previously approved site plan included as Attachment 4. Two bays would be available for the ground floor and two bays would be available for the upper floor of the building. The consulting rooms would result in a parking shortfall of six bays.

 

The proposed parking shortfall was advertised to adjoining properties in accordance with the City’s Consultation Policy. Concerns were raised in relation to lack of parking available.

 

A Parking Management Plan and parking survey has been provided by the applicant in support of the parking shortfall and is included as Attachment 3. In considering the appropriateness of the parking shortfall, the following is relevant:

 

·       Appointments would run for approximately 15 minutes to 30 minutes, depending on the appointment type. Appointments would be booked in advance and would be scheduled to minimise overlap of appointments. Scheduling of appointments would reduce impacts that are typically associated with ‘peak periods’.

·       The applicant anticipates a maximum of seven car parking bays to be required to accommodate three staff and four patients (two attending and two waiting) at any one time. A minimum of five parking bays would be required to be accommodated within the public parking bays available within the vicinity of the site.

·       The applicant’s parking management plan included as Attachment 3 identifies the on-site tandem parking bays would be used by the staff of the premises. This would ensure there is not an issue with the management and use of parking bays.

·       The application proposes two long term and one short term bicycle bay to be provided on site. The bicycle bays would be available for the use of staff or customers.

·       The subject site is within 140 metres of Fitzgerald Street, which is a high frequency bus route and is serviced by five different bus routes.

·       Fitzgerald Street and Angove Street are zoned as District Centre under the City’s LPS2, as shown in Attachment 1. The site’s close proximity to this area would allow for multi-purpose trips and reduce the overall parking demand within the vicinity.

·       The City’s parking survey data identifies there are a minimum of 160 on-street parking bays surrounding the subject site, which are summarised as follows:

o   Woodville Street comprises a total of 45 bays (42 bays with a 3 hour restriction and 3 bays with a 15 minute restriction);

o   View Street comprises a total of 71 bays (25 bays with a 5 hour restriction, 19 bays with a 3 hour restriction, 21 bays with a 1 hour restriction and 6 bays with a 15 minute restriction);

o   Leake Street comprises 16 bays between View Street and Alma Road (2 hour restriction); and

o   Glebe Street comprises 25 bays (2 hour restriction).

·       The City’s parking surveys undertaken on 28 November 2018, 30 November 2019 and 1 December 2018 considered the availability of the abovementioned parking bays between the hours of 9:00am to 11:00am, 12:00pm to 2:00pm and 3:00pm to 5:00pm. The findings are summarised as follows:

o   The parking bays along Woodville Street experienced high levels of occupancy on weekdays, being a minimum of 75 percent and a maximum of 98 percent. Weekends had lower occupancy ranging from 50 percent to 77 percent;

o   The parking bays along View Street experienced moderate occupancy, ranging from 63 percent to 79 percent on weekdays and 48 percent to 49 percent occupancy on weekends;

o   There was no traffic data available for the bays along Leake Street between View Street and Alma Road; and

o   The parking bays along Glebe Street experienced moderate occupancy, ranging from 44 percent to 72 percent on weekdays and 48 percent to 80 percent on weekends.

·       The applicant provided a parking survey which considered 117 on street parking bays within the vicinity of the subject site (included as Attachment 3). The parking survey was undertaken on Tuesday 27 August 2019 at 11:00am. The extent of the survey does not adequately address the intended operating hours of the proposal, although it can be considered in conjunction with the City’s parking survey data identified above. The findings of the survey indicate that of the 117 on street bays surveyed, 52 bays were available at the time the survey was undertaken.

·       The initial development of the site provided 26 on-site parking bays in lieu of the required 22 parking bays, plus an additional 11 bays within the Woodville Street road reservation. Although the on-street parking bays are not available for the exclusive use of the subject site, the parking bays would be available for use of patients attending the Consulting Rooms. These bays have positively benefited the locality as they provide additional public parking bays that would have otherwise not been available.

 

The site is located within close proximity to high frequency bus routes and the North Perth town centre area. The site is also provided with on-site bicycle parking bays and is accessible by public footpaths. These elements would encourage alternate methods of transportation and would reduce the parking demand generated by the development. In determining the acceptability of the maximum parking shortfall of six bays, the above information indicates that there would be on-street public parking bays within the general vicinity of the subject site available to accommodate the parking shortfall generated by the proposal, as well as alternate modes of transport to the site that would reduce the demand for parking.

 

On the basis of the above, the parking demand generated by the development would be accommodated without the need for a cash-in-lieu contribution from the applicant.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.5          Nos. 514-516 (Lot: 14-16; D/P: 1106) William Street, Highgate - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings

TRIM Ref:                  D19/169932

Author:                     Karsen Reynolds, Urban Planner

Authoriser:                Jay Naidoo, Manager Development & Design

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Proposed Development Plans

3.       Supporting Information

4.       Summary of Submissions - Administration Response

5.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response

6.       Design Review Panel Meeting Minutes

7.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for Four (4) Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 514-516 (Lots: 14-16; D/P: 1210) William Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 7:

1.       Amalgamation

Prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit application for the proposed development, Lot 14, Lot 15 and Lot 16 (‘The lots’) are to be amalgamated into a single lot on a Certificate of Title; or alternatively, the owner entering into a legal agreement with the City and secured by an absolute caveat lodged over the certificates of title to the Lots requiring the amalgamation to be completed within twelve months of the issue of a Building Permit for the proposed works.

The owner shall be responsible to pay all costs associated with the City’s solicitor’s costs incidental to the preparation of (including all drafts) and stamping of the agreement and lodgement of the absolute caveat;

2.       Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of all boundary walls facing adjoining properties in a good and clean condition prior to practical completion of the development to the satisfaction of the City. The finish of the boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brickwork; or material as otherwise approved; to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       Landscaping

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

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

·       The provision of a minimum of 15 percent deep soil area per unit;

·       The provision of canopy cover that is no less than that shown on the approved plans; and

·       The provision of trees within deep soil areas on site to maximise the amount of canopy coverage. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list;

3.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 3.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers; and

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

4.       Fencing

The gate and/or fencing infill panels above the approved solid portions of wall shall be visually permeable in accordance with the State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, to the satisfaction of the City;

5.       Stormwater

Stormwater from all roofed and paved areas shall be collected and contained on site. Stormwater must not affect or be allowed to flow onto or into any other property or road reserve;

6.       Sightlines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within the 1.5 metre of where:

6.1     Walls, letterboxes or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site; or

6.2     A driveway meets a public street; or

6.3     Two streets intersect;

Unless otherwise approved by the City of Vincent;

7.       Car Parking and Access

7.1     The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1;

7.2     All driveways, car parking and manoeuvring area(s) which form part of this approval shall be sealed, drained, paved and line marked in accordance with the approved plans prior to the first occupation of the development and maintained thereafter by the owner/occupier to the satisfaction of the City;

7.3     Vehicle access points are required to match into existing right of way levels;

7.4     Prior to the first occupation of the development, redundant or “blind” crossovers shall be removed and the verge and kerb made good to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant/owner’s full expense; and

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

8.       Schedule of External Finishes

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the approved elevations and schedule of finishes which forms part of this approval, unless otherwise approved by the City’s Design Review Panel prior to the issue of the Building Permit. The development must be finished, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the schedule provided to and approved by the City, prior to occupation of the development;

9.       External Fixtures

All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennaes, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, and the like, shall not be visible from the street(s), are designed integrally with the building, and be located so as not to be visually obtrusive; and

10.     Visual Privacy

Prior to occupancy of the development, all privacy screening shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed to comply provisions, to the satisfaction of the City.

11.     Right of Way

The landowner shall remove any development or other works and shall seal, drain and grade to match the existing right of way within 1.5 metres of the eastern lot boundary at the time the portion of ROW widening is ceded to the City. Any costs associated with the above are the responsibility of the owner.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for four Grouped Dwellings at Nos. 514 – 516 William Street, Highgate (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The City received a development application seeking the approval for the construction of four Grouped Dwellings on the subject site on 5 June 2019. The proposal consists of four three-storey dwellings, each with a portion of the dwelling to the front of the site facing Hyde Park and a portion of the dwelling to the rear of the site facing the right of way (ROW), separated by a central courtyard. Units 1, 2 and 4 consist of four bedrooms and Unit 3 consists of five bedrooms. Vehicle access to all dwellings is provided from the rear ROW and the primary pedestrian access to each dwelling is provided from William Street.

 

The development plans subject of this report are included as Attachment 2 and the applicant’s supporting information is included as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

Huirun Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Urbanista Planning

Date of Application:

5 June 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwellings

Lot Area:

1041m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – City of Vincent, 3.0m drained and sealed

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at Nos. 514 – 516 William Street, Highgate, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject site is currently vacant however previously accommodated two single dwellings.

 

The subject site has a frontage to William Street to the west and a ROW to the east. The site adjoins Single Houses to the north-east and south-west of the subject site that also have frontages to William Street. The site also adjoins Single Houses to the east, across the ROW, that front Harley Street. Hyde Park is located to the west of the subject site, which is reserved for Parks and Recreation purposes. The broader area is generally characterised by single storey and two storey Single Dwelling and Grouped Dwelling developments.

 

The subject site is zoned Residential with a density coding of R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site and adjoining properties along William Street and Harley Street are within the Residential built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) and also have a density coding of R50 under the City’s LPS2.

 

The western adjoining properties that face Harley Street are located within the Harley Street Heritage Guideline Area. The City’s Policy No. 7.5.15 Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas does not require assessment to be completed for development proposed adjacent to the Harley Street Heritage Guideline Area. An adjacent property at No. 21 Harley Street is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as Management Category B.

 

The site is subject to Clause 32(4) of LPS2 that, notwithstanding any other provisions in the Scheme, does not permit multiple dwellings.

 

The applicant agreed in writing to extend the statutory timeframe in which to determine the application to 10 December 2019 in order for the applicant to address the matters raised during the community consultation and assessment process.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes – Volume 1.  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Street Walls and Fences

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setbacks / Lot Boundary Walls

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

 

ü

Sightlines

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Developments on Rights of Way

ü

 

Heritage Management

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 Built Form Clause 5.2

 

Primary street setback: 5.5 metres

 

 

Unit 2:

First floor: 4.5 metres

Second floor: 4.5 metres

 

Unit 3:

First floor: 4.5 metres

Second floor: 4.5 metres

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 – Clause 5.1.3

 

South-west boundary:

Unit 1 second floor planter boxes require a 1.9 metre lot boundary setback

 

 

 

Unit 1 second floor planter boxes provide a 1.6 metre lot boundary setback

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 5.6

 

Two storeys permitted

Concealed roof height permitted: 7.0 metres

 

 

Three storeys proposed

Concealed roof heights proposed:

Unit 1: 9.0 metres

Unit 2: 9.0 metres

Unit 3: 8.6 metres

Unit 4: 8.3 metres

Street Walls and Fences

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 5.10

 

Solid portions of wall permitted to a maximum height of 1.2 metres

 

 

Solid portions of wall proposed to a maximum height of 1.8 metres

Sightlines

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 – Clause 5.2.5

 

Walls, fences and other structures to be no higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of where walls adjoin a driveway

 

 

Structures higher than 0.75 metres within 1.5 metres of the proposed driveway of Unit 4

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 28 October 2019 and concluding on 11 November 2018. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received six submissions, all of which objected to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       Development results in building bulk to the street and adjoining properties;

·       Adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties;

·       Overlooking to adjoining properties;

·       Development is not consistent with the established streetscape and surrounding locality;

·       Overshadowing to adjoining properties;

·       Lack of canopy cover and the impact this would have on local amenity; and

·       Concerns that the rear buildings adjacent to the ROW would be used as ancillary dwellings.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 4. The applicant also provided a written response to the submissions received, as provided in Attachment 5.

 

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)

 

In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) delegations under the MRS, the application was referred to DPLH as the subject site abuts William Street, which is an Other Regional Road. DPLH provided a non-objection to the proposed development on regional transport grounds, subject to all vehicle access to the site being obtained from the ROW.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development has been referred to the DRP on three occasions on 18 September 2019, 16 October 2019 and 30 October 2019 following lodgement of the application. Refer to Attachment 6 for an extract of the minutes from each meeting.

 

Following the 30 October 2019 DRP meeting, further changes were made to the plans by the applicant. The applicant sought to address the DRP comments by re-introducing the mansard roof, amending the colour of the top floor to better reference common Art Deco colours, increase surveillance to the ROW and considered further species diversity in the proposed landscaping.

 

These amended plans received on 7 and 11 November 2019 were presented to the DRP Chair for comment. The DRP Chair advised that all outstanding comments had been addressed in the amended plans and that the Ten Principles of Good Design have been achieved. The DRP Chair advised that it is fundamental that the materials and colours as approved by the DRP are required to be carried through to the construction stage. Administration has recommended a condition of approval requiring colours and materials to be consistent with the approved plans and external finishes schedule, unless otherwise approved by the DRP prior to issue of the building permit.

 

The below table demonstrates how the proposal has progressed through the DRP process in accordance with the Ten Principles of Good Design.

 

Design Review Progress

 

Supported

 

Pending further attention

 

Not supported

 

No comment provided

 

DRP 1

18/09/2019

DRP 2 16/10/2019

DRP 3

30/10/2019

DRP referral to  Chair

07/11/2019

Principle 1 – Context & Character

 

 

 

 

Principle 2 – Landscape Quality

 

 

 

 

Principle 3 – Built Form and Scale

 

 

 

 

Principle 4 – Functionality & Built Quality

 

 

 

 

Principle 5 – Sustainability

 

 

 

 

Principle 6 – Amenity

 

 

 

 

Principle 7 – Legibility

 

 

 

 

Principle 8 – Safety

 

 

 

 

Principle 9 – Community

 

 

 

 

Principle 10 – Aesthetics

 

 

 

 

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 1;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

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

 

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

 

City of Vincent Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form

 

At the 23 July 2019 Ordinary Council Meeting, the proposed Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy was approved for the purposes of advertising. The development has not been assessed against the proposed amendments to the Built Form Policy as the amendments are in draft form and are not considered to be ‘seriously entertained’. This is because they have not received approval from Council following community consultation, which concluded on 22 November 2019. The amendments are not certain or imminent in coming into effect in their current advertised form.

 

The submissions from community consultation for the amended Built Form Policy are expected to be presented to Council in the first quarter of 2020 to consider its acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development incorporates dwellings that are three storeys in height which does not meet the deemed-to-comply standard of two storeys in height permitted. The proposal also received more than five written objections during the consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

Administration received a number of concerns during community consultation that each unit contained an ancillary dwelling component located in the rear buildings accessed from the ROW.

 

Each unit of the proposal provides two separate buildings. The buildings located closest to William Street contain the main kitchen, living and dining areas, laundries as well as bedrooms, bathrooms, retreats and study areas. The buildings located closest to the ROW provide double garages, bedrooms, bathrooms and lounge rooms. The rear buildings of each unit do not meet the definition of ‘Ancillary Dwelling’ under the R Codes Volume 1 as these buildings are not ‘self-contained’ in that they do not provide features that would enable separate occupation, namely a kitchen or kitchenette and laundry.

 

The supporting information provided by the applicant confirms that the current development application does not seek approval for ancillary dwellings. The supporting documentation advises that the development proposes to allow for intergenerational and adaptable housing design. The design would allow residents to age and stay in their family home.

 

Any future internal modifications to the rear buildings to retrofit facilities such as a kitchen or kitchenette and laundry would not be exempt from requiring development approval as deemed-to-comply variations would be proposed to the R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.5.1 Ancillary Dwellings.

 

Street Setbacks

 

The Built Form Policy requires a deemed-to-comply primary street setback of 5.5 metres. Units 2 and 3 provide a minimum primary street setback of 4.5 metres to the first and second floors. The primary street setbacks proposed for Units 1 and 4 meet the deemed-to-comply requirement.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the street setbacks provided, detailing that the proposal would detract from the streetscape and would set an undesirable precedence.

 

The applicant has justified that the street setbacks are appropriate in the context given Units 1 and 4 provide compliant setbacks, facilitating a systematic rhythm in the streetscape. The applicant considers the built form is of a scale and bulk appropriate to William Street.

 

The proposed street setbacks meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The development is well articulated by way of the following:

o   The development provides large openings, varying wall heights and lengths, varied setbacks, curved edges and an overall vertical emphasis. This reduces the mass and scale of the development as it presents to the street;

o   The façade incorporates multiple major openings to all levels as well as balconies that are open in style. These features add design detail while reducing impacts of solid blank walls and subsequent building bulk; and

o   The development incorporates varying materials, finishes and colours, such as render, face brick, cladding, timber and bronze detailing. The materials and colours employed are common within the locality and contribute to the streetscape while reducing impacts of building bulk. DRP comments received support the finishes of the development and the way they relate to the locality;

·       The proposed street setbacks are generally consistent with existing development along William Street. The ground floor levels of all units and the upper levels of Unit 1 and Unit 4 are aligned with the existing street setbacks of the adjoining northern and southern properties, as well as the predominate primary street setbacks of William Street. The reduced setbacks of the first floor and secondary floor balconies and planter boxes align with the existing setback of verandahs along the street, ensuring a consistency of open style structures within the streetscape;

·       The provided street setbacks facilitate an active frontage to William Street. Each unit of the development provides surveillance and engagement with the public realm through the provision of open style balconies, clear glazing, full height windows, and minimal privacy screening;

·       The proposal incorporates on-ground and on-structure landscaping to each unit that softens the appearance of the development when viewed from the street, contributes to the relationship between the site and Hyde Park, and creates a sense of open space within the front setback areas; and

·       DRP comments received commend the architectural style of the development and the way in which it relates to the surrounding context.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The Unit 1 second floor planter boxes are proposed to be 1.6 metres setback to the south-western boundary in lieu of the 1.9 metre deemed-to-comply standard set in the R Codes.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the aesthetic impact and bulky appearance of the building as a result of the setbacks, and impacts relating to amenity, overlooking and overshadowing.

 

The applicant has justified that the lot boundary setback is appropriate as the wall length provides articulation through materiality, colour and landscaping. The applicant considers the wall is not visible nor will it result in a loss of direct sun to the southern property as it abuts the southern adjoining property’s boundary wall for its entire length.

 

The proposed lot boundary setbacks meet the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The adjoining southern site includes one single house. The Unit 1 second floor planter box wall abuts the adjoining property’s boundary wall for its entire length, which alleviates adverse impacts of the reduced setback and subsequent building bulk. All other major openings and outdoor living areas of the southern adjoining dwelling do not have views to the Unit 1 second floor planter boxes, alleviating adverse impacts of building bulk;

·       The elevation provides an articulated façade with a range of openings to mitigate building bulk. The planter boxes are unroofed and provide landscaping to further soften the building edge when viewed from the street and from the south. The façade as a whole incorporates a number of materials such as rendered brick, cladding, bronze accents and perforated screens. The materials provided break up the appearance of the wall when viewed from the adjoining properties and the street. Details of the proposed materials and colours are included in the proposed plans in Attachment 2;

·       The shadow of the planter box wall falls across the roof of the southern adjoining property at No. 310 William Street, Highgate. The shadow does not fall across major openings or the rear outdoor living area of the southern property. The southern property would continue to receive adequate access to direct sunlight and the amount of overshadowing generated by the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply requirements;

·       There are no major openings proposed to the south-western façade and the reduced setback does not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the southern adjoining property and

·       The building has been stepped back and allows for ventilation.

 

Building Height

 

The Built Form Policy permits a two storey height limit. The permitted top of external wall (concealed roof) height is 7.0 metres. The development proposes three storeys to all units and a maximum concealed roof height of 9.0 metres to Unit 1; 9.0 metres to Unit 2; 8.6 metres to Unit 3; and 8.3 metres to Unit 4.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the aesthetic impact and bulky appearance of the building as a result of the building height; concerns the development does not fit into the existing context; and impacts relating to amenity, overlooking and overshadowing. Comments were also received in support for the building height, highlighting additional height adjacent to Hyde Park is appropriate.

 

The applicant has justified that the building height is appropriate in the context given the additional height is isolated to the front of the development only; the architectural style pays tribute to surrounding Art Deco development; landscaping has been incorporated throughout the development to tie the site to Hyde Park and to soften the building edge; the design maintains direct sunlight into the proposed buildings and adjoining properties; and given there are several existing three storey developments that frame Hyde Park.

 

The proposed building heights meet the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The third storey and maximum building height applies only to the front buildings of each unit, with the buildings that face the ROW meeting the deemed-to-comply requirements for building height. This reduces visual and overshadowing impacts of the third storey to the western adjoining properties and to the rear open space areas of the northern and southern adjoining properties;

·       The proposal has been designed so as to incorporate a number of design measures to reduce the bulk, scale and height impact of the development. Each elevation features articulated facades with large windows and open balconies to reduce the overall building mass. The building mass is further broken down through the use of varying materials and colours, curved edges and vertical elements. The third storey is contained to a small portion of the lot, being setback behind the predominant building line of each unit;

·       The development is of a high quality and enhances the public realm whilst also reflecting the local character through the proposed style, colours and materials. Landscaping is proposed on all levels of each unit to soften the built form edge of the development when viewed from William Street and Hyde Park;

·       The third storey element of the proposal has been setback appropriately from the street and lot boundaries to mitigate the imposition of perceived and actual bulk and scale to the adjoining properties and street. The provided setbacks assist the development in presenting a human scale for pedestrians, allows additional light into the neighbouring property, and reduces the perception of height. The dark colour proposed to the third storey further assists in recessing it behind the lower levels;

·       Three storey developments are established within the locality, and particularly to Glendower Street that also borders Hyde Park. These developments are located approximately 250 metres away from the subject site;

·       The shadow cast from the additional storey predominately falls to the southern adjoining properties roof, impacting no major openings or outdoor living areas. The overshadowing proposed meets the deemed‑to-comply standards of the R Codes; and

·       The development considers and responds to the natural slope with minimal fill and excavation required.

 

Street Walls and Fences

 

The Built Form Policy permits solid portions of wall to a maximum height of 1.2 metres. The development proposes solid portions of wall to a maximum height of 1.8 metres.

 

The proposed street walls and fences meet the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes small portions of the front fence to be solid in height to a maximum of 1.8 metres. The additional height has been provided for the purpose of screening bin storage areas located behind the front fence, ensuring bins are entirely screened from public view;

·       The fence is stepped with the natural ground level to ensure overall compliant fence height;

·       The fence is visually permeable along the majority of the primary street frontage and along internal lot boundaries within the street setback area, ensuring active street surveillance and maintaining relationships between the public and private domains; and

·       The front fence is compatible with the proposed development and existing streetscape in terms of style and materials, incorporating rendered brick and wrought iron infill. The design and style of the fence would positively contribute to existing fences within the street.

 

Sightlines

 

The development proposes the driveway of Unit 4 within 1.5 metres of an existing 1.8m high fence along the north-eastern boundary of the site.

 

The proposed sightlines meet the Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The driveway provides vehicular access from the rear ROW that does not have any pedestrian pathway and which receives little pedestrian activity. The provision of a 0.5 metre setback to the boundary is appropriate to facilitate views to the ROW. The garage is also setback 3.0 metres from the rear lot boundary, further enhancing visibility for reversing vehicles;

·       ROWs are designed to accommodate low traffic volumes travelling at a low speed of approximately 15km/hr as set out in the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods. The City’s technical officers have reviewed the proposal and confirmed that while sightlines have been reduced, access has been provided in a manner that still allows for visibility of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic for vehicles leaving the property boundary and the reduced sightlines are appropriate for the context; and

·       The proposal does not involve any new walls higher than 750 millimetres within 1.5 metres of the driveway and ROW boundary so as to ensure that vehicles could account for oncoming pedestrians and vehicles at the intersection of the driveway and ROW.

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out additional deemed-to-comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the WAPC and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.

 

The Built Form Policy requires 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. Unit 1 proposes 26.6 percent canopy cover; Unit 2 proposes 25.0 percent canopy cover; Unit 3 proposes 22.2 percent canopy cover; and Unit 4 proposes 23.7 percent canopy cover.

 

Administration received comments during community consultation that raised concerns with the reduced canopy cover provided and subsequent impacts of increased building bulk created.

 

The proposed landscaping meets the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy and Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes on-ground and on-structure landscaping to all levels of the development. The provided deep soil zones accommodate a number of mature trees that are under planted with low plants. The landscaping also includes portions of canopy cover which extend outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the reduction of the impact of urban heat island effect and increase of the urban air quality of the locality, as well as additional shade to the William Street pedestrian path and the ROW;

·       The proposal incorporates additional on-structure landscaping to the first floor and second floor balconies, in addition to the canopy cover provided on ground level. The on-structure landscaping provided positively contributes to the overall landscape amenity of the development site as well as the development when viewed from the street and adjoining properties;

·       The proposal has incorporated a variety of species, including native species, to the front setback area, central courtyards and rear setback area that create interest and soften the building edge when viewed from the street and adjoining residential properties. The landscaping locations also provide an increased amenity for future occupants. The choice of species on site sufficiently address the DRP Landscape Architect’s comments received;

·       Each unit provides more than 15 percent of the relevant site area as deep soil zones, allowing for future mature planting opportunities. A condition of approval is recommended requiring the submission of a landscaping plan that maximises the amount of canopy coverage at maturity within deep soil areas on site; and

·       The application has been designed to retain the existing verge trees to William Street. The existing verge trees provide a good level of landscaping amenity for residents and the community.

 

Heritage Management

 

The adjacent south-eastern property at No. 21 Harley Street, Highgate, is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI) as Management Category B. The City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management provides acceptable development standards for development adjacent to heritage listed buildings. The acceptable development standards require new development to have an equivalent or greater street setback to the adjacent heritage listed place; to have appropriate side setbacks that reflect those of the adjacent heritage listed place; to be of a height compatible with the adjacent heritage listed building; and to be of a style that does not imitate, replicate or mimic historic architectural styles.

 

The proposed development is located across the ROW and does not directly abut the adjacent heritage place. The proposed development would not be viewed in conjunction with the adjacent heritage place given the principle façade of the adjacent heritage place faces Harley Street.

 

The ROW provides a sufficient separation between the two sites and ensures that the existing views and vistas to the principle façade of the adjacent heritage listed place are maintained. The heights of the development has been stepped from William Street to the rear ROW in a way then ensures the development is of a scale and mass that respects the adjacent heritage place.

 

The overall design of the development is clearly distinguishable from the adjacent heritage place. The design draws references to nearby existing Art Deco buildings without mimicking, replicating or imitating. The City’s DRP commended the architectural language of the proposed development and how the development appropriately references the Art Deco architectural style.

 

The development meets the performance criteria requirements relating to Development Adjacent to Heritage Listed Buildings in Part 5 of the Heritage Policy and is acceptable.

 

Development on Right of Ways

 

The redevelopment of this property is subject to ROW widening in accordance with the Built Form Policy and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Planning Bulletin 33: Rights of Way or Laneways in Established Areas - Guidelines (PB33). The current ROW that borders the site to the east is 3.0 metres in width. The recommended 6.0 metre ROW width standard included in PB33 would require future widening of 1.5 metres to be provided for this site. The development has been set back outside of the future ROW widening area, with no permanent structures or active open space proposed within this area.

 

PB33 recommends a ROW width of 6.0 metres for all ROWs to ensure appropriate space is available to manoeuvre a vehicle in and out of a garage, carport or parking space at right angles to the ROW. Car parking on the subject lot is proposed to be accessed from the ROW on the eastern lot boundary and the 1.5 metre widening on the eastern side of the lot is necessary to provide adequate manoeuvring for vehicles to and from this car parking area. Road widening to neighbouring dwellings would similarly be required should these be developed and subdivided. This is a long term consideration and is necessary to ultimately facilitate the delivery of a 6.0 metre wide laneway.

 

Administration has recommended a condition of approval that requires Lot 14, Lot 15 and Lot 16 to be amalgamated into a single lot on a Certificate of Title. The area of ROW widening would be required and dedicated at the time of amalgamation or re-subdivision of the subject site. The dedication of the ROW widening area at the development application stage is a long term consideration for the site. Administration recommends a condition be imposed on any development approval requiring the ROW widening area to be ceded as road reserve at the time of amalgamation or re-subdivision in accordance with the PB33.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 



 


 


 




 


 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 


 


 


 


 


 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.6          City of Vincent Submission on Single Residential Building Reforms - Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement

TRIM Ref:                  D19/173106

Authors:                   Adam Freeman, Coordinator Building Services

Mark Fallows, Manager Built Environment and Wellbeing

Authoriser:                Stephanie Smith, A/Executive Director Strategy and Development

Attachments:             1.       Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement

2.       City of Vincent Submission - Building Reforms CRIS  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES Attachment 2 as the City of Vincent’s submission in response to the ‘Reforms to the building approval process for single residential buildings in Western Australia – Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement’, which supports ‘Option 3 – Improvements to the current building approvals process’; and

2.       NOTES the City will forward the submission included as Attachment 1 to the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing the City’s submission on the ‘Reforms to the building approval process for single residential buildings in Western Australia – Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement (CRIS)’.

Background:

The Building and Energy Division of the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety (DMIRS) released the CRIS on potential reforms to the building approval process for single residential buildings in Western Australia for public comment on 11 September 2019. A copy of the CRIS is included as Attachment 1.

 

The City is currently responsible for issuing approvals for new buildings located in its jurisdiction. This includes applications which have been certified by a private building surveyor and alternatively, uncertified applications which are certified by the City’s building surveyors. This scheme is referred to as partial privatisation, which provides applicants with a choice to either employ a private building surveyor or have the plans certified by the permit authority, being the local government. Once certification has occurred, the local government would assess the application through the building approval process and issue a building permit, only then construction can begin.

 

The purpose of the CRIS is to seek stakeholder comments on options for reforms to the building approval process. The scope of the CRIS is limited to single residential buildings, which are considered Class 1a in the National Construction Code (NCC). The CRIS provides three options which consider the following State Government policy positions:

 

1.       A pre-election (March 2017) commitment to consider full private certification of building approvals for Class 1a buildings; and

2.       An in-principle agreement to implement the recommendations of the February 2018 report entitled, Building Confidence: Improving the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry across Australia, prepared for the Building Ministers’ Forum (Building Confidence Report).

3.       Noting of the findings of a 2018 inquiry into non-conforming building products by the Senate Economics References Committee of the Parliament of Australia.

 

In its capacity as a building permit authority, the City has observed a number of considerations with the current partial privatisation scheme which was brought into effect by the Building Act 2011 (Building Act), including:

 

1.       There are potential conflicts of interest between builders that engage private building surveyors to certify their applications. This is currently monitored by local governments as part of the building approval process and independent accountability of these relationships needs to continue.

2.       The building approval process involves applications being checked by the City’s Building, Planning, Environmental Health and Engineering teams to ensure that requirements of all frameworks are met. This is an advantage of having local governments being responsible for the building approval process, and likely leads to reduced post-build compliance issues.

3.       Quality of construction is not currently being monitored throughout the process as there is no existing mechanism to require mandated inspections at various stages. Compliance issues generally arise following completion of construction, at which time it is generally more difficult to address issues.

4.       Statutory timeframes for processing building approvals are short with 10 days for certified applications and 25 days for uncertified applications. This creates challenges to balance timeliness with quality of service.

Details:

The CRIS provides stakeholders with the opportunity to comment on three options for reforming the building approvals process for single residential buildings, being:

 

Option 1 – Business as usual

 

This option would involve no change to the current partial privatisation approach. It would not address issues which have been identified by the building industry, local governments or the Building Confidence Report. For this reason, Option 1 is not supported as it does not include reforms designed to improve outcomes for the City and its residents and rate payers.

 

Option 2 – Introduce full private certification

 

This option would provide a choice to applicants to have their building approval granted by a private building surveyor or by the local government. This option also introduces a number of additional improvements that are intended to address issues which have been identified by the building industry, local governments and the Building Confidence Report. This would mean a building approval could be issued by a private building surveyor who would have the responsibility to:

 

1.       Certify design compliance with applicable building standards, including the NCC;

2.       Grant a building permit authorising the commencement of works;

3.       Carry out mandatory on-site inspections at key stages of the build;

4.       Issue rectification orders during the build to address identified non-compliance; and

5.       Notify and lodge approval documentation with the relevant local government.

·                  

These functions incorporate reforms from the Building Confidence Report to improve compliance and enforcement of the NCC and other building standards. Local governments would have a choice to compete with private building surveyors to deliver these functions. Once the building has been completed, the role of a private building surveyor ceases. The local government would then be responsible for all post-build compliance and enforcement. The State Government (DMIRS) would retain responsibility for regulating private building surveyors. Option 2 also proposes a number of other reforms to improve compliance with the National Construction Code such as introducing conflict of interest provisions for certifiers and mandatory reporting of certifiers to report non-compliances.

 

The estimated state-wide cost of Option 2 is $26-31million per year. The benefits of this option, in the form of avoided costs per dwelling and estimated savings from prevention of rectification works, would be $14-27million per year. This equates to an average cost of $1,900-$2,200 per dwelling per year.

 

Option 2 would open the market for the building approvals process, which would be facilitated as a transaction between the builder and its selected private building surveyor. In order to implement this option there would have to be systems in place to manage this potential conflict of interest. The City would have a choice to compete in this market. If it did, its purpose would be to provide assurances for residents and rate payers during the building approval process. In order to ensure such assurances are provided by private building surveyors, monitoring and performance would be the responsibility of DMIRS. This would include ensuring there are systems in place to manage potential conflict of interests that could occur as part of the commercial relationship between builders and private building surveyors.

 

The role of the private building surveyor would only be limited to the construction phase. After this phase compliance issues could be transferred to local governments to manage. For example, should rectification works be required, and the private building surveyor not be able to effectively manage this matter, the responsibility could fall to the City to ensure the matter is addressed. The evidence trail could be compromised by this approach. The City’s responsibility for compliance functions post-build would occur, despite having little influence on how a private building surveyor has managed the approval and inspection process.

 

Option 2 would require the private building surveyor to seek evidence of planning compliance from the City. Seeking evidence of environmental health or engineering requirements is not a requirement of this option and issues would therefore not be detected during the building approval process. A formal planning assessment is supported during the building approval process, as the status quo requires the City to undertake a full planning assessment within 10 days for a certified application and 25 days for an uncertified application.

 

The financial implications of Option 2 on the City would be the most difficult to predict. If the City chooses to compete with private building surveyors to deliver the functions detailed in this Option, it would be required to gauge the level of uptake of services by owners and builders. Many owners/builders would select private building surveyors which would decrease the volume of approvals issued by the City. This could be neutralised by owners/builders who select the City to provide the approvals service, which under this Option would include newly mandated inspections requiring more staff time.

 

For these reasons, and primarily in the interests of ensuring the interests of residents and rate payers, as well as builders, are met, Option 2 is not the preferred option of the Administration.

 

Option 3 – Improvements to the current building approvals process

 

The third option would address current issues and the recommendations of the Building Confidence Report by implementing improvements to the status quo partial privatisation scheme. This option would improve the effectiveness of the current system by broadening the statutory responsibilities of the local government, to include carrying out mandatory on-site inspections at key stages of the build. Local government would retain the role of granting a building permit and authorising the commencement of works, and enforcing requirements with applicable standards and permits.

 

This option would create additional accountability mechanisms which broadens the role of local government during the construction phase. This would introduce mandatory inspections as a compliance function.

 

The estimated state-wide cost of Option 3 is $22-28million per year. The benefits of this option, in the form of avoided costs per dwelling and estimated savings from prevention of rectification works, would be $14-27million per year. This equates to an average cost of $1,600-$2,000 per dwelling per year. This is a lower cost than Option 2.

 

Option 3 is supported by Administration, as it improves accountability of the building industry and provides assurance to home owners during and after the building process, ensuring the City can fulfil its strategic purpose. This position is consistent with the outcomes of a consultation forum hosted by the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) on 17 October 2019, which was attended by local government representatives. In September 2016, at its State Council Meeting, WALGA had also endorsed that improvements to the Building Act be advocated for, including the introduction of a mandatory inspection regime. This regime would include inspections during four stages of construction – foundation and footings; slab/reinforcement of bearers/joints; roof; and occupancy or final completion.

 

Option 3 would include similar accountability mechanisms as Option 2; however, it ensures responsibility of the building approval process is retained by the local government. This would mean this process is not instigated by a commercial transaction between the builder and private building surveyor, minimising potential conflict of interests.

 

The short statutory processing times for building approvals would remain in place. These processing times have been strongly advocated for by the building and construction industry, which does place pressures on local government to undertake the required work to the required standard. The addition of mandated inspections would create opportunity for further assurances to be provided to owners. This would lead to better detection of non-compliance during construction, while the status quo involves non-compliances being observed on an ad-hoc basis post-construction.

 

Option 3 would also allow the City to continue to ensure building applications meet the requirements of planning, environmental health, engineering, as well as local government policies and legislation. Formal evidence of planning compliance could also be considered for Option 3, as it has for Option 2, to require the applicant or private building surveyor to include supporting documentation with the building application.

 

If Option 3 were to be implemented the City would have the ability to charge fees for newly mandated inspections. This would cover additional resources required to deliver this service. There may be a negative reputational impact with the City charging a fee for inspection services; however, this would provide owners with assurances regarding the quality of the building works.

 

Option 3 would achieve improvements to quality of documentation, standardised local government processes while ensuring enforcement is retained by local governments, including through mandated inspections.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation on the CRIS closes on 9 December 2019. The City has received an extension until 11 December 2019 to enable Council endorsement of its submission.

Legal/Policy:

·      Building Act 2011

 

A CRIS is required as part of a Regulatory Impact Assessment process when policy proposals may result in new or amended legislation. If Options 2 or 3 were to be progressed, the Building Act would require amendment. The City is a ‘permit authority’ designated by the Building Act.

Risk Management Implications:

It is low risk for the City to make a submission on a Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

 

Innovative and Accountable

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

It is recommended that Council support Option 3 and endorse the detailed comments on the proposals.

 

The approval process for other types of buildings is being examined as part of a separate review, which will involve the release of a second CRIS anticipated in late 2019.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.7          Parklet Proposal - No. 711 Newcastle Street, Leederville

TRIM Ref:                  D19/174994

Author:                     Tim Elliott, A/Coordinator Policy and Place

Authoriser:                Stephanie Smith, A/Executive Director Strategy and Development

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             Nil

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to issue a Section 40 Certificate for Fibber McGee’s located at NO. 711 Newcastle Street, Leederville, for the purposes of licensing the adjacent Parklet, until such time that a report is presented to Council on the results of community consultation on draft Policy No. 2.2.13 – Parklets.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application to license a parklet in the two car parking bays adjacent to No. 711 Newcastle Street, Leederville in front of Fibber McGee’s.

Background:

On the 30 October 2019, the City received an application for a parklet at No. 711 Newcastle Street, Leederville, adjacent to Fibber McGee’s. The application included a request for the parklet to be considered for liquor licensing.

 

Council endorsed Policy No. 2.2.13 – Parklets (Parklets Policy) at its Meeting on 22 September 2015. The application was assessed, advertised in accordance with the Parklets Policy and approved under delegation 2.2.13 private works, on, over or under public places on 21 November 2019.

 

The Parklets Policy includes a provision on page 12 stating that smoking and the consumption of alcohol in parklets is not permitted.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 5 March 2019, Council initiated an amendment to the Parklets Policy to enable consideration of liquor licence application within the parklet by an adjoining business. At the same meeting, Council authorised the issuing of a section 40 for the two parklets adjacent to Pinchos Bar De Tapas and Jus Burgers in Leederville. The section 40 allowed licensing of these two parklets which is intended to be run as a trial to help inform public consultation on the proposed Parklets Policy amendment, to occur early in 2020.

 

As above, Administration has delegation to determine the application for a parklet however cannot determine the liquor licensing component as this is not in accordance with Council’s Parklet Policy. Administration is seeking Council’s Authorisation to issue a section 40 certificate so that this space may be licensed and included as part of the trial.

Details:

The parklet has been approved subject to the applicant entering into a formal agreement for the supply, installation and management of the parklet.

 

The parklet replaces two car parking bays located in front of No. 711 Newcastle Street, on the shared space Leederville Village Square. The parklet is 15.5 square metres and can seat approximately 24 people on four tables. The parklet is proposed in a safe location with a border of planter boxes which will provide a safe barrier between the public space and the adjoining shared space.

 

wAligned with the priority of Thriving Places in the City’s Strategic Community Plan, parklets help local businesses by encouraging people to linger longer, and are a point of interest in the community for residents and visitors to experience. The space is currently used as short term parking for two vehicles, the proposed parklet will provide a place for the public to rest, eat, drink and gather which will provide activity and atmosphere in the town centre.

 

The community would be given an opportunity to experience the licensed parklets during the peak summer period before providing comment on their success and suitability. It is appropriate to include the proposed parklet in the trial and advertise the Parklets Policy in early 2020.

Consultation/Advertising:

The formal advertising period for amendment to the Parklets Policy is pursuant to Part 2 of the City’s Policy No. 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies which requires a 21 day advertising period by means of written notification to affected properties as determined by the City and a newspaper advert. To satisfy the requirements of the City’s policy the advertising period would be 21 days and include:

 

·       Written notification to landowner/occupiers within the City’s town centres;

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

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

·       Discussion with the City’s Business Advisory Group and town teams.

Legal/Policy:

·       Policy No. 2.2.13 – Parklets; and

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The CEO currently has delegation to approve most parklets in the City where they are in accordance with the Parklets Policy. This matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes a parklet with the intention of licensing the space. This does not align with the current Parklets Policy. For proposals of this nature, a Council decision is required to authorise the licensing of the space.

Risk Management Implications:

It is low risk for Council to allow the City to issue a section 40 certificate that will enable the parklet to be licensed as part of the trial.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Thriving Places

Our vibrant places and spaces are integral to our identity, economy and appeal. We want to create, enhance and promote great places and spaces for everyone to enjoy.

Connected Community

We are a diverse, welcoming and engaged community. We want to celebrate what makes us unique and connect with those around us to enhance our quality of life.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

It is proposed that the Parklets Policy be advertised in early 2020 following the trial of licensed parklets. Administration will report back on the results of the consultation. Council’s decision on the results of the consultation will determine the long term licensing of parklets.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

5.8          Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - Outcomes of Advertising

 

 

REPORT TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL BRIEFING.

  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

6            Infrastucture & Environment

6.1          Response to Petition Requesting the Relocation of Parking on Turner Street, Highgate Adjacent Jack Marks Reserve

 

 

Report to be provided prior to Council Briefing

 

 

 

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

6.2          Making the Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED]

TRIM Ref:                  D19/174341

Authors:                   Chris Dixon, A/Projects and Strategy Officer

Paul Morrice, A/Manager Ranger Services

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment

Attachments:             1.       Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 draft

2.       Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 - marked up draft  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES that public notice of the City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 was provided for the period 10 August 2019 to 27 September 2019 and no submissions were received;

2.       APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY, in accordance with section 3.12(4) of the Local Government Act 1995, making the City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019, at Attachment 1, SUBJECT TO the Chief Executive Officer:

          2.1     making minor administrative amendments to the version to be officially gazetted, such as      the removal of text boxes and page numbers in the index;

          2.2     publishing the City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019           in the Government Gazette in accordance with s3.12(5) of the Local Government Act 1995           and providing a copy to the Minister for Local Government;

          2.2     following Gazettal, providing local public notice that the City of Vincent Parking and           Parking Facilities           Amendment Local Law 2019 has been published in the Government         Gazette, in accordance with s3.12(6) of the Local Government Act 1995; and including the        following details in the public notice:

          a.       stating the title of the local law;

          b.      summarising the purpose and effect of the local law;

          c.       stating the day the local law comes into operation; and

          d.      advising that copies of the local law may be inspected and obtained from the City’s                    office; and

 

          2.3     following Gazettal, in accordance with the Local Laws Explanatory Memoranda           Directions as issued by the Minister for Local Government on 12 November 2010,           providing a copy of City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law           2019 and duly completed explanatory memorandum signed by the Mayor and Chief           Executive Officer to the Western Australian Parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on           Delegated Legislation.

 

Purpose of Report:

To adopt the proposed Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019.

Background:

At its Ordinary Meeting held on 25 June 2019, Council resolved to provide public notice of the City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019, at Attachment 1.

 

The purpose of the Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 is to amend the Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 in order to introduce alternative methods of payments for parking, create new definitions and offences, make administrative modifications so that the local law aligns with the City’s current objectives and processes, and introduce a method for an authorised person to determine whether a vehicle presents a hazard or restricts lawful use of a public place

Details:

The Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 amends the principal local law which is the Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007. A marked up version of the consolidated Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 is at Attachment 2. The following is a summary of the effects of the changes that will result by means of adoption of the proposed Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019:

Alternative Methods of Payment

Alternative methods of payment for parking has been introduced as a result of changes in technology which will allow customers to purchase parking by other methods than just cash, coin or card, with a move towards payments via mobile devices. The intent of this amendment is to allow the City to cover the different payment methods without requiring further amendments to the local law.

New Definitions

Administration is proposing that an existing definition be amended and a new definition be created to cover all forms of tickets. The proposed amended definition is for parking ticket and the new definition is electronic parking ticket.

Minor Amendments

In addition, at the Council Meeting on 25 June 2019 it was resolved to adopt a proposed subclause “8.8(2)(c) in the opinion of an authorised person the presence of the vehicle presents a hazard to public safety or restricts the lawful use of any place”.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public notice of the proposed City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 was given in accordance with sections 3.12(3)(a) and (3a) of the Local Government Act 1995. Accordingly, advertisements were placed on the City's website, in The West Australian on 10 August 2019, The Eastern Reporter on 15 August 2019 and The Perth Voice on 10 August 2019 as well as posted on the City's notice boards and publicised on social media. In addition it was also sent to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (Department) requesting feedback.

 

The submission period closed on 27 September 2019 with no submissions being received.

Legal/Policy:

Section 3.12 of the Local Government Act 1995 sets out the procedural requirements for the making of a local law:

 

"3.12.      Procedure for making local laws

 

(1)           In making a local law a local government is to follow the procedure described in this section, in the sequence in which it is described.

1.        

(2A)        Despite subsection (1), a failure to follow the procedure described in this section does not invalidate a local law if there has been substantial compliance with the procedure.

 

(2)          At a council meeting the person presiding is to give notice to the meeting of the purpose and effect of the proposed local law in the prescribed manner.”

 

(3)          The local government is to — 

 

(a)        give Statewide public notice stating that — 

(i)         the local government proposes to make a local law the purpose and effect of which is summarized in the notice; and

(ii)        a copy of the proposed local law may be inspected or obtained at any place specified in the notice; and

(iii)        submissions about the proposed local law may be made to the local government before a day to be specified in the notice, being a day that is not less than 6 weeks after the notice is given; and

(b)        as soon as the notice is given, give a copy of the proposed local law and a copy of the notice to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister; and

(c)        provide a copy of the proposed local law, in accordance with the notice, to any person requesting it.

 

(3a)         A notice under subsection (3) is also to be published and exhibited as if it were a local public notice.

 

(4)          After the last day for submissions, the local government is to consider any submissions made and may make the local law* as proposed or make a local law* that is not significantly different from what was proposed.

        * Absolute majority required.

 

(5)           After making the local law, the local government is to publish it in the Gazette and give a copy of it to the Minister and, if another Minister administers the Act under which the local law is proposed to be made, to that other Minister.

 

(6)           After the local law has been published in the Gazette the local government is to give local public notice

 

(a)        stating the title of the local law; and

(b)        summarising the purpose and effect of the local law (specifying the day on which it comes into operation); and

(c)        advising that copies of the local law may be inspected or obtained from the local government’s office.

 

(7)           The Minister may give directions to local governments requiring them to provide to the Parliament copies of local laws they have made and any explanatory or other material relating to them.

 

(8)           In this section — making in relation to a local law, includes making a local law to amend the text of, or repeal, a local law."

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       It is not considered that the proposed amendments to the Parking and Parking Facilities Amendment Local Law 2019 will have a significant effect on the City's risk profile.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Accessible City

We have embraced emerging transport technologies.

 

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:

There are nominal costs associated with making the local law, including advertising and Gazettal which can be expended from the City's operating budget.

Comments:

Administration is proposing to introduce the following amendments to allow different methods of payment.

 

Alternative Methods of Parking

 

The addition of a mobile device as a method of payment will allow customers to be able to purchase a ticket, whether paper or electronic, and through an electronic device.

 

Minor Amendments

 

The wording of proposed clause 8.8(2)(c) will enable Rangers to conduct an objective investigation into a complaint received and at the conclusion of that investigation a reasoned decision can be made as to whether the vehicle presents a hazard and/or restricts the lawful use of any public place or thoroughfare. This will enable genuine issues to be dealt with through mediation, issuing of cautions or infringements, and/or impounding of the vehicle. Importantly, an objective investigation will enable any frivolous, vexatious or unsubstantiated complaints to be disregarded.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

6.3          City Homelessness Framework Committee Action Plan Update

TRIM Ref:                  D19/175318

Authors:                   Cara Finch, Safer Vincent Advisor

Paul Morrice, A/Manager Ranger Services

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment

Attachments:             1.       City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the update on the implementation of the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan (Attachment 1) and the broader Western Australian 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness; and

2.       NOTES that Administration will provide a further update to Council on the progress of the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan and Western Australian 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness within the next six months.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide Council with an update on the implementation of the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan and the broader Western Australian 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness.

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 June 2019, it was resolved that Council:

 

1.       NOTE the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan;

 

2.       ENDORSE the trial of the accreditation process for service providers working in the homelessness sector in the City of Vincent commencing August 2019; and

 

3.       REQUEST that Administration provide an update on the implementation of the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan and the broader Western Australian 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness by December 2019.

 

An update on the status of these actions is provided in this report.

Details:

City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan

 

In July 2019, the City of Perth endorsed the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan, which will see the City of Perth continue to take the lead on homelessness within the inner City. Further to the draft Plan provided to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 June 2019, a final version of the Plan is now provided at Attachment 1.

 

The Action Plan outlines 34 actions and are a combination of four key themes:

 

·           The Accreditation Process

·           The ‘No Wrong Door’ Concept

·           Aligning the Homelessness Sector; and

·           Research

 

The Action Plan notes that the City of Vincent will work with the City of Perth (lead agency) in the implementation of five actions over the proposed timeline of six to twelve months. These are:

 

1.1     Creating and implementing a Goodwill Accreditation Process;

1.2     Establishing a goodwill stakeholder group;

1.3     Educating community and goodwill groups about homelessness (with Volunteering WA and the WA Alliance to End Homelessness (WAAEH);

1.4     Communicating options for community to get involved with existing services instead of looking to create new services (with Volunteering WA and the WA Alliance to End Homelessness (WAAEH); and

1.10   Ensuring that the Goodwill Accreditation Process includes the site conditions, expectations and responsibility of rubbish being left behind after service delivery.

 

The City of Perth have advised that a further meeting of the City Homeless Framework Committee will likely be scheduled early in 2020 to progress the Action Plan with key stakeholders.

 

Goodwill Accreditation Process

 

The implementation of an accreditation process is a key action of the City Homeless Framework Committee and seeks to assist goodwill groups to coordinate their service delivery and best support their volunteers and people experiencing homelessness, better aligning them with the strategic direction of the sector and better coordinating resources, reducing duplication and identifying gaps in service provision.

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 25 June 2019, Council endorsed the trial of the accreditation process for service providers working in the homeless sector in the City of Vincent, commencing August 2019, to coincide with the City of Perth’s launch.

 

The City of Perth launch has been delayed as they continue to consider locations for the implementation of support service hubs for the accreditation trial. These matters are likely to be resolved in December 2019. Recent discussions between Administration and the City of Perth identified that it would be beneficial for the City of Vincent to wait for the City of Perth to roll out the initial Goodwill Accreditation Process before the process is implemented in the City of Vincent and potentially other local governments, to ensure that any teething issues are resolved before the trial is rolled out further. Maintaining consistency between local governments in the accreditation application, assessment and approval processes will ensure that goodwill providers who may be operating in more than one local government area will have consistent processes to follow, regardless of which local government they are liaising with.

 

Such a delay will not adversely impact on the City of Vincent accreditation trial at Weld Square, as Council approved the continued use of Weld Square by Manna Inc. for their free lunch service at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 5 November 2019. This approval was subject to a number of ongoing conditions, including that Administration will not consider any further applications for additional goods and services for people who are experiencing homelessness or at risk of homelessness at Weld Square during the approval period, so that the impact on Weld Square from Tranby Centre’s recently extended service hours, and the proposed transition of Manna Inc.’s food service to Tranby Centre during the approval period, can be assessed.

 

Western Australian 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness

 

In April 2018, the WA Alliance to End Homelessness launched the Western Australian Strategy to End Homelessness, which is a 10-year action plan to end homelessness. The Alliance’s strategy is a community-led initiative informed by a community campaign and an extensive consultation process with the sector.

 

The State’s 10-year Strategy on Homelessness in Western Australia 2019-2029 intends to expand and build on the Alliance’s work, and establish strong and ongoing linkages between the two strategies.

 

A Directions Paper for the 10 Year Strategy on Homelessness Western Australia 2019-2029 was released by the Department of Communities earlier in 2019, to share the work that has been done so far and to invite submissions from stakeholders on the proposed directions for the Strategy.

 

In May 2019, the City Homeless Framework Committee, of which the City of Vincent is a part, sent a submission and action plan to Minister for Child Protection; Women’s Interests; Prevention of Family and Domestic Violence; Community Services, Simone McGurk, to be considered for incorporation into the State Government’s 10 year Strategy on Homelessness in Western Australia 2019-2029.

 

It is proposed that the Strategy will focus on three key focus areas:

 

1.       Sustainable pathways out of homelessness

2.       Prevention and early intervention; and

3.       System transformation

 

2.         It is expected that the final Strategy will also articulate clear roles and responsibilities for all parties involved in a whole-of-community response, including local government.

 

It is anticipated that the final Strategy will be launched later in 2019 by the Department of Communities.

Consultation/Advertising:

A broad range of stakeholders informed the development of the City Homeless Framework Committee Action Plan and pending Western Australian 10-Year Strategy on Homelessness, including State and Local Government, non-government organisations, service providers, not-for-profit organisations and goodwill groups.

Legal/Policy:

It is intended that the City of Vincent will manage and deliver the accreditation process through the City’s Local Government Property Local Law 2008 which provides for the regulation, control and management of activities on local government property, thoroughfares and public places within the City of Vincent through permits.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium:     Homelessness remains a significant issue in the inner City area. The implementation of the Goodwill Accreditation Process could impact on the operation of some goodwill groups and could result in negative community sentiment and media attention, depending on how some providers respond to the accreditation process.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Management of City Homeless Framework Committee actions will be undertaken using existing resources.

Comments:

Administration will remain actively involved on the City Homeless Framework Committee to ensure a collaborative and coordinated approach to ending homelessness in Perth.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

6.4          Street Tree Removal Requests

TRIM Ref:                  D19/179444

Author:                     Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Authoriser:                Andrew Murphy, Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council;

1.         APPROVES Administration from February 2020 including on a quarterly basis in the Information Bulletin presented to Council a summary of all requests received and decisions made regarding removal of verge trees in the City of Vincent.

 

Purpose of Report:

To amend the current Council decision in relation to reporting on street tree removal requests as of February 2020.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 12 December 2017, a Notice of Motion was presented requesting Administration to provide a monthly Information Bulletin to Council summarising all requests for street tree removal within the City of Vincent.

Details:

Below is the previous Council decision for reference:

 

1.       REQUESTS Administration, from February 2018, to include in the monthly Information Bulletin presented to Council a summary of all requests received and decisions made regarding removal of verge trees in the City of Vincent; and

1.      

2.       NOTES that Policy No. 2.1.2 – Street Trees is overdue for review and will be reviewed in 2018; and”

2.       

It is current practise based on the previous Council decision that street tree removal requests are reported to Council on a monthly basis.  Administration recommends these requests are reported on a quarterly basis, with this new arrangement beginning in 2020.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Not applicable.

Risk Management Implications:

Not applicable.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

 

Resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Low: Street trees are generally only removed when they are over 75% in decline, dead or there is no other option than removal due to a development approved by Council or works being undertaken by an underground service authority that will render the tree structurally unsound.

 

In the majority of cases a replacement street tree(s) are planted adjacent to or near to the removal site.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Administration proposes that street tree removal requests are reported to Council on a quarterly basis given the volume of requests and administration in preparing monthly reports.

  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7            Community & Business Services

7.1          Lease of Beatty Park Leisure Centre Cafe to Hospitality Service Providers Pty Ltd

 

 

REPORT TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL BRIEFING.

 

 

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7.2          Review of Draft Annual Report 2018/19

 

 

REPORT TO BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE COUNCIL BRIEFING

 

 

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7.3          Request for waiver of fees - Leederville Oval - AFLW

TRIM Ref:                  D19/176388

Author:                     Karen Balm, Senior Community Partner

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments:             1.       Letter from WAFC requesting waiver of fees for AFLW fixture 29 February 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council APPROVES a waiver of fees for the hire of Leederville Oval for the West Australian Football Commission to host an AFLW fixture on Saturday 29 February 2020 in the amount of $8,000 for the reasons outlined in this report.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider a request from the West Australian Football Commission (WAFC) to waive the fees and charges associated with the use of Leederville Oval on 28 February 2020 for an AFLW match between West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs from 4.10pm.

Background:

In 2018 and 2019, AFL preseason matches were played at Leederville Oval between the West Coast Eagles and Port Adelaide and Geelong respectively.  The 2019 event attracted approximately 6,500 paying attendees.

 

The City has been advised that there are no preseason AFL games planned at Leederville Oval this year and that an Australian Football League Women’s (AFLW) match between the West Coast Eagles and Western Bulldogs is instead planned and fixtured at Leederville Oval on Saturday 29 February 2020 at 4:10pm.

Details:

Administration has received a written request from the West Australian Football Commission (WAFC), who oversee the operation of all football activities throughout Western Australia, requesting a waiver of fees for the use of Leederville Oval for the AFLW match on 29 February 2020 on the basis that entrance to the game will be free for the public. The written request is included as Attachment 1.

 

Previously, the WAFC has paid the Council endorsed fees and charges for the hiring of Leederville oval, with the WAFC offsetting this fee through the collection of entrance fees for the preseason AFL games.   The current Council endorsed fees and charges that would be applicable for this booking are listed in the table below.

 

Leederville Oval Events

Quantity

Total

Event Application Fee

Per booking

$500

1

$500

Leederville Oval

Per day

$5,000

1 day

$5,000

Bump in / Bump out

Per day

$2,500

1 day

$2,500

Event Bond

Per booking

$5,000

1

$5,000

Total payable

$13,000

Proposed waiver amount – excluding bond

$8,000

 

Any fees associated with the hire of Leederville Oval are offset against the variable outgoings paid by Subiaco & East Perth Football Club and as such these fees have previously benefited these clubs rather than the City. Both clubs have been consulted regarding the fee waiver request and have advised that they are supportive of the fee being waived.

 

The following conditions are proposed to be applied to the waiver of fee:

·       Promotional artwork/advert for the City of Vincent to use in an integrated marketing campaign – to be supplied by the AFL/WAFC;

·       Recognition of the City’s support on all media releases; and

·       City recognition and logo use including a link to the City’s social media platforms when mentioned on social media forums by AFL or WAFC.

 

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil

Legal/Policy:

The Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments provides that the Chief Executive Officer can waive fees or write off money subject to the amount not exceeding $2,000.  As the amount proposed to be waived exceeds $2,000 it is necessary for Council to make this decision.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:            It is low risk for Council to waive the booking fee to support their events.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

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

 

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

 

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

Financial/Budget Implications:

Leederville Oval Events

Quantity

Total

Event Application Fee

Per booking

$500

1

$500

Leederville Oval

Per day

$5,000

1 day

$5,000

Bump in / Bump out

Per day

$2,500

1 day

$2,500

Event Bond

Per booking

$5,000

1

$5,000

Total payable

$13,000

Proposed waiver amount – excluding bond

$8,000

Comments:

Given the tickets to the AFLW match will be free and the City’s commitment to increasing female participation in sport, the opportunity to host an AFLW match at Leederville Oval that is free for the community to attend enables the City to further demonstrate our goal of increasing the community’s awareness of the importance of female participation in sport.

 

The event is also an opportunity for Leederville Town Centre businesses to attract further business on the day and cross promote both the event and the Town Centre. The City has spoken to Leederville Connect about the event and the potential to close the Leederville Village Square before and after the event to maximise the benefit to local businesses.  


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7.4          Investment Report as at 31 October 2019

TRIM Ref:                D19/170901

Author:                     Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser:             John Corbellini, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments:          1.       Investment Report as at 31 October 2019  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 October 2019 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 31 October 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 31 October 2019, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $46,846,286 compared to $44,463,021 for the period ending 31 October 2018.

 

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 31 October 2019 is $37,782,515 compared to last year’s amount of $41,180,235. The total term deposit amount has reduced compared to last year for cash flow management purposes to cover for major payments earmarked for the next couple of months.

 

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

 

Month

2018/19

2019/20

Ended

Total funds held

Total term deposits

Total funds held

Total term deposits

July

$26,826,861

$23,990,516

$32,209,493

$26,105,854

August

$44,327,708

$37,499,275

$49,641,327

$44,977,692

September

$44,209,274

$40,651,147

$44,876,698

$41,017,535

October

$44,463,021

$41,180,325

$46,846,286

$37,782,515

November

$44,188,761

$42,678,504

 

 

December

$40,977,846

$38,667,039

 

 

January

$42,109,674

$35,225,189

 

 

February

$44,227,308

$36,178,794

 

 

March

$39,157,958

$32,739,750

 

 

April

$36,427,902

$31,019,902

 

 

May

$33,384,520

$29,469,158

 

 

June

$30,503,765

$25,613,648

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 31 October 2019 is:

 

 

Annual Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$420,000

$140,000

$119,462

85.33%

Reserve

$278,688

$92,896

$99,887

107.53%

Sub-total

$698,688

$232,896

$219,349

94.18%

 

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$38,102

N/A

 

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust were not included in the 2019/20 Budget as actual interest earned is held in trust that is restricted.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 1.88% for current investments including the operating account and 1.95% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for October 2019 is 0.88%.

 

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 31 October 2019, $8,708,290 (18.6%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

 

Administration has established guidelines for the management of the City’s investments, including maximum investment ratios as shown on the table below. The City’s investment policy is currently being reviewed and is scheduled to be discussed at the Council workshop in November 2019.

 

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

  A1+

30%

26.3%

30%

Nil

90%

61.3%

A1

25%

1.7%

30%

Nil

80%

1.7%

A2

20%

20.2%*

n/a

Nil

60%

37.0%

 

* The maximum allowable position with an A-2 accredited institution (Bank of Queensland) has exceeded the threshold. This is because the total investment closing balance at the end of the October has decreased compared to when the investments were undertaken resulting in an increase in the portfolio percentage for Bank of Queensland.

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.

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.


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7.5          Financial Statements as at 31 October 2019

TRIM Ref:                  D19/176385

Author:                     Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 31 October 2019  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 31 October 2019 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 October 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, as compared to the budget.

Details:

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

6-56

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule

57-62

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

63

7.

Rating Information and Graph

64-65

8.

Debtors Report

66

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

67

 

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 slightly lower than the year to date budgeted revenue by $137,547 (1.7%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       An unfavourable variance of $112,718 due to revenue collected from parking infringement and fines being lower than anticipated (Transport).

1.      

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking almost on par with the budgeted revenue with a slight unfavourable variance of $8,265 (0.02%).

 

 

 

 

 

Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $1,481,713 (8.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      Under expenditure to 31 October of $530,397 mainly contributed by the timing of receipt of invoices relating to recycling waste and bulk verge collection activities. The waste management team is working closely with the supplier to process the back log of invoices (Community Amenities);

·      Under expenditure to 31 October of $256,639 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within Recreation and culture;

·      Under expenditure to 31 October of $289,423 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within Transport; and

·      Under expenditure to 31 October of $151,295 mainly contributed by a budget phasing variance relating to the recovery of employee related on-costs. This will be adjusted in November 2019 (Other Property and services).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $1,454,782 (8.5%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $950,307 to 31 October. This variance is largely contributed by a timing of receipt of invoices relating to recycling waste and bulk verge collection activities ($530,397). The waste management team is working closely with the supplier to process the back log of these invoices. In addition, there are also timing variance relating to works within other service areas;

·       Utility charges reflects an under-spend of $127,480 due to a timing variance of utility related invoices;

·       Employee costs reflects an under-spend of $170,906 largely contributed by a budget phasing variance in the recovery of employee related on-costs. This will be adjusted in November 2019; and

·       Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $191,380 largely contributed by a timing variance of works within multiple service areas resulting in a cumulative under-spend.

 

Opening Surplus Brought Forward – 2019/20

 

The provisional surplus position brought forward to 2019/20 is $7,857,741 compared to the adopted budget surplus amount of $5,929,991. The actual opening surplus figure will be adjusted once the end of year audit has been finalised.  

 

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 – 56)

 

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 57 - 62)

 

The full capital works program is listed in detail in Note 5 of Attachment 1.

 

 

6.         Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 63)

 

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 31 October 2019 is $12,912,254.

 

7.         Rating Information (Note 7 Page 64 - 65)

 

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2019/20 were issued on 19 July 2019.

 

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

 

First Instalment

26 August 2019

Second Instalment

29 October 2019

Third Instalment

7 January 2020

Fourth Instalment

10 March 2020

 

The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 31 October 2019 is $11,081,265 including deferred rates ($242,354) and excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates. 

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 66)

 

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 31 October 2019 are $2,783,159, of which $2,108,905 relates to outstanding debtors. 86% of the outstanding debtors balance is over 90 days.

 

Administration has been regularly following up all outstanding items by issuing reminders when they are overdue and subsequently initiating a formal debt collection process when payments remain outstanding for long periods of time.

 

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

 

·        $1,687,685 (92.6%) 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.

 

Due to the aged nature of some of the unpaid infringements, a provisional amount for doubtful debts was calculated in 2017/18 and an amount of $1,066,403 has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion).

 

Furthermore, at the end of 2018/19, Administration recalculated the provisional amount based on the probability of recovering long outstanding monies owed to the City. The provisional amount will be updated once the audited financials are approved.

 

·        $167,291 (9.2%) relates to cash-in-lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay over a fixed term of five years.

 

9.         Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 67)

 

As at 31 October 2019, the operating surplus for the centre is $116,265 compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $259,202.

 

10.       Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 - 56)

 

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $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 and where that variance exceeds $20,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2019/20 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 31 October 2019 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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 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.

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7.6          November 2019 Budget Review (Including Carry Forwards)

TRIM Ref:                  D19/176955

Author:                     Vanisha Govender, Manager Financial Services

Authoriser:                John Corbellini, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments:             1.       Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type

2.       Comprehensive Income by Program

3.       Rate Setting Statement

4.       List of other proposed Budget Amendments

5.       List of proposed Capital Budget Amendments  

 

Recommendation:

That Council BY ABSOUTE MAJORITY APPROVES the following amendments to the 2019/2020 Annual Budget:

a)   An increase in the Operating Budget of $120,827 as per the individual line item adjustments listed in Attachments 1 and 2;

b)   A net increase in Reserve movement totalling $93,295 as reflected in Attachment 3; and

c)   A reduction in the Capital Expenditure Budget of $352,595 as per the individual line item amendments listed in Attachment 5

d)   A decreased in the opening surplus of $118,813 as per Attachment 3.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to consider and authorise the proposed budget amendments including amendments to the 2018/2019 capital carry forward items.

Background:

During the preparation for the 2019/2020 annual budget, an allowance was made to carry forward funds for incomplete capital projects from 2018/2019. The value of the carry forwards was based on estimates of expenditure that would be unspent as at 30 June 2019. The Annual Financial Statement for the year ended 30 June 2019 has recently been finalised and audited, therefore the estimated funds available to be carried forward can be updated.

 

A further mid-year budget review as required under Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations will be tabled at the March 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council. This will address further budget amendments identified during the coming months based on the actual level of expenditure this financial year.

 

Details:

The budget amendments from this review result in an overall decrease in the 2019/20 Budget of $19,660 based on the following:

 

·      Operating budget increase of $120,827 as per Attachment 1,  2 and 4;

·      A net movement in Reserves of $93,295 as reflected in Attachment 3 and 4;

·      A decrease in the capital budget of $352,595 as per Attachment 5; and

·      A decrease in the opening surplus of $118,813.

 

Capital Expenditure

 

The 2019/2020 adopted budget included a capital expenditure program totalling $14,775,377 including carry forward funding of $4,684,385.

 

In most instances, the estimated expenditure and the available funds carried forward closely align to the actual outcome for 2018/2019. Overall, the capital expenditure for carry forward projects as at 30 June 2019 was over-estimated by $352,595 and the budget available in 2019/2020 for these projects should now be reduced accordingly. As a result the capital expenditure program for 2019/2020 is now proposed to be

$14,442,782.

 

Attachment 5 lists the capital projects to be amended in the 2019/2020 budget. Some of the key capital budget amendments are summarised in the table below:

 

Capital Expenditure

Revised Budget

$

New Budget

$

Difference

 

$

Comment

Intersection Lincoln and Wright Streets Roundabout

 

132,000

 

14,343

 

-117,657

Reduction of $117,657 as these funds were spent in 2018-19.

Bike Network Plan 2015-16 Implementation (Loftus Street - Vincent to Richmond St)

 

368,000

 

170955

 

-197,045

Reduction of $197,045 as these funds were spent in 2018-19.

Parking Sensors Pilot Project

 

0

 

51,410

 

51,410

Works for parking sensors project was incomplete at 30 June 2019 and was not carried forward.

Replacement of CARs system

 

0

 

28,148

 

28,148

Replacement of CARS was not carried forward.

Relocate UMS supply for the CCTV Camera in Oxford street

 

0

 

20,000

 

20,000

No carry forward budget for invoices received in 2019/2020.

Light Fleet - Annual Changeover

 

715,500

 

674,874

 

-40,626

Reduction of $40,626 as one of the vehicle was replaced in 2018/2019.

Banks Reserve Master Plan Implementation - Stage 1

 

687,000

 

759,610

 

72,610

$72,610 of the 2018/2019 budget was not carried forward.

 

Other budget amendments:

 

Detail on all other budget amendments are included in Attachment 4. Key amendments from this attachment include:

 

·       An increase of materials and contracts of $139,050 mainly due to painting works for Loftus Centre ($130,000) not being carried forward in 2018/2019;

·       An  increase of $80,333 for other operating expenditure due to various operating projects not carried forward;

·       An increase in transfer to reserves of $58,116 for Loftus Recreation Centre, this was not omitted in the 2019/2020 adopted budget; and

·       A decrease in transfer from reserves of $35,179 as a result of capital carry forward amendments.

 

Opening operating surplus:

 

The estimated opening surplus for the 2019/2020 budget was $5,929,991. The 2018/2019 audit has now been finalised and the budgeted opening surplus has been confirmed as $5,811,178, resulting in a deficit of $118,813 due to various operating and capital variances.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable

Legal/Policy:

This budget review is performed as a matter of good governance and is not required by the Act or associated regulations. The review is in accordance with the functions of the CEO as set out in section 5.41 of the Act:

 

5.41(d)   “manage the day to day operations of the local government.”

 

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       Conducting this budget review ensures Council is aware of any proposed expenditure which varies from that in the approved budget.

Strategic Implications:

This 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 satisfied with the service we provide

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

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable

Financial/Budget Implications:

The overall effect of the various budget amendments would result in a budget surplus of $24,220 for 2019/2020 compared to the budget surplus projected in the Current 2019/20 Budget of $4,560. 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                     3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

7.7          Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 22 October 2019 to 18 November 2019

TRIM Ref:                D19/178532

Author:                     Nikki Hirrill, Accounts Payable Officer

Authoriser:             John Corbellini, A/Executive Director Community and Business Services

Attachments:          1.       Payments by EFT, BPAY and Payroll November 19

2.       Payments by Cheque November 19

3.       Payments by Direct Debit November 19  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 22 October 2019 to 18 November 2019 as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

EFT and BPAY payments, including payroll

 

$5,271,352.39

Cheques

 

$8,025.11

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$193,330.14

 

 

 

Total payments for November 2019

 

$5,472,707.64

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the expenditure and list of accounts paid for the period 22 October 2019 to 18 November 2019.

Background:

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

 

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

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 22 October 2019 to 18 November 2019, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT and BPAY Payments

2476 - 2486

$4,009,330.71

Payroll by Direct Credit

November 2019

$1,262,021.68

Sub Total

 

$5,271,352.39

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82548 - 82577

$8,025.11

 

 

 

Sub Total

 

$8,025.11

 

 

 

 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$385.00

Loan Repayments

$150,007.65

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$31,739.28

Credit Cards

 

$11,198.21

Sub Total

 

$193,330.14

 

 

 

Total Payments

 

$5,472,707.64

consulting/advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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

 

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

(a)        

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

“13.    Lists of Accounts

 

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

(b)        

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

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

(c)        

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

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       Management systems are in place which establish satisfactory controls, supported by the internal and external audit functions. Financial reporting to Council increases transparency and accountability.


 

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:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All municipal fund expenditure included in the list of payments is in accordance with Council’s annual budget.

 

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                                    3 December 2019

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Council Briefing Agenda                                                                                   3 December 2019

8            Chief Executive Officer

8.1          Lease of 246 Vincent Street, Leederville to Minister for Works - Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries

TRIM Ref:                  D19/175115

Author:                     Meluka Bancroft, Executive Manager Corporate Strategy and Governance

Authoriser:                David MacLennan, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments:             1.       Plan of lease area and car parking bays

2.       Schedule of capital and maintenance works - scope, cost and timing

3.       Minister for Works' lease proposal dated 21 June 2019

4.       Minister for Works' lease proposal dated 1 November 2019

5.       Comparison of loan and asset sustainability reserve

6.       Valuation for 246 Vincent Street, Leederville - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES a variation and extension of the City’s lease to the Minister for Works for the office building located at 246 Vincent Street, Leederville, on the following key terms:

1.1     Term:                                  10 years commencing 22 December 2019;

1.2     Option term:                       5 years commencing 22 December 2029;

1.3     Rent:                                   $300 per square meter per annum, equating to $754,800 per annum excluding GST;

1.4     Rent review:                       Annual rent increase of 3 per cent, market rent review at the commencement of the option term;

1.5     Lease Area:                        Office building (area of 2,516m2), including the basement carpark, and surrounding garden and outdoor areas, as shown in the plan at Attachment 1;

1.6     Outgoings:                         Lessee to pay the estimated outgoings for each financial year via monthly instalments. The outgoings include the building insurance premium, management agency fees (up to 3 per cent of the annual rent), auditing of the outgoing statements, pest inspections and treatment, gardening and landscaping costs, utility and service costs, maintenance and repair of the premises including the plant and equipment, security costs, car park maintenance and repair costs, rubbish disposal and the emergency services levy;

1.7     Capital / structural works:  City to undertake at its cost;

1.8     Managing agent:                 City to appoint a commercial managing agent, to be agreed with the lessee; 

1.9     Permitted use:                    Office;

1.10   Indemnification:                 Lessee to indemnify the City against all costs and claims arising in respect to the premises;

1.11   Car parking licence:           Lessee may use the 21 secured car bays within the Leederville Oval Carpark between 7.30am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday for staff parking, and the 10 visitor bays within the Leederville Oval Carpark between 7.30am and 5.30pm Monday to Friday for visitor parking, as shown in the plan at Attachment 1;

1.12   Car parking fee:                  23 secure basement car bays - $225 per month per bay

                                                    21 secure car bays - $125 per month per bay

                                                    This equates to $93,600 per annum, indexed by CPI; and

1.13   Incentive:                            40 per cent, equates to $3,019,840 over the 10 year lease term.

                                                    The incentive is applied against the rent, with up to $1.6 million to be allocated towards the lessee’s fit out. The $1.6 million is to be paid via three annual instalments of $0.53 million, to be paid in 2020/21, 2021/22 and 2022/23 or in accordance with an approved schedule and program of works over the same three year period.  The balance of the incentive is to be applied against the rent and amortised evenly over the lease term;

 

2.       Subject to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the Deed of Variation and Extension of Lease to effect the variation and extension of lease in recommendation 1. above;

3.       NOTES that the City will undertake the following capital works and major maintenance works, as requested by the Minister for Works as part of the lease negotiations, over the next four financial years, totalling approximately $500,000, with the scope, cost and timing of the works detailed in Attachment 2: 

3.1     modernisation of the five bathroom facilities;

3.2     upgrade of the ground floor tea preparation area;

3.3     modernisation of the internal façade and lighting of the lift;

3.4     upgrade of the two change rooms (end of trip facilities), including the installation of more lockers in the change rooms, and modernisation of the bathroom facilities;

3.5     replacement of all lights with LED lights;

3.6     installation of solar panels;

3.7     replacement of the external vertical fins on the eastern and western ends of the building;

3.8     rectification of the Donnybrook stone cladding of the building;

3.9     replacement of the exterior tiles on the entrance steps as not fit for purpose; and

3.10   repair of corroded external aluminium cladding.

 

4.       NOTES that approximately $200,000 will be allocated in the 2020/21 budget towards the works           listed in recommendation 3. above, and scheduled for 2020/21, as detailed in Attachment 2.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider granting a new lease of the office building at 246 Vincent Street, Leederville (Premises) to the Minister for Works for use by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (Department).

Background:

The office building is located on a portion of Leederville Oval, which is on Crown Reserve 3839. The reserve is vested in the City for the purpose of recreation, office and administration. In 2001 the City was awarded the tender from the State Government to construct an office building for the Department of Sport and Recreation.  At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 13 May 2003 Council approved the construction of the office building on the reserve.

 

On 2 October 2003 the Western Australian Planning Commission granted approval for the construction of the office building (Approval No. 33-50026-2) subject to the following condition:

 

‘1)      The approved office building shall be used only for purposes associated directly with the management and administration of sport and recreation activities in Western Australia.

 

In order for the City to lease the building to another tenant condition 1 would need to be amended.

 

The City borrowed $6.5 million from the Western Australian Treasury Corporation to fund the construction of the building, with a fixed interest rate for a period of 25 years. In calculating the loan repayment period it was assumed that the Minister for Works would lease the building for at least 20 years. 

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on the 26 August 2003 (Item 10.4.2), Council granted a lease to the Minister for Works commencing on the 22 December 2004 (Lease). The Lease term was for an initial term of fifteen years, expiring on the 21 December 2019. The key Lease terms are:

 

Initial Term

15 years

Option Terms

3 terms of 5 years each

Lease Area

2,516m2 office building plus the basement carpark, secured carpark, 10 visitor bays and surrounding garden

Rent

$414,000 per annum

Rent Review

3% increase per annum

Outgoings

To be paid by the lessee

 

The Minster for Works has not exercised the first option term, which means the current Lease will expire on the 21 December 2019.

Details:

The Minister for Works provided Administration with its proposal for a new lease on 21 June 2019, at Attachment 2. The key terms are summarised below:

 

Initial Term

5 years, with 3 year break clause

Option Term

5 years

Lease Area

2,300m2 – including the office building, basement carpark, secured carpark and surrounding garden

Rent

$330 per sqm pa, which equates to $759,000 pa 

Incentive

40%, which equates to $1.518 million for 5 years

Effective annual rent

$455,500 per annum

Rent Review

3% increase per annum

Outgoings

To be paid by the lessee

 

Administration requested a number of amendments to the lease proposal, as follows:

 

·           Increase in the lease term to provide certainty and security for the City;

·           Reduction in the lease area to reflect the building area;

·           Reduction in the incentive payable to 30 per cent, and for the whole of the incentive to be applied against the rent;

·           Increase in per square meter lease fee to reflect the commercial market rental rate;

·           Fee for the use of the car parking bays consistent with commercial car parking rates;

·           Minister for Works to be responsible for any works it is currently responsible for pursuant to the current lease;

·           Reduction in the scope of the capital upgrades, and for the capital works to be spread across the lease term.

1.      

The Minister for Works and Administration have agreed on the terms of a new lease, as detailed in the lease proposal at Attachment 2. The new lease is generally consistent with the terms of the current lease, other than the rent and the use of the car parking bays. The key terms are as follows:

 

Initial Term

10 years

Option Term

5 years

Lease Area

2,516 m2 – office building, plus the basement carpark and surrounding garden and outdoor area

Rent

$300 per sqm pa, which equates to $754,800 pa 

Incentive

40%, which equates to $3.019 million for 10 years

Car parking fees

$93,600 per annum

Effective annual rent

$546,480 per annum

Rent Review

3% increase per annum

Outgoings

To be paid by the lessee

 

The plan at Attachment 1 shows the revised lease area. The 21 secure car parking bays and the 10 visitor bays have been removed from the lease area so they are available for use by the public outside of business hours (7.30am – 5.30pm Monday to Friday) and on weekends. The Department can use the 21 secured bays for staff parking and the 10 visitor bays for visitor parking during business hours Monday to Friday.

 

The agreed capital works and maintenance items and the associated cost and timing are summarised in Attachment 2. The Minister for Works has advised that the works requested are necessary to modernise the building to a contemporary state government office building standard, and the proposed lease terms are contingent on the City undertaking these works. Administration has reduced the scope of some of the works to reflect the age and use of the building, and has scheduled the works over four financial years.

Consultation/Advertising:

As the Department is a state government agency providing public notice of the proposed lease is not a statutory requirement.

Legal/Policy:

The Local Government Act 1995 section 3.58 - Disposing of Property, provides that a local government can only dispose of property (which includes to lease) in accordance with section 3.58(3) unless the disposition falls within the scope of section 3.58(5), which includes:

 

“(d)       Any other disposition that is excluded by regulations from the application of this section.”

         

In accordance with Section 3.58(5), Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides a range of dispositions that are exempt from the application of Section 3.58 of the Act, including dispositions to:

 

“(2)(c)(ii)       A department, agency, or instrumentality of the Crown in the right of the State or the Commonwealth.”

 

The Department is a state government agency and therefore it is not necessary for the City to comply with section 3.58.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:            The Department has leased the building since 2004 in accordance with the terms of the lease. The new lease provides the City with a reduced financial return, but provides long term security for the City in respect to the use of the premises. Therefore extending the lease to the Department is considered low risk for the City.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

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

 

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:

The City is undertaking a Commercial Building Disclosure assessment, which includes a TLA and NABERS assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to improve energy efficiency. The City is also proposing to replace all lights with LED lights and install solar panels, which will reduce electricity use. 

Financial/Budget Implications:

The proposed rent of $300 per square metre equates to an annual rent of $754,800. The 40 per cent incentive means the effective annual rent the City would receive is $452,880 per annum. The City will also receive income from the car parking bays totalling $93,600 per annum. Therefore the annual income the City would receive from the Premises would be approximately $546,480.

 

Over the 10 year lease term the incentive would equate to approximately $3.02 million. It is proposed that the City would pay up to $1.6 million of the incentive towards the fit out, upon receipt of purchase orders form the Minister for Works. The Minister for Works has requested the $1.6 million to be paid within the 2020/21 financial year. Administration recommends that the incentive is paid over three financial years - $0.53 million each year, or in accordance with an approved schedule and program of works over the same three year period. 

 

Administration recommends that funds from the City’s Asset Sustainability Reserve are drawn on to fund the proposed capital works. The table at Attachment 4 compares the use of the Asset Sustainability Fund with the City borrowing this money. By using the Reserve, the City will save $29,637 in interest repayments over the 10 year term.

 

The rent based on the current lease as at the expiry of the lease (21 December 2019) would be $644,996. Therefore the City will receive approximately $1 million less than if the current lease was extended for a further 10 years. It is considered that the market conditions have changed since the original rent was agreed with the Minister for Works, and on that basis it is not possible for the City to secure the same rent.