Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

9 Strategy & Development

9.1 No. 64 (Lot 41; D/P: 2360) Cleaver Street, West Perth - Proposed 11 Multiple Dwellings

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Development Plans ⇩

3. Advertised Plans ⇩

4. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response ⇩

5. Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response ⇩

6. Design Review Panel Minutes ⇩

7. Applicant's Technical Reports ⇩

8. 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 development approval for 11 Multiple Dwellings at No. 64 (Lot: 41; D/P: 2360) Cleaver Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 8:

1. Use of Premises

This approval is for Multiple Dwellings as shown on the approved plans dated 8 January 2020. No other development forms part of this approval;

2. Boundary Walls

The owners of the subject land shall finish and maintain the surface of the boundary walls facing No. 66 Cleaver Street in a good and clean condition prior to practical completion of the development to the satisfaction of the City. The finish of the boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brickwork to the satisfaction of the City;

3. Building Design

3.1 Prior to the issue of a Building Licence, revised plans shall be submitted and approved by the City that demonstrates the following:

· The fourth storey of the building shall be amended to be constructed of white or cream colour hues, to the satisfaction of the City’s Design Review Panel;

· The gate and/or fencing above 1.2 metres in height within the front setback area shall be ‘visually permeable’ as defined by the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, to the satisfaction of the City;

· The shading structures located on the western façade of the building shall be flipped so the shading structures are provided to the southern side of the openings, to the satisfaction of the City; and

· The southern window to the kitchen in Unit A4 shall not exceed an area of 1 square metre;

3.2 Prior to occupancy or use of the development, all privacy screening shall be at least 1.6 metres in height, at least 75 percent obscure, permanently fixed, made of durable material and restrict view in the direction of overlooking into any adjoining property, to the satisfaction of the City; and

3.3 Prior to the lodgement of a building permit, demonstration the development would satisfy Acceptable Outcome A4.9.1 relating to universal design of Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments shall be provided to and approved by the City;

4. 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;

5. Schedule of External Finishes

Prior to the lodgement of a building permit, a schedule detailing the colour and texture of the building materials, demonstrating that the proposed development complements the surrounding area, must be submitted to and approved by the Local Government, prior to lodging an application for a building permit. The development must be finished, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the schedule provided to and approved by the Local Government, prior to occupation of the development;

6. Landscaping

6.1 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 10.1 percent deep soil area, as defined by the Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;

· The provision of trees contributing towards canopy coverage within deep soil areas provided and within the front setback area. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list; and

· A detailed drawing of the communal open space area to the satisfaction of the City’s Design Review Panel;

6.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 6.1 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

6.3 No verge trees shall be removed without the prior written approval of the City. Verge trees shall be retained and protected from damage including unauthorised pruning to the satisfaction of the City. Prior to any pruning of verge trees, an arborist report shall be prepared by the landowner and submitted to the City;

7. Car Parking, Access and Bicycle Facilities

7.1 Prior to the commencement of the approved use, 11 parking bays for the residents of the Multiple Dwellings and two (2) visitor car parking bays and related access ways as shown on the approved plans shall be constructed and thereafter maintained in accordance with Australian Standard AS2890.1;

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

· walls, letterboxes or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site; or

· a driveway meets a public street; or

· two streets intersect,

unless otherwise approved by the City of Vincent.

7.3 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;

7.4 Two (2) visitor parking bays shall be permanently marked, maintained and legally accessible at all times for use exclusively by visitors to the property, be clearly visible or suitably sign posted from the street or communal driveway and be located, together with the reversing area, in front of any security gates or barrier for the development unless otherwise approved by the City;

7.5 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

7.6 A minimum of six (6) bicycle parking bays 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 AS 2890.3:2015 Parking Facilities Part 3: Bicycle Parking;

8. Access Management Plan

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

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

8.2 The approved Access Management Plan shall be implemented, and the development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved Access Management Plan and approved plans, to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

9. Waste Management

9.1 A Waste Management Plan must be submitted to and approved by the Local Government prior to lodging an application for a building permit. The plan must include the following details to the satisfaction and specification of the City of Vincent:

· the location of bin storage areas and bin collection areas;

· the number, volume and type of bins, and the type of waste to be placed in the bins;

· details on the future ongoing management of the bins and the bin storage areas, including cleaning, rotation and moving bins to and from the bin collection areas; and

· frequency of bin collections; and

9.2 The Waste Management Plan must be implemented at all times to the satisfaction of the City of Vincent;

10. Acoustic Report and Noise Management

An Acoustic Report in accordance with the City's Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the lodgement of a Building Permit. All recommended measures in the report shall be undertaken in accordance with the report to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the occupation or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

11. Construction Management Plan

A Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area shall be lodged with and approved by the City prior to the issuing of a building permit (including demolition and/or forward works). The Construction Management Plan is required to address the following concerns that relate to any works to take place on the site:

· Public safety, amenity and site security;

· Contact details of essential site personnel;

· Construction operating hours;

· Noise control and vibration management;

· Dilapidation Reports of nearby properties;

· Air, sand and dust management;

· Stormwater and sediment control;

· Soil excavation method;

· Waste management and materials re-use;

· Traffic and access management;

· Parking arrangements for contractors and subcontractors;

· Consultation plan with nearby properties; and

· Compliance with AS4970-2009 relating to the protection of trees on the development site, and measures to ensure the protection of existing trees on adjoining properties;

12. Public Art

12.1 In accordance with City of Vincent Policy No. 7.5.13 – Percent for Art the application is required to make a public art contribution of $19,000 being one percent of the estimated cost of development.

In order to comply with the Policy, the owner(s) or applicant, on behalf of the owner(s) shall submit a statutory declaration prior to the lodgement of a Building permit stipulating the choice of:

Option 1: Owner/Applicant chooses to co-ordinate the Public Art project themselves or by engaging an art consultant

Option 2: Owner/Applicant chooses to pay cash-in-lieu. Owner/Applicants who choose Option 2 will receive a 15% discount on the Percent for Art contribution.;

12.2 The owner(s), or the applicant on behalf of the owner(s), shall comply with the City of Vincent Policy No. 7.5.13 – Percent for Public Art:

12.2.1 in conjunction with the above chosen option;

Option 1: prior to the issue of a Building Permit for the development, obtain approval for the Public Art Project and associated Artist; and

prior to the first occupation of the development, install the approved public art project, and thereafter maintain the art work;

Option 2: prior to the issue of an Occupancy Permit pay the above cash-in-lieu contribution amount;

13. 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; and

14. Clothes Drying Facilities

Each multiple dwelling shall be provided with a clothes drying area screened from the public realm in accordance with State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, to the satisfaction of the City, prior to the occupation or use of the development.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a four storey Multiple Dwelling development at No. 64 Cleaver Street, West Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the development of a four storey Multiple Dwelling development on the subject site. The proposal consists of 11 multiple dwellings and associated vehicle parking. There are two buildings proposed:

· The front building is four storeys in height and comprises one single bedroom dwelling and four two bedroom dwellings which are oriented to the street;

· The rear building is three storeys in height and comprises two one-bedroom dwellings and four two-bedroom dwellings;

· The communal open space is located on the ground floor, adjacent to the north eastern lot boundary; and

· The vehicle parking is located on the ground floor, behind the front building.

The development plans, including perspectives of the development and a landscape plan, are included in Attachment 2 and the applicant’s technical reports including the traffic impact statement and environmentally sustainable design report are included in Attachment 7.

Background:

Landowner:	Eleonore Babaii
Applicant:	MW Urban
Date of Application:	27 June 2019
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R80
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single house
Proposed Use Class:	Dwellings (Multiple)
Lot Area:	838m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is located on Cleaver Street, between Vincent Street and Carr Street. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

All properties fronting Cleaver Street between Vincent Street and Carr Street, including the subject site, are zoned Residential R80 under the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are within the Residential built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). These properties are prescribed a maximum of three storeys. The adjoining property to the north of the subject site comprises an eight storey multiple dwelling development with 64 dwellings and the adjoining property to the south of the subject site comprises a two storey grouped dwelling development with five dwellings. To the west, opposite of the subject site, is a five storey development comprising an Aged Care Facility and the retention of the existing heritage building (previously a single house). This development is currently under construction. The remainder of properties along Cleaver Street, between Vincent Street and Carr Street, predominately comprises single storey single houses.

The adjoining property to the east of the subject site facing Florence Street comprises a three storey multiple dwelling development containing 22 dwellings. All properties fronting Florence Street between Vincent Street and Carr Street are zoned Residential R50 under the City’s LPS2 and are within the Residential built form area of the City’s Built Form Policy. These properties are prescribed a maximum of two storeys in height.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The proposal was assessed in accordance with the requirements of the Built Form Policy and State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes (R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments) which relates to multiple dwelling developments. The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides guidance for multiple dwellings and focuses on improved design outcomes for apartments that are responsive and appropriate to the context and character of the site and locality. This is a performance-based assessment and applicants are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the objectives of each design element as well as the overall objectives of the R Codes Volume 2.

Consideration of Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes

The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments includes Element Objectives and Acceptable Outcomes for each design element. Proposals are required to demonstrate that the design achieves the Element Objectives for each design element. While addressing the Acceptable Outcomes is likely to achieve the relevant Element Objectives, they are not a deemed-to-comply pathway and the proposal is still to be assessed against the relevant Element Objectives. Where Acceptable Outcomes are not met, proposals may still satisfy the Element Objective via alternative means or solutions.

The Element Objectives and/or Acceptable Outcomes that are not achieved in the proposal are as follows:

Street Setbacks
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Built Form Policy – Clause 5.2 C5.2.1 6.6m (the average of the five adjoining properties)	First storey – 3.0m Second storey – 2.5m – 3.0m Third storey – 2.5m – 3.0m Fourth storey – 4.0m
Building Height
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Built Form Policy – Clause 5.6 C5.6.1 3 storey height Concealed roof height of 10m	4 storey height Concealed roof height of 12m
Side and Rear Setbacks
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
Built Form Policy – Clause 5.3 C5.3.3 Minimum setback to the rear lot boundary: · Ground floor, second and third storey setback 6.5m · Fourth storey and above setback 12.5m	Eastern boundary First storey setback 2.3m Second storey setback 3.3m Third storey setback 3.3m
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.4 A2.4.1 Buildings setback from side lot boundaries 3.0m	Northern boundary First storey: 1.5m Second storey: 1.5m – 2.0m Third storey: 1.5m – 2.0m Southern boundary Second storey: 1.5m – 4.5m Third storey: 1.5m – 4.5m

Plot Ratio
Acceptable Outcome		Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.5 A2.5.1 Plot ratio of 1.0 (839m²)		Plot ratio of 1.03 (867m²)
Building Separation
Acceptable Outcome		Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.7 Within site boundary Habitable rooms/balconies to provide a minimum separation of 12m To adjoining property boundaries Ground floor to fourth storey as per ‘Side and Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual Privacy’.		Within site boundary Front and rear building separated 5.39m To adjoining property boundaries Building setbacks proposed to the northern, eastern and southern lot boundaries as set out in the ‘Side and Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual Privacy’ Design Elements contained within this table.
Orientation
Acceptable Outcome		Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.2 O3.2.2 Building form and orientation minimises overshadowing of the habitable rooms, open space and solar collectors of neighbouring properties during mid-winter.		The development shadows the outdoor living areas of the adjoining southern properties during mid-winter.
Communal Open Space
Acceptable Outcome		Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.4 A3.3.5 66m² of communal open space		62m² of communal open space
Visual Privacy
Acceptable Outcome		Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.5 A3.5.1 Where adjoining sites coded R50 or lower (eastern boundary), major openings to: · Bedrooms, studies and open walkways: 4.5m · Other habitable rooms: 6.0m · Unenclosed outdoor living areas: 7.5m		Eastern boundary · Second storey: Unit B3 Bed and Balcony setback 3.37m · Third storey: Unit B6 Bed and Balcony setback 3.37m
Public Domain Interface
Acceptable Outcome		Proposal
Built Form Policy – Clause 5.10 C5.10.2 Maximum height of solid portions of wall to be 1.2m above the adjacent footpath level and are to be visually permeable above Posts and piers to have a maximum width of 0.4m		Portion of fence within the front setback area (1m length) with a solid wall height of 1.6m
Solar Access and Daylight
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.1 A4.1.1 (a) 70% of dwellings having living rooms and private open space obtain 2 hours of direct sun A4.1.1 (b)15% receive no direct sunlight	(a) Nil dwellings have living rooms and private open space obtain 2 hours of direct (northern) sun (b) 100% of dwellings receive no direct (northern) sunlight
Size and Layout of Dwellings
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.3 A4.3.1 Two bedroom, two bathroom dwellings with a minimum internal floor area of 72m² A4.3.2 Living Rooms with a minimum internal dimension of 4.0m	Units A2 and A3 have a minimum internal floor area of 70m² and Living Rooms with a minimum internal dimension of 3.4m Units B1, B2, B4 and B6 have a minimum internal floor area of 70m²
Universal Design
Acceptable Outcome	Proposal
R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.9 A4.9.1 (a) and (b) 20% of dwellings meet Silver Level and 5% of dwellings meet Platinum Level requirements of the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines.	The application has not demonstrated the development would achieve the acceptable outcomes.

An assessment of how the proposal meets the Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments is discussed in the Comments section below.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community Consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 21 days from 15 November 2019 to 6 December 2019. The method of consultation being a sign on site, an advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice on the City’s website and 618 letters mailed out to all landowners and occupiers surrounding the site (shown in Attachment 1) in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

At the conclusion of the consultation period, a total of 33 submissions were received, all objecting to the proposal. The main issues raised in the submissions relate to the following matters:

· The bulk and scale of the development being inconsistent with the streetscape character;

· The design of the development being inconsistent with the streetscape character;

· The development causing a loss of solar access to adjoining properties;

· The development causing a loss of privacy to adjoining properties;

· The inadequacy of the parking provided for the development, including for residents and visitors and the impact on existing on-street parking as a result;

· The density of the development being inconsistent with the surrounding locality and impact on the amenity of the surrounding properties;

· The inadequacy of landscaping provided for the development; and

· The development causing a loss of views of significance.

A copy of the advertising plans is provided within Attachment 3.

Amended plans were requested to be provided for the City’s assessment of the proposal at the conclusion of the consultation period. The primary changes made to the development application are summarised as follows:

Ground floor

· Rearrangement of the ground floor to provide dedicated pedestrian paths which would not conflict with the vehicle manoeuvring space;

· Reduced residential parking bays (13 bays to 11 bays);

· Lift and stairs relocated to be more visible and accessible;

· Uniform arrangement of store rooms and bicycle parking;

· Bin store amended to accommodate all bins within one space (previously two);

· Relocation of the communal open space from the roof of the third storey to the ground floor; and

· Additional deep soil zones and canopy coverage, particularly along the northern boundary.

Other changes

· Removal of the boundary walls above the ground floor and setting in the building from the northern boundary;

· Amendment to the apartment mix of the rear building (previously six two-bedroom dwellings, now two one-bedroom and four two-bedroom dwellings);

· Amendment to the location of openings to improve natural cross ventilation; and

· Fourth storey amended from a dark colour to a light colour.

As the amended plans sought to address the concerns raised during the consultation period and did not result in any greater departures, further consultation was not necessary.

A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s comments with respect to these is provided in Attachment 4. The applicant has also provided a response to these submissions which is included in Attachment 5.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The application was referred to the DRP on 28 November 2018, 6 March 2019, 8 May 2019, 4 September 2019 and 27 November 2019. A copy of the most recent minutes is provided within Attachment 6.

An amended proposal was provided to the City on 8 January 2020, which was referred to a DRP member for further comments. The Panel member advised the amended design and changes proposed address majority of the concerns raised by the DRP. The comments provided by the Panel member are summarised as follows:

· The amended proposal improves amenity and reduces impact of the development on adjoining properties, particularly to the north by reducing the height of the boundary walls.

· The dwellings achieve good cross ventilation.

· The sun-shades located on the western façade of the building currently provide the shading treatment on the northern side of the openings. The shading treatment should be relocated to the southern side of the opening to improve access to northern winter sun.

· A detail plan of the communal open space and a detailed landscaping plan is recommended.

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 28/11/2018	DRP 2 06/03/2019	DRP 3 08/05/2019	DRP 4 04/09/2019	DRP 5 27/11/2019	DRP referral to Panel Member 13/01/2020
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

The principles highlighted in amber (Principles 2, 5, 6 and 9) can be dealt with through a condition of approval and are discussed in further detail below.

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 2 – Apartments;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

· Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation; and

· Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plans.

Planning and Development Act 2005

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 the Policy’s acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter has been referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the proposed development is for a height of more than three storeys and does not meet the applicable Building Height Acceptable Outcome standard as prescribed by the R-Codes Volume 2 - Apartments. The development application also received more than five objections during the community 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:

Building Height

The proposed building height is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.2 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The application proposes two buildings, with the front building being four storeys and a maximum height of 12 metres in lieu of 10 metres. The rear building is three storeys in height and satisfies the applicable acceptable outcomes prescribed by the City’s Built Form Policy. The building height suitably transitions between the existing buildings noting the adjoining northern property (No. 66 Cleaver Street) is an eight storey development and the adjoining southern property is a two storey development. No. 67 Cleaver Street, which is directly opposite the subject site is a five storey development and No. 37 – 43 Florence Street, located to the rear of the subject site is a three storey development.

· The site is relatively flat and does not influence the height of the development. Rather, the development has been designed to respond to the existing street context as detailed above.

· The first three storeys are proposed to be a minimum setback of 2.5 metres and the fourth storey proposed a minimum setback of 4.0 metres from the primary street. The stepping of the building, in addition to the mix of colours and materials would create separation between the building levels and would reduce the bulk and scale of the building as viewed from the primary street. The height of the development, stepping of the building and colours and materials have been supported by the City’s Design Review Panel.

· Although the development shadows the outdoor living areas of the adjoining southern properties, the height of the development and the extent of shadow created is acceptable for the reasons specified in the ‘Orientation’ section below.

Some of the drawings (SK 16b, SK 17b, SK 18b and SK 19b) depict the fourth storey as being grey in colour. The applicant has advised the fourth storey is intended to be a lighter colour as depicted on the perspective drawings (SK 00b and SK 20b). An amended colours and material schedule is recommended as a condition of approval to rectify this discrepancy.

Street Setbacks

The proposed setbacks to Cleaver Street are consistent with the objectives of Element 2.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The applicable acceptable outcome primary street setback of 6.6 metres has been calculated based on the average of the five adjoining properties to the north and south of the subject site. These properties have varying setbacks to the street, and includes single houses and an existing high density development at No. 60 Cleaver Street which have greater setbacks to the primary street. The existing development on the opposite side of Cleaver Street (between Vincent Street and Carr Street) provides for an average street setback of 3.0 metres.

· The Cleaver Street streetscape is transitional and is intended to accommodate higher density development to reflect the applicable R80 density coding. An increase in density in the development form is apparent and is reflected in approved development located across the road from the subject site at No. 67 Cleaver Street. This development was approved in 2017 by the Metro West Joint Development Assessment Panel and is five storeys in height with a minimum primary street setback of 2.5 metres. The minimum setback of 2.5 metres proposed for the subject application is consistent with this recently approved development, and would positively contribute to the precedence set for future development within the streetscape and in providing activation and surveillance of the street. It is reasonable to consider a reduced primary street setback associated with an increased size and scale of development within an area undergoing a planned transition in order to deliver the density and built form envisaged for this area under the Built Form Policy.

· The development incorporates a mix of colours and materials which reflect the established streetscape character. The development transitions between the two immediately adjoining properties, whereby the northern façade of the building is constructed in red brick to reflect No. 66 Cleaver Street and the southern side of the building is constructed in white render to reflect the white/cream colour hues of No. 60 Cleaver Street. The remainder of the buildings along Cleaver Street (between Vincent Street and Carr Street) are predominantly constructed in red brick or white and cream colour hues.

· The development provides for clear transition between the public and private realm. This is achieved through the use of a private courtyard, a clearly defined pedestrian entrance by way of a pedestrian scale arbour and pedestrian gate, and clearly defined vehicle access. A mix of small and medium sized trees are also provided within the front setback area to soften the appearance of the building and improve the landscape amenity of the site. Active and passive surveillance of the streetscape is achieved through the positioning of major openings to habitable rooms and private balconies.

· In support of the above, the design review panel has advised the mix of colours and materials is suitable for the context of the site; the streetscape is transitional and the design of the building appropriately references the existing and new development.

Side and Rear Setbacks, Building Separation and Visual Privacy

The proposed setbacks to the side and rear boundaries are consistent with the objectives of Elements 2.4, 2.7 and 3.5 and the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy with respect to lot boundary setbacks for the following reasons:

Internal building separation

· The internal building separation is adequate as habitable rooms with major openings are offset from other habitable rooms with major openings or balconies, or highlight windows are provided to ensure visual and acoustic privacy between the spaces.

Northern boundary

· The adjoining northern property is setback approximately 8.0 metres from the shared lot boundary and comprises 32 apartments which are directly oriented to the subject site. Minor openings to habitable and non-habitable rooms and an obscured panel is proposed to screen the communal stairwell. These elements would assist in providing access to natural sunlight and ventilation, whilst maintaining visual and acoustic privacy for the residents. The openings also increase the glazing aspect of the development and reduce the portions of blank solid walls, which is associated with building bulk. An amended colours and materials schedule which includes details of the obscured screening is recommended to ensure the element would positively contribute towards the visual appearance of the development.

· The impact of the development would be softened by the existing planting located on the adjacent site along the shared boundary and by the proposed small and medium trees proposed to be planted along the northern boundary. A detailed landscaping plan is recommended as a condition of approval to ensure suitable species are proposed to achieve the desired canopy coverage, soften the appearance of the development and improve the outlook for occupants.

· The obscured screening panel adjacent to the stairwell would provide an alternate building material and would assist in breaking up the portions of blank solid wall. The colour and material of this screening is to be included in the amened colours and materials schedule, which has been recommended as a condition of approval.

· Setbacks which match those of the adjoining northern boundary would not be achievable due to the size of the site. Further, the size and orientation of the eight storey building on the adjoining northern property causes significant overshadowing to the subject site. In response, the development proposes the store rooms, bin stores and minor openings along to this affected area along this northern boundary. This would be an appropriate use of the site as it would minimise the number of active habitable spaces that are adversely affected by the adjoining property. Orienting the major openings to habitable rooms and balconies to other boundaries results in an improved amenity outcome for the residents of the subject site as access to natural sunlight would be improved. The site planning of the proposed development is supported by the City’s Design Review Panel.

Southern boundary

· The rear building proposes a greater setback to the southern lot boundary to respond to the change in scale of development and to provide an acceptable setback between the buildings. The outdoor living areas of all of the adjoining southern properties are located adjacent to the shared boundary.

· Planting of small and medium sized trees and a trellis are proposed along the affected boundary which would provide some screening and perceived separation between the properties.

· The front building does not comprise any major openings on the first three storeys facing the southern boundary to maintain privacy between the dwellings. The fourth storey provides a greater setback to provide adequate separation between the buildings. The proposed development would not cause a greater loss of privacy to the outdoor living area of the front adjoining grouped dwelling as this active space is also visible from the primary street.

· The major openings to habitable rooms and balconies of the rear building have been setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The setbacks provided ensure adequate separation between properties and reduce the extent of direct overlooking to habitable rooms with major openings and outdoor living areas. The setbacks also ensure acoustic amenity of current and future occupants is maintained.

· Shadow created by the development would be mitigated by the site planning. This is because the rear building provides a greater setback of minimum 4.5 metres in lieu of 3.0 metres and lower building height of maximum 9.2 metres in lieu of 10 metres than set out in the acceptable outcomes of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. With regards to the front building, the shadow created by the proposed development to a building that would satisfy the applicable acceptable outcomes of maximum height 10 metres and a minimum setback of 3.0 metres prescribed by the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The shadow created by a development that would satisfy the acceptable outcomes would also shadow the major openings to habitable rooms and the outdoor living areas of the adjoining southern properties. As a result, there is no greater impact to the adjoining property as a result of the additional building height and reduced setback of the proposed development.

Eastern boundary

· The adjoining property to the rear of the subject site comprises a multiple dwelling development which is located approximately 9.5 metres from the shared lot boundary. The associated carport of the building is located directly adjacent to the shared lot boundary.

· The setbacks provide for sufficient residential amenity for occupants of the existing and proposed development as balconies are designed with outlook over non habitable or active communal spaces to ensure visual and acoustic privacy is maintained. The setback of the development also ensures natural sunlight and ventilation of the adjoining property is maintained.

· Deep soil areas which accommodates small and medium sized trees are provided along the affected boundary to improve the landscape amenity and provide perceived separation between the properties.

Plot Ratio

The proposed plot ratio is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The acceptability of the street setback, lot boundary setbacks and building heights would result in an acceptable built form and scale outcome and satisfies the relevant element objectives for the reasons detailed within relevant sections above. Further, the scale of the development is appropriate given the site’s close proximity to the Perth CBD and other high amenity areas, and is well serviced by public transport.

· The development incorporates design measures to mitigate building bulk impacts, including articulation on all building facades through the use of setbacks and major and minor openings, varying textures and colours, and incorporating landscaping around the perimeter of the building.

· The proposed plot ratio reflects a minor departure to the acceptable outcome as set out in the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments and is consistent with the future desired built form of the locality as envisaged by the Residential Area of the Built Form Policy. The development proposes an additional 28 square metres of plot ratio area. This equates to a portion of a dwelling and would not result in a significant change to the size and scale of the development.

· The current built form of the locality is predominantly lower scale development, although development reflective of the applicable R80 density coding is becoming more prevalent within the locality. The size and the scale of the proposed development would set a suitable precedence for future development within the locality.

Orientation

The proposal is not consistent with the Acceptable Outcomes or Element Objectives of Element 3.2 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments as the development would shadow the outdoor living areas and major openings to habitable rooms of the adjoining southern properties.

The development is consistent with the overall objectives of the R-Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· There are no Acceptable Outcome standards for sites coded R80 or higher. The development would shadow approximately 35 percent of the adjoining southern property. This is equivalent to the Acceptable Outcome prescribed for sites coded R30 – R40.

· The application proposes a four storey building at the front of the site. The first three storeys propose a minimum setback of 1.5 metres in lieu of the acceptable outcome of 3.0 metres prescribed by the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The fourth storey is setback 3.9 metres from the southern lot boundary. The rear building is proposed to be a maximum of three storeys in height and a minimum setback of 4.5 metres. The increased setbacks, particularly those of the rear building would reduce impacts on adjoining properties.

· The orientation of the site does not provide for good solar access as the shadow cast by the development measured at mid-winter would fall directly onto the adjoining southern property. Similarly, the shadow cast by No. 66 Cleaver Street would fall directly over the proposed development and could impact the amenity for the future residents. The development has been designed so that non habitable spaces (bins, stores and stairwells) are adjacent to the northern boundary and habitable rooms with major openings and balconies are orientated towards other lot boundaries to maximise solar access, whilst being appropriately setback from the southern boundary to minimise loss of natural sunlight, visual privacy and building bulk to the adjoining property. This site planning has been reviewed and supported by the City’s Design Review Panel.

Tree Canopy, Deep Soil Areas and Landscape Design

The proposed landscaping is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.3 and 4.12 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The application proposes 10.1 percent of the site area as deep soil zones, which equates to 85.2 square metres. These zones are located within the front setback area, adjacent to all of the side lot boundaries and the communal open space which would positively contribute to the landscape amenity and visual appeal of the site.

· The adjoining northern property contains mature planting along the shared boundary, particularly towards the front of the site. The deep soil zones and associated trees proposed to be planted on the subject site adjacent to the northern boundary are predominantly located towards the rear of the lot. This arrangement would facilitate a positive outcome whereby the length of the boundary was provided with canopy coverage.

· There is limited existing landscaping adjacent to the southern boundary. The application proposes a mix of small trees, medium trees and trellis planting along this boundary. This arrangement would facilitate substantial landscaping to be visible from the subject site and adjoining properties. The rear building of the development also provides a large setback of 4.5 metres to the southern lot boundary. The amount of landscaping proposed is suitable as it would achieve improved visual amenity, whilst also softening the appearance of the development.

· The application proposes deep soil zones and a mix of small and medium trees along the eastern boundary. The adjoining property contains a carport and large areas of hardstand area along the affected boundary. The landscaping provided along the shared boundary would improve the outlook for residents on the subject site and adjoining property.

· The landscaping plan (SK 07b) provided refers to the Landscape Architect’s Report. The applicant has not provided an up to date Landscape Architect’s Report that details plant species proposed and to reflect the current landscaping plan. The Landscape Architect’s Report is not consistent with the current landscaping proposal and is not included within the attachments of this report. An amended landscaping plan is recommended as a condition of approval to ensure suitable species are provided on site that would positively contribute to the canopy coverage and landscape amenity of the site. An amended landscaping plan to the satisfaction of the City and the DRP would amend Principle 2 of the Design Review Panel progress table above from amber to green.

Communal Open Space

The proposed communal open space is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The communal open space is provided on the ground floor of the site and is directly accessible from the main lift. Clearly defined footpaths also provide good wayfinding to the space.

· The communal open space is located adjacent to the parking area. A visually permeable screen would be provided between the spaces to provide some privacy and separation whilst maintaining active and passive surveillance of the two spaces.

· The size, scale and location of the adjoining northern property causes a loss of solar access to the subject development. The communal open space is suitably located adjacent to the side/rear setback area of the adjoining property and would have access to natural sunlight and ventilation which would improve the amenity for the residents. It is also located away from active open/habitable spaces of the adjoining properties ensuring visual and noise privacy is protected.

· The communal open space incorporates a mix of hardstand area and landscaped area which would enhance the visual appeal and usability of the space.

· To ensure the communal open space is suitably designed, a detailed drawing of the space which is to be reviewed by the City’s DRP is recommended as a condition of approval. An amended plan, to the satisfaction of the DRP would amend Principles 6 and 9 of the Design Review Panel progress table above from amber to green.

Public Domain Interface

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 3.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

The streetscape character predominantly comprises fences with low solid walls or fences with visually permeable infill panels. A portion of the front fence along the front lot boundary and along the northern boundary within the primary street setback area is proposed to be constructed of red brick up to a maximum height of 1.6 metres as measured from natural ground level.

A visually permeable fence, as prescribed by Clause 5.10 of the City’s Built Form Policy, is necessary to ensure the development maintains an open and interactive frontage to enhance the visual amenity of the street. A condition of approval is recommended for the fence to be amended accordingly.

Car and Bicycle Parking

The proposed car and bicycle parking is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The development proposes 11 residential car parking bays and two visitor car parking bays, which is consistent with the Acceptable Outcomes prescribed by Table 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. All parking bays are accessed from a double width crossover and driveway, and all vehicle movements would be contained on site. The parking location is situated behind the front building and would not be clearly visible from the street.

· The development proposes eight bicycle parking bays to be provided on site to accommodate the acceptable outcomes standard of five residential and one visitor bicycle parking bays prescribed by Table 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The bicycle parking bays are accessible via the dedicated pedestrian footpath on site, are screened from view of the street and are clearly visible from communal spaces. This location ensures privacy from the streetscape whilst maintaining passive surveillance on site.

· The subject site is within 35 metres of a high frequency bus route which provides access to the Perth Busport. Access to the bus stop is provided via an existing pedestrian footpath. Cleaver Street is also provided with dedicated bicycle lanes.

Suitable car parking and bicycle parking is provided on site which takes into consideration the alternate modes of transportation that would be available for its residents.

Solar Access and Daylight

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.1 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

· The proposed development is adversely impacted by the existing development at No. 66 Cleaver Street, which shadows the northern elevation of the development. No. 66 Cleaver Street also comprises 32 multiple dwellings with habitable rooms and major openings which are oriented to the shared boundary. The proposal has been designed to mitigate these impacts by providing minor openings along the northern boundary which would provide some access to natural sunlight whilst maintaining privacy for the residents.

· Major openings to habitable rooms have been provided on the eastern, southern and western elevations where possible to maximise each dwelling’s access to natural sunlight. Multiple openings to habitable rooms are also provided where possible to increase each dwelling’s access to natural sunlight.

· The DRP has recommended the sun-shades on the front façade of the building be flipped so the shading treatment would be relocated to the southern side of the opening to improve access to northern winter sun. This would amend the Principle 5 of the Design Review Panel progress table from amber to green. A condition of approval is recommended accordingly.

Size and Layout of Dwellings

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.3 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

The apartments have been amended to provide spaces that would be functional and would be able to accommodate the needs of its residents. The application also proposes a mix of apartment styles that would accommodate different needs of residents. All apartments provide a minimum ceiling height of 2.7 metres to facilitate well-proportioned spaces that would facilitate good natural ventilation and daylight access.

The City’s DRP has advised the apartment layouts are well designed and functional.

Universal Design

The R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments requires development to include dwellings with universal design which would accommodate dwelling options for people living with disabilities or limited mobility and/or to facilitate aging in a place. This could be achieved by providing 20 percent of the dwellings meeting ‘Silver Level’ requirements or five percent of dwellings designed to ‘Platinum Level’ requirements, as defined in the Liveable Housing Design Guidelines (Liveable Housing Australia).

A condition of approval is recommended to demonstrate compliance with the above recommendations specified within the Acceptable Outcomes of Element 4.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD), Energy Efficiency and Water Management and Conservation

The applicant has provided an ESD report detailing a lifecycle assessment of the development to determine its environmental performance. The proposed dwellings are consistent with the objectives of Element 4.15 and 4.16 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The development would result in a reduction in the global warming potential of the development by 50 percent, and a reduction in water use by 24 percent. A minimum average NatHERS rating of 6.5 stars is achieved across the development through its solar orientation and cross flow ventilation;

· The development proposes the installation of solar PV panels and the use of instantaneous hot water, ceiling fans and efficient fixtures including washing machines, dishwashers and air conditioners; and

· The development proposes the installation of high efficiency water fixtures and water wise landscaping which includes the use of low-flow trickle irrigation. Water metering would be installed to inform and manage on-going water consumption. As the detailed design progresses, the specific fixtures would be confirmed which could result in greater efficiency and a further reduction in water consumption.

As noted in the ‘Solar Access and Daylight’ section of this report, the DRP has recommended that the sun shades on the front façade be reoriented to improve access to winter sun. This would result in Principle 5 becoming green in the Design Review Progress Table. A condition of approval is recommended accordingly.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

9.2 No. 392 (Lot: 152; D/P: 50596) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth - Proposed Change of Use to Restaurant/Cafe and Shop (Amendment to Approvals) (Unauthorised Existing Development)

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Location Map ⇩

2. Minutes of the 12 December 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting and Approved Development Plans 5.2017.392.1 ⇩

3. Notice of Determination and Approved Development Plans 5.2017.247.1 ⇩

4. Development Plans ⇩

5. Supporting Information ⇩

6. Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the development application for Change of Use to Restaurant/Café and Shop (Amendment to Approval) (Unauthorised Existing Development) at No. 392 (Lot: 152; D/P: 50596) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, in accordance with plans provided in Attachment 4, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 6:

1. All conditions detailed on development approval 5.2017.247.1 granted on 31 October 2017 and on development approval 5.2017.392.1 granted on 12 December 2017 are deleted and replaced with the following conditions:

1.1 This approval is for Change of Use to Restaurant/Café and Shop (Amendment to Approvals) (Unauthorised Existing Development) as shown on the approved plans dated 29 October 2019 and 5 December 2019. No other development forms part of this approval;

1.2 Use of the premises

1.2.1 This approval is for Restaurant/Café and Shop 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; and

1.2.2 The Restaurant/Café and Shop shall be limited to the following:

1.2.2.1. A maximum of 12 persons on site at any one time;

1.3 The development shall maintain an active and interactive relationship and uninterrupted views between the use of the development and Fitzgerald Street during the hours of the development’s operation to the satisfaction of the City. Darkened, obscured, mirror or tinted glass or the like is prohibited. Curtains, blinds and other internal or external treatments that obscure the view of the internal area from Fitzgerald Street are not permitted to be used during the hours of the development’s operation;

1.4 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;

1.5 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;

1.6 Prior to occupation or use of the development, a cash-in-lieu contribution shall be paid to the City for the shortfall of 0.8728 car bays, based on the cost of $5,400 per bay as set out in the City’s 2017/2018 Schedule of Fees and Charges being a contribution of $4,713; and

1.7 All off-street car parking is to be available during business hours for all employees.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a change of use from Eating House to Restaurant/Café and Shop (Amendment to Approved) (Unauthorised Existing Development) at No. 392 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The subject site is located at No. 392 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1.

The development application proposes to consolidate and amend the two existing development approvals granted at the subject site.

The application proposes to amend the approvals by deleting and updating the conditions of approval as follows:

· Condition 6 of development approval 5.2017.392.1 is proposed to be deleted to allow the land use to continue to operate indefinitely;

· Condition 2.1 of development approval 5.2017.392.1 is proposed to be deleted as the land use is now classified as ‘Shop’ under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and is no longer required to comply with Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms (Consulting Rooms Policy); and

· Delete Condition 2.2 of development approval 5.2017.392.1 and Condition 3 of the development approval 5.2017.247.1. Insert updated condition to reflect the consolidated maximum number of employees and customers who would be on-site across both land uses.

The conditions of development approval 5.2017.392.1 are contained in Attachment 2 and the conditions of development approval 5.2017.247.1 are contained in Attachment 3.

The development plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 4. Supporting information provided by the applicant are included in Attachment 5, including a description of the business, a Parking Management Plan and a Parking Survey.

Background:

Landowner:	North Perth Investment Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Xiaoyang Yang and Yonglin Zhang
Date of Application:	29 October 2019
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: District Centre
Built Form Area:	Town Centre
Existing Land Use:	Eating House and Non-Medical Consulting Rooms (Unlisted Use)
Proposed Use Class:	Café and Shop
Lot Area:	191m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Yes – 5.0 metres wide, City owned, drained and sealed
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is bound by Fitzgerald Street to the west, a ROW to the east and commercial properties to the north and south. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

The subject site and adjoining northern, western and southern properties are zoned District Centre under LPS2 and are located within the Town Centre built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The adjoining properties to the east are zoned Residential R40 under LPS2 and are within the Residential built form area under the Built Form Policy.

Previous Approvals:

The site was previously approved under two separate development approvals.

The first approval was issued on 31 October 2017 for a Change of Use from Shop to Eating House and Signage Addition (5.2017.247.1). This approval was granted under delegated authority subject to conditions. The determination notice and approved development plans are included as Attachment 3.

The second approval was granted by Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting 12 December 2017 for a Change of Use from Eating House to Non-Medical Consulting Rooms (Unlisted Use) (5.2017.392.1) subject to conditions. The Minutes of the 12 December 2017 Ordinary Council Meeting and the Approved Development Plans are included as Attachment 2. Condition 6 of development approval stated that the approval was for a period of 12 months only and this lapsed on 12 December 2018. The business has continued operating after this date.

The initial application was separated into two separate development applications as the Eating House was capable of determination under Delegated Authority and would allow the applicant to commence the use without the delays associated with the Non-Medical Consulting Rooms (Unlisted use) that required Council determination.

The previous development applications were assessed under the City’s Town Planning Scheme No.1 (TPS1). Under TPS1 the café component of the proposal was classified as Eating House and the foot spa and massage component was classified as Non-Medical Consulting Rooms (Unlisted Use). Under LPS2 the café component is now classified as Restaurant/Café and the foot spa and massage component is classified as Shop.

The City has not received any formal complaints regarding amenity impacts associated with the Restaurant/Café and Shop business since it began operating in early 2018.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, the Built Form Policy and Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Non‑Residential Parking Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Previously approved	Requires further Discretion
Land Use	ü
Parking & Access			ü
Bicycle Parking	ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Parking & Access
Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Restaurant/Café 0.15 car bays per persons. 1.8 car bays required (based on 12 persons on-site).
Shop 3.5 car bays per 100m² of Net Lettable Area (NLA). 2.52 car bays required (based on the Shop NLA of 72m²).
Previously Approved Shortfall 0.87 car bays (5.2019.392.1).
Total 4 car bays required on-site.	2 car bays provided on-site.

Parking & Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

Restaurant/Café

0.15 car bays per persons.

1.8 car bays required (based on 12 persons on-site).

Shop

3.5 car bays per 100m² of Net Lettable Area (NLA).

2.52 car bays required (based on the Shop NLA of 72m²).

Previously Approved Shortfall

0.87 car bays (5.2019.392.1).

Total

4 car bays required on-site.

2 car bays provided on-site.

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The application has been reviewed against the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation (Community Consultation Policy) and it was determined that the proposal did not require advertising for the following reasons:

· The subject site is zoned District Centre and is located within the North Perth Town Centre;

· The development application proposes uses that are permitted under LPS2 and the parking shortfall is less than five bays; and

· The proposed amendment would not have a significant impact on the community, or the economy, lifestyle, amenity and/or environment of any member of the community or community group.

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; and

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

Should Council refuse the application for development approval, the applicant would have the right to have the decision reviewed in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter has been referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the application is an amendment to a development application that was previously determined by Council.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Car Parking

Following the gazettal of LPS2 the land uses now reasonably fall within the definition of a Restaurant/Café and Shop, both are ‘P’ Permitted uses within the District Centre. The application has been assessed in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Parking (Parking Policy), Table 1 of the Parking Policy requires the Restaurant/Café and Shop to provide a total of 4.32 parking bays. Two car parking bays are provided on site and Council previously granted a shortfall for 0.87 car bays, which results in an overall shortfall for the development of two bays.

A Parking Management Plan and a Parking Survey have been prepared and submitted by the applicant as justification for the proposed parking shortfall. These are contained in Attachment 5 and outline the following:

· Two car bays are provided on-site for the use of employees;

· There are a number of on-street car parking bays located on Fitzgerald Street and the surrounding streets which are within walking distance of the subject site;

· Two long-term and two short-term bicycle spaces are provided on-site for use by employees and customers. Two short-term bicycle spaces are located on the footpath directly in front of subject site and there are a number of other public bicycle spaces along Fitzgerald Street available for customers; and

· The subject site is within close proximity of high frequency and regular frequency bus routes along Fitzgerald Street.

The proposed parking provision is suitable for the following reasons:

· The parking shortfall has resulted from a change in Scheme and Policy requirements. It is not a result of the intensification of the development. The classification of the use of the subject site has changed from Eating House and Non-Medical Consulting Rooms (Unlisted Use) under TPS1 to Restaurant/Café and Shop under LPS2. The resultant amendment to the Non-Residential Parking Policy removed reduction factors, changed the base parking rate and changed the method of calculation. This resulted in a further parking shortfall than what was previously approved, even though the intensity of use of the subject site remains consistent with the previous approvals;

· Condition 6 of development approval 5.2017.392.1 required a cash-in-lieu contribution be made to the City for the approved shortfall. The applicant has satisfied this condition by entering into a payment plan with the City for the cash-in-lieu contribution;

· The intensity of the use of the subject site, including operating hours and number of people on-site, remains consistent with the previous approvals;

· The subject site is located in the North Perth Town Centre and the District Centre zone under LPS2. This is a high amenity area connected with pedestrian paths and the wider bicycle network. The nature of the surrounding area would allow for multi-purpose trips and reduce the overall parking demand within the vicinity;

· The subject site is located on Fitzgerald Street, which is a high frequency bus route and is serviced by five different bus routes;

· Two long-term and two short-term bicycle spaces are provided on-site for use by employees and customers. A number of public short-term bicycle spaces are located on the Fitzgerald Street verge, including two on the footpath directly in front of the subject site;

· The City’s parking survey data identifies there are a minimum of 39 on-street parking bays surrounding the subject site on the east side of Fitzgerald Street, which are summarised as follows:

o Alma Road comprises a total of 19 bays between Fitzgerald Street and Ethel Street with a three hour restriction; and

o Raglan Road comprises a total of 20 bays between Fitzgerald Street and Ethel Street with a three hour restriction;

· The City’s parking surveys undertaken on 28 November 2018, 30 November 2018 and 1 December 2018 reviewed the availability of the abovementioned parking bays. The findings are summarised as follows:

o The parking bays along Alma Road between Fitzgerald Street and Ethel Street had an average occupancy rate of 55 percent on weekdays and 36 percent on weekends; and

o The parking bays along Raglan Road between Fitzgerald Street and Ethel Street had an average occupancy rate of 78 percent on both weekdays and weekends; and

· There are a number of other on-street car parking bays located on Fitzgerald Street and the surrounding streets which are within walking distance of the subject site.

Sufficient on-site parking is provided for employees of the proposal. There is sufficient alternative transport methods and public parking within the vicinity of the subject site to accommodate any customer parking demand, without the need for a further cash-in-lieu contribution from the applicant.

Time-Limited Approval

Council’s approval granted 12 December 2017 (reference 5.2017.392.1) conditioned the use of the Non-medical consulting rooms to 12 months. The time limited approval was consistent with Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms that required approvals for a Non-Medical Consulting Room to be restricted to a period of 12 months.

At the time of determination the foot spa and massage component of the development was classified as an Unlisted Use under TPS1 and was assessed against the Consulting Rooms Policy as Non-Medical Consulting Rooms. Following the gazettal of LPS2, the foot spa and massage component of the proposal is now classified as Shop. The subject site is located in a District Centre zone in which a Shop is permitted use under LPS2 and is not subject to discretion.

Since the business began operation in early 2018 the City has not received any complaints regarding amenity impacts associated with the Restaurant/Café and Shop business. The City’s Health Services business unit have conducted regular inspections of the subject site without issue.

As the use of the subject site is not subject to discretion and the business has been operating without issue Administration recommends deletion of the previous limitation and no further limitation on the land use.

Amendments to Conditions

The application proposes to consolidate the two existing approvals on to one amended approval to reflect the correct land use classification and operation of the business. Condition 6 of Council’s approval (reference 5.2017.392.1 Attachment 2) is proposed to be deleted to allow the land use to continue to operate indefinitely, as the term of approval for the foot spa and massage component of the business was previously limited for 12 months.

Condition 2.1 of development approval 5.2017.392.1 (Attachment 3) is proposed to be deleted as the land use is now classified as ‘Shop’ under LPS2 and is no longer required to comply with the Consulting Rooms Policy.

Condition 2.2 of development approval 5.2017.392.1 and Condition 3 of development approval 5.2017.247.1 are proposed to be deleted and updated to reflect the maximum number of employees and customers who would be on-site across both land uses. Condition 2.2 limited the foot spa and massage component to one consultant operating at any one time and Condition 3 limited the café component to a maximum of six persons at any one time. The applicant has requested that these conditions be deleted, the site proposes a total of 12 persons at any one time as such it is proposed to replace this condition to reflect the consolidated approval for both land uses and allow for flexibility of employee and customer numbers across the site.

Condition 4.1 of Council’s approval (reference 5.2017.392.1) and condition 2.3 of development approval 5.2017.247.1 limited the hours of operation of the Eating House and Consulting Rooms 7:00am to 9:00pm Monday to Friday. As the land uses are now classified as ‘P’ uses under LPS2 it is not necessary to limit the hours of operation as the uses are considered not to have an amenity impact in this location.

The remaining conditions have been deleted and replaced to reflect the consolidated proposal under LPS2 and the standard conditions the City would impose on a new change of use application where the land uses are permitted. The subject site obtained an occupancy permit from the City on 2 February 2018 at which stage the City confirmed that the conditions regarding car parking, bicycle parking, signage and bin stores were satisfied. The applicant has also entered into a payment plan with the City to satisfy Condition 4 of development approval 5.2017.392.1, to ensure future compliance this condition has been retained on the determination notice.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

9.3 Nos. 452-460 (Lot: 1; D/P: 613) William Street, Perth - Proposed Alterations and Additions to Shop (Unauthorised Existing Development)

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Development Plans ⇩

3. Supporting Information ⇩

4. Firearm Storage Requirements ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for proposed Alterations and Additions to Shop (Unauthorised Existing Development) at No. 452-460 (Lot: 1; D/P: 613) William Street, Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1. The development does not satisfy the deemed-to-comply standards of Clause 1.3 Corner Sites and Clause 1.4 Ground Floor Design of Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, nor does it satisfy the Design Principles and Local Housing Objectives as:

1.1 The roller shutters reduce activation provided to both street frontages, which diminishes the corner presentation and reduces visibility of the internal use from the street;

1.2 The appearance of the roller shutters, as a security measure, adversely detracts from the appearance of the streetscape; and

1.3 As a result of the roller shutters, the use does not integrate with the adjoining public spaces and does not adhere to the performance criteria of the Western Australian Planning Commissions, Design out Crime Planning Guidelines;

2. The development does not satisfy the Built Form Guidelines of Clause 7(v) of the City’s Planning and Building Policy Manual – Appendix No.18 Design Guidelines, William Street, between Bulwer and Newcastle Streets, Perth, nor does it satisfy the development objectives as the development is not an appropriate design for the context of the place;

3. The development does not satisfy the Acceptable Development standards of Clause 4 in relation to Building Scale, Bulk and Mass of Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, nor does it satisfy the performance criteria as the roller shutters are not respectful of or compatible with the existing fabric of the building and the deters from the landmark quality of the heritage place;

4. As a consequence of the adverse appearance of the roller shutter addition and subsequent reduced street surveillance, the proposed development:

4.1 Is not compatible nor complimentary to the town centre area in which it is located (Clause 67(m) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

4.2 Would detract from the amenity and character of the locality and would set an undesirable precedence (Clause 67(n) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

5. Within 28 days from the issuing of the notice of determination, the roller shutters must be removed from the façade and the affected areas of the façade restored to their original form, to the satisfaction of the City.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for unauthorised existing development of roller shutter additions to an existing shop at Nos. 452-460 William Street, Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application seeks approval for roller shutter additions to the external windows and doors at the subject site. The works are unauthorised existing development as the roller shutters were installed in early 2019. The roller shutters are open when the business is operating, and closed outside of business hours. The business hours for the shop are as follows:

· Monday – Friday: 9:00am – 5:00pm

· Saturday: 9:00am – 12:00pm

· Sunday: Closed

The development plans of the proposal are included as Attachment 2. Supporting information provided by the applicant, such as written justification, Heritage Impact Statement, and correspondence from the Western Australian Police, are included as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:	A Yozzi & F A Yozzi
Applicant:	A Yozzi & F A Yozzi
Date of Application:	26 November 2019
Zoning:	MRS: Urban, Other Regional Road Reservation LPS2: Zone: District Centre
Built Form Area:	Town Centre
Existing Land Use:	Shop
Proposed Use Class:	Shop
Lot Area:	531m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not Applicable
Heritage List:	Management Category A, State Registered Place

The subject site is located on the corner of William Street and Brisbane Street and is zoned District Centre under the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site is one lot under sole ownership, currently occupied by five tenancies being Nos. 452, 454, 456, 458 and 460 William Street. The development subject to this application is located on the corner tenancy at No. 460 William Street, Perth. The location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

The subject site is bound by William Street to the west, Brisbane Street to the north and commercial properties to the east and south. The land to the east, south and west of the subject site is zoned District Centre under LPS2 and consists of a range of commercial tenancies including restaurants, small bars, cafes, shops, gyms and offices. The land to the north-east of the development site is zoned Mixed Use R80 under LPS2 and comprises residential development including single houses, grouped dwellings and a shop house. The land to the north-west of the development site is zoned Commercial under LPS2 and comprises of a restaurant.

William Street is reserved as an Other Regional Road (ORR) under the Metropolitan Region Scheme, a portion of which affects the western boundary and street corner truncation of the subject site.

The subject site is located within the William Street Design Guideline area and within the Northbridge Town Centre. The subject site is registered on the City’s Heritage List and Municipal Heritage Inventory as Management Category A (Conservation Essential). The subject site is also a State Heritage Registered Place. The two-storey building was constructed in 1915 with shops on the ground floor and residences above for the shop tenants. The building is of Federation Free Classical style that has cultural significance for being a recognised landmark at the northern entry to the commercial area of Northbridge. The subject tenancy appears to have been used as a shop since it was constructed in 1915.

The subject site is recreational sports store which includes the sale of firearms and ammunition, the landowner installed the roller shutters in early 2019 following an audit conducted by the Western Australian Police to meet relevant requirements of the Firearms Act 1973 and the Firearms Regulations 1974 and to enable the landowners Firearms Dealers License to be renewed.

Following compliance investigation in August 2019, the applicant submitted a development application on 26 November 2019 seeking approval for the roller shutters. A development application is required as the subject site is on the Heritage List and includes departures from the deemed-to-comply requirements of the City’s LPS2.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City’s LPS2, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy), Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties (Heritage Management Policy) and Planning and Building Policy Manual – Appendix No. 18 Design Guidelines, William Street, between Bulwer and Newcastle Streets, Perth (William Street Design Guidelines). 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
Heritage Management		ü
Corner Sites		ü
Ground Floor Design		ü
William Street Design Guidelines		ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Heritage Management
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Part 4 Development to Heritage Listed Buildings The Heritage Management Policy sets out Acceptable Development standards in lieu of deemed-to-comply standards. Additions should not obscure or alter an element that contributes to the significance of the place.	Roller shutter additions impact the landscape quality that contributes to the significance of the place.
Corner Sites
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 1.3 Uninterrupted activation of both street frontages.	Roller shutters reduce activation to William Street and Brisbane Street.
Ground Floor Design
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 1.4 Active frontage should be maximised. Security measures located internally behind the glazing line. Security measures transparent and visually permeable.	Roller shutters reduce the active frontage outside of business operating hours. Roller shutters are located externally in front of the glazing. Roller shutters are visually impermeable.
William Street Guidelines
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Appendix No. 18 - William Street Guidelines Clause 7 (v) – Street Front Openings External visually impermeable roller shutters are not permitted.	Visually impermeable roller shutters are provided to all external windows and doors.

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 from 4 December 2019 to 17 December 2019. The method of consultation included website notification and 21 letters being mailed to all the owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

During the community consultation, the City received one submission that neither supports nor objects to the proposal but raised the following concerns:

· Concerns in relation to adverse visual impacts as a result of the roller shutters; and

· Concerns in relation to adverse impacts to the heritage fabric of the building.

Administration’s response to these items is included in the comments section of this report. The applicant submitted a Heritage Impact Statement and written justification addressing the visual and heritage impacts of the proposal, as included in Attachment 3.

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)

The application was referred to the DPLH for its advice as the subject site is a State Heritage Registered Place. Comments received from the Heritage Council on 10 January 2020 advised that while the proposed roller shutter additions would have a negative impact on the cultural significance of the place, with the bulk of the roller shutters and its casing being visible from the street, the roller shutters are reversible and will not cause any permanent damage to the place. The Heritage Council accepts that the firearms business has unique security requirements and therefore the installation of roller shutters are supported by the Heritage Council. The Heritage Council recommended a condition of approval requiring the roller shutters to be removed once the firearms business ceases.

Referral to DPLH was not required in relation to the ORR as the development value is less than $20,000 and as the proposal is an incidental addition that does not have the intention to alter the existing access arrangements.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

Administration referred the proposed development plans to the City’s DRP Heritage specialist for comment in relation to the heritage and streetscape impacts of the proposal. The DRP member provided the following comments:

· The cultural heritage values of the subject site have been assessed as aesthetic and historic. The building is a significant landmark on the corner of Brisbane and William Streets and is a good and intact example of the Federation Free Classical style of architecture. The subject tenancy is located on the corner and it exhibits the aesthetic cultural heritage value. The ground floor of the subject tenancy strongly contributes to the overall aesthetic values of the place. The introduction of solid steel shutters to the external of the ground floor façade negatively impacts on the adjoining buildings and the surrounding context and negatively impacts on the assessed cultural heritage values for the subject site.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

· Firearms Act 1973;

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

· Firearms Regulations 1974;

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

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

· Planning and Building Policy Manual – Appendix No.18 Design Guidelines, William Street, between Bulwer and Newcastle Streets, Perth; and

· Western Australian Planning Commission – Designing Out Crime Planning Guidelines.

Matters to be considered

The following matters set out in Schedule 2, Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 are relevant matters Council is to have due regard to as part of determining this application:

(k) the built heritage conservation of any place that is of cultural significance;

(m) the compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development;

(n) the amenity of the locality including the following –

(i) environmental impacts of the development;

(ii) the character of the locality; and

(iii) social impacts of the development.

Should Council refuse the application for development approval, the applicant would have the right to have the decision reviewed in accordance with Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter has been referred to Council for determination at the request of the applicant.

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:

Corner Sites, Ground Floor Design and Street Front Openings

The Built Form Policy requires developments to provide uninterrupted activation to street frontages to maximise street surveillance. The Built Form Policy also requires any security measure to be visually permeable and located internally or to be recessed between elements in the façade. The William Street Design Guidelines does not permit visually impermeable roller shutters as an appropriate security measure for street front openings.

The proposal involves visually impermeable roller shutters to all street facing windows and doors that reduce activation to William Street and Brisbane Street. The roller shutters are located externally and are not recessed between elements of the façade.

The City received comments during the community consultation that raised concerns in regards to adverse visual impacts as a result of the roller shutters.

The applicant has justified the roller shutters as being appropriate in the context of the shop being a Firearms Dealer, and are necessary to satisfy the requirements of the Firearms Regulations 1974. The applicant considers the roller shutters improve the aesthetics of the building while providing community safety and criminal deterrence.

The proposed roller shutters do not meet the local housing objectives of the City’s Built Form Policy or the Development Objectives of the William Street Design Guidelines for the following reasons:

· The subject site is the northern entry to the Northbridge Town Centre. William Street is a high-traffic street that is a gateway to the Perth Central Business District from the eastern and northern suburbs. Surrounding land uses include commercial tenancies including restaurants, small bars, cafes, shops, gyms and offices. The surrounding land uses feature day time and night time operation and night life in this location is apparent;

· The roller shutters are proposed to be open during business operating hours and closed outside of the operating hours. Based on the operating hours of the shop, the roller shutters would be closed on weekdays after 5:00pm, on Saturdays after 12:00pm and all day on Sundays. The roller shutters would only impact the integration of the shop with adjoining public spaces outside of the business operating hours;

· The roller shutters provide a solid, blank and unarticulated facade that results in a bulky and visually imposing structure to the street. The solid form of the proposed roller shutters appear obtrusive to the streetscape and are not in keeping with the scale and character of the established streetscapes or locality. The roller shutters adversely impact the quality of the pedestrian environment and the overall appeal and aesthetics of an area;

· The Built Form Policy promotes developments within Town Centre Areas to have an ‘active front’, providing interaction between the development and the street. While the roller shutters are closed, all visual connection and passive surveillance from the shopfront into public spaces is absent. As a result, the liveliness, interest, comfort and safety of the surrounding public spaces is reduced;

· The Western Australian Planning Commission’s Designing Out Crime Guidelines (the Guidelines) detail that active frontages have a positive impact on safety. The Guidelines advise that the inclusion of roller shutters could detract from the amenity of an area, resulting in an increase in the perception or fear of crime and that all other security measures should be investigated prior to introducing roller shutters. As the subject site is located within a Town Centre area, an active and engaging frontage is fundamental, but is lost as a result of the proposed roller shutters which may result in an increase in perception of crime within the area;

· The William Street streetscape is open in style with traditional shopfronts, large areas of glazing, alfresco and balconies. Administration conducted an audit for roller shutters within the William Street Design Guideline Area and following a site inspection it was found there was a total of seven tenancies with unauthorised roller shutters installed to street facing windows and doors. Four of the roller shutters were visually permeable and three visually impermeable;

· If approved, the proposal would set an undesirable precedence for roller shutters within the City. A precedent for further approvals could result in consolidated detrimental impact on the valued visual character of prominent arterial streets and Town Centres within the City.

Heritage Management

The subject site is identified as Heritage Management Category A. The Heritage Management Policy does not provide any specific acceptable development specifications for roller shutters or other security measures provided to heritage buildings. The Heritage Management Policy does require additions and alterations to not obscure any element that contributes to the significance of the place. The roller shutters when closed obscure the traditional shopfront windows and detract from the landscape quality of the place.

The City received comments during the community consultation that raised concerns in regards to adverse impacts to the heritage fabric of the building.

The applicant submitted written justification and a Heritage Impact Statement in support of the proposal, included as Attachment 3. The applicant considers that the roller shutters are not of a permanent nature and could be easily removed without damaging the façade of the building. The applicant has justified the roller shutters as being appropriate as they are not visible during operating hours and that the roller shutters do not interfere with the heritage brick façade nor any of the heritage aesthetics.

The proposed roller shutters do not meet the performance criteria of the Heritage Management Policy and are not acceptable development for the following reasons:

· The building is of Federation Free Classical style that has cultural significance for being a recognised landmark at the northern entry to the commercial area of Northbridge. The Statement of Significance of the place recognises the landmark significance of the heritage place. The roller shutters visually dominate the corner presentation of the heritage building and adversely detract from the landmark quality of the building that contributes to the significance of the place;

· The roller shutters provide a negative cultural heritage impact to the streetscape and presentation of the place, with the bulk of the roller shutters when closed, being visible from both street frontages. The roller shutters obscure the traditional shop front windows of the development and are not respectful of the existing fabric of the building;

· It is acknowledged that the roller shutters are completely reversible, being installed over timber framing and would provide little to no physical damage to the building; and

· The City’s DRP Heritage specialist has reviewed the proposal and concludes that the introduction of solid steel shutters to the external of the ground floor façade negatively impacts on the adjoining buildings and the surrounding context and negatively impacts on the assessed cultural heritage values for the subject site.

In relation to the subject sites State Heritage listing, comments received from the Heritage Council acknowledged that the roller shutters would have a negative cultural heritage impact to the streetscape and presentation of the place, but support the proposal as the development is reversible.

Other Legislation

Firearms in Western Australia are governed by the Firearms Act 1973 and the Firearms Regulations 1974 (Firearms Regulations). Regulation 11A of the Firearms Regulations is the relevant piece of legislation governing the safe storage of firearms. In accordance with Regulation 11A(2) firearms and ammunition are to be stored in a locked cabinet or container that meet relevant specifications as detailed in Schedule 4 of the Firearms Regulations. A copy of these requirements are included in Attachment 4.

Administration has reviewed the applicable specifications as well as the correspondence from the Western Australian Police Force and understands the context of why the roller shutters have been installed to satisfy the Firearms Regulations relevant requirements. Schedule 4 of the Firearms Regulations does not specifically require roller shutters as a form of safe storage of firearms, and allows for other alternative security measures to be considered.

While the roller shutters satisfy the requirements of the Firearms Regulations in relation to firearm storage, they do not satisfy the relevant requirements of the City’s Built Form Policy and William Street Design Guidelines as outlined above.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

9.5 Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas to include Guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street

Attachments: 1. Summary of Consultation Results - Mount Hawthorn ⇩

2. Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas - Amendment No. 4 - with tracked changes ⇩

3. Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas - Amendment No. 4 - without tracked changes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. PREPARES Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas included as Attachment 3 to include guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street, Mount Hawthorn pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of public consultation; and

2. NOTES that Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas will be advertised for a period of 28 days pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Purpose of Report:

To consider:

1. The results of preliminary consultation on the Character Retention Area in the Mount Hawthorn Precinct and the City’s draft Standard Character Provisions; and

2. Preparing Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas, to:

(a) Designate the nominated sections of The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street, Mount Hawthorn as a Character Retention Area; and

(b) Include a new Appendix 5 containing Development Guidelines for the new Character Retention Area.

Background:

The City introduced Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention and Heritage Areas in September 2015. This Policy allows local residents to nominate their street or local area to be included in the Policy as either a Character or Heritage Area and to introduce specific planning policy provisions to guide future development in the area.

Mount Hawthorn Nominations

In 2019, the City received three nominations from landowners in three streets in Mount Hawthorn requesting that these streets be considered as Character Retention Areas. These nominations received sufficient support from landowners (>40%) to proceed with the required process:

1. The Boulevarde – between Scarborough Beach Road and Anzac Road;

2. Kalgoorlie Street – between Ashby Street and Anzac Road; and

3. Buxton Street – between Anzac Road and Britannia Road.

These nominations were considered at the 23 April 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council. Given the close proximity of these streets, and the view that additional streets in this general locality also contain intact character buildings, the Council resolved to progress these nominations as one precinct, approaching it as a demonstration project that would address part of Corporate Business Plan item 5.5 to implement a proactive approach to character retention. In addition to the nominated areas, the City took the opportunity to invite the remainder of the nominated streets as well as the nearby streets that are still largely intact, including Matlock Street, Coogee Street and Seabrook Street, to be involved in the project.

Community Consultation

The City’s Administration undertook preliminary community consultation by way of a door knock and flyer delivery to all houses within the project area. Landowners were invited to attend a community forum held on 7 August 2019, which was attended by approximately 45 residents, the Mayor, Council Members and representatives from the City’s Administration. The session consisted of a presentation on character retention in the context of the demonstration project, a brief history of the Mount Hawthorn area, question and answer time and small group discussions.

The purpose of the session was to gauge the level of community support for character retention in the area and to identify which streetscape elements were considered by residents as most valuable. Following the forum, all residents in the project area were also invited to participate in an online survey.

Details:

Consultation Outcomes

Of those participants in attendance at the community forum, the following level of support for character retention was noted:

Support	65%
Objection	8%
Unsure	27%

Following the forum, residents in the project area were also invited to participate in an online survey, which indicated similar results as those presented at the workshop. The outcome of consultation combining feedback from the forum and the online survey for each street is summarised in Attachment 1.

While participation in initial consultation was low, it is clear that the majority of support for character retention was from residents within the nominated areas. A further nomination was received on 5 February 2020 to consider the portion of Matlock Street between Britannia Road and Anzac Road as a Character Retention Area.

The City then undertook character assessments of the nominated streets to ratify the findings of the community forum, with results detailed below.

The Boulevarde and Kalgoorlie Street (nominated areas)

The nominated portions of The Boulevarde (between Scarborough Beach Road and Anzac Road) and Kalgoorlie Street (between Ashby Street and Anzac Road) represent fine examples of early twentieth century Interwar streetscapes. The level of original façade detailing, form and roofscape results in a consistent streetscape. More detailed characteristics of these streets can be summarised as follows:

· The area is a relatively intact example of an early twentieth century residential development comprising good examples of modest, single storey dwellings constructed in the Interwar and California bungalow style of architecture;

· The overall form, style, height and selection of materials of the dwellings contribute to the uniformity of the streetscape, providing a consistent and coherent character;

· A high level of retained original detail including street facing verandahs, chimneys, windows and materials;

· Front setbacks are generally consistent, reinforcing the building edge, maintaining consistent pattern of development and allowing view lines along the fronts of dwellings;

· Front fences are low and or visually permeable with an absence of solid, obtrusive front fences; and

· New development is generally sympathetic to the form, bulk and scale of the original dwellings.

For these reasons, over 50 percent of the owners in these streets have requested the area be considered as a Character Retention Area.

Buxton Street (nominated area)

Buxton Street (between Anzac Road and Britannia Road) represents a street in transition. The street comprises original dwellings constructed in the early twentieth century, representative of the Interwar style of architecture alongside contemporary dwelling styles. More detailed characteristics can be summarised as follows:

· The overall form, style and height of the original dwellings are representative of the character of a modest Interwar streetscape, however uniformity has been somewhat compromised by the contemporary dwellings that are inconsistent in form and bulk;

· Front setbacks are generally consistent, reinforcing the building edge, maintaining consistent pattern of development and allowing view lines along the fronts of all dwellings, however recent new development has reduced setbacks; and

· Front fences are low and or visually permeable with an absence of solid, obtrusive front fences.

The nomination represents the interest of 61% of owners in support of Buxton Street being considered as a Character Retention Area.

Matlock Street (nominated area)

Matlock Street (between Anzac Road and Britannia Road) represents a highly intact early twentieth century Interwar streetscape. The level of original façade detailing, form and roofscape results in a consistent streetscape. More detailed characteristics of these streets can be summarised as follows:

· The area is a highly intact example of an early twentieth century residential streetscape comprising good examples of modest, single storey dwellings constructed in the Interwar and California bungalow style of architecture;

· The overall form, style, height and selection of materials of the dwellings contribute to the uniformity of the streetscape, providing a consistent and coherent character;

· A high level of retained original detail including street facing verandahs, chimneys, windows, decorative features and materials;

· Front setbacks are generally consistent, reinforcing the building edge, maintaining consistent pattern of development and allowing view lines along the fronts of dwellings;

· Front fences are low and/or visually permeable with an absence of solid, obtrusive front fences;

· Absence of carports in the front setback area maintain unobstructed views of the original dwellings; and

· New development is generally sympathetic to the form, bulk and scale of the original dwellings.

The nomination represents the interest of 69% (9 of 13) of landowners in support of Matlock Street (between Anzac Road and Britannia Road) being considered as a Character Retention Area.

Draft Guidelines

Since there was little support for including Coogee Street and Seabrook Street in a Character Retention Area, the proposed Amendment No. 4 only includes the nominated streets.

Administration has prepared draft guidelines that would apply to the nominated portions of The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street. The guideline provisions reflect the prevailing character of the streets and aim to protect the elements identified as valuable to landowners and the streetscape. The Guidelines include variations to the deemed to comply provisions of the R-Codes where permitted. The draft guidelines are contained within the policy amendment at Attachment 3.

The outcome of the preliminary consultation identified 10 general elements/characteristics that are considered most valuable in all of the nominated streets. The following elements have been addressed in the draft guidelines as follows:

Character element identified at community workshop	Guideline provision
Low front fences providing openness and potential for interaction.	Clause 6 – Street Walls and Fence
Setbacks that are consistent and provide for generous front gardens.	Clause 1 – Street Setbacks
Materials that are in keeping with the existing housing stock.	Clause 7 – General Building Design
Front verandahs for aesthetic appeal and potential for casual interactions and street surveillance.	Clause 5 – Street surveillance
Consistent roof pitches when visible from the street.	Clause 7 – General Building Design
Bulk and scale of new development consistent with existing character dwellings.	Clause 7 – General Building Design
Single storey presentation to street.	Clause 1 – Street setbacks
Low impact carports (no garages).	Clause 4 – Setbacks of Garages and Carports
Front windows that address the street.	Clause 10 – General Building Design
A mix in housing stock and architectural diversity that compliments the existing character.	Clause 10 – General Building Design

The Guidelines are proposed to be included as Appendix 5 of Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention and will apply to all dwellings within the designated portion of The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street. The above 10 elements are the key focus of the proposed Guidelines.

Consultation/Advertising:

If draft Amendment No. 4 is approved by Council for consultation it will be advertised for 28 days in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation. This will include:

· Written notification to landowners in the affected area;

· Written notification to landowners in the remaining streets within the ‘demonstration project area’;

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

· Notice on the City’s website; and

· An information session with landowners in the proposed Character Areas.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

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

· Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· Local Planning Policy 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas and Heritage Areas; and

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is considered a low risk to propose an amendment to the Local Planning Policy for the purpose of advertising.

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.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of advertising and implementing this proposal will be met through the existing operational budget.

Comments:

In considering the character retention nominations and any feedback received during the initial consultation phase, it is recommended that Administration proceed with character retention in the nominated areas by way of advertising the draft Guidelines (Appendix 5 of Local Planning Policy 7.5.15 – Character Retention and Heritage Areas) contained in Attachment 3.

The level of initial support for character retention by way of the nominations demonstrates a strong interest in preserving the character of these streets, despite the relatively low participation rates during the subsequent community forum and online survey. Proceeding with advertising the draft Guidelines will provide an opportunity for the initial nominations to be realised and the potential for improved development outcomes to retain the existing character in the nominated portion of The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street.

On this basis, Administration requests Council to initiate formal consultation of Policy No. 7.5.15 – Character Retention Areas pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Following the formal advertising period, the outcome of consultation will be reported to Council with a recommendation relating to the adoption of final Character Retention Guidelines.

Following the final adoption of the Character Retention Guidelines for the nominated streets, the guidelines will be used to progress item 5.5 of the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19, to implement a proactive approach to character retention. This process is still to be refined but generally would incorporate advertising of the guidelines and the proposed Character Retention Area in Mount Hawthorn to demonstrate the implications and positive outcomes the policy can achieve.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

9.6 Comment on draft WAPC Position Statement: Special Entertainment Precincts and DWER Consultation Paper

Attachments: 1. City of Vincent Submission - Planning for Entertainment Noise in the Northbridge Area November 2018 ⇩

2. WAPC Draft Position Statement - Special Entertainment Precincts November 2019 ⇩

3. DWER Consultation Paper - Managing Amplified Noise in Entertainment Precincts November 2019 ⇩

4. City of Vincent Submission February 2020 - WAPC Special Entertainment Precincts ⇩

5. City of Vincent Submission February 2020 - DWER Managing Noise in Entertainment Precincts ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ENDORSES Attachments 4 and 5 as the City of Vincent’s submissions in response to the Western Australian Planning Commission’s draft Position Statement: Special Entertainment Precincts and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s Managing Amplified Music Noise in Entertainment Precincts Consultation Paper, respectively; and

2. NOTES the City will forward the submissions to the Western Australian Planning Commission and Department of Water and Environmental Regulation.

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing the City’s submission on the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) draft Position Statement: Special Entertainment Precincts and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation’s (DWER) Managing Amplified Music Noise in Entertainment Precincts Consultation Paper.

Background:

In September 2018 the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage sought comment on a Consultation Paper – Planning for Entertainment Noise in the Northbridge Area. The September 2018 paper explored six key reform areas as follows:

· Agent of change – A principle that sees primary responsibility for sound attenuation in buildings resting with the party that is making changes to the environment, such as new development and redevelopment, and would apply to both noise sensitive and noise emitting developments;

· Special Control Areas (SCA) in Local Planning Schemes - Designation of a SCA will apply special planning controls to protect the health and amenity of residents and the viability of entertainment venues; and maintain the special character of the entertainment precinct;

· Noise Impact Assessments - Planning proposals for new noise emitting and noise receiving developments are required to undertake a noise assessment to determine the level of noise to be attenuated through design and construction measures;

· Construction Standards - Planning proposals for new noise emitting and noise receiving developments are required to demonstrate how construction and design will achieve acoustic attenuation to comply with the standards set in Noise Regulations;

· Notice on title – Requirement for notice on title for all approved planning proposals affected by entertainment noise; and

· Amendments to Noise Regulations - Indoor areas protected only (with doors and windows closed). This is in contrast to the existing principles of the Environmental Protection Act 1986, where the noise emitter, for example a live music venue, is responsible for ensuring sound levels received at a noise sensitive premises, such as a residence comply with the requirements of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Noise Regulations).

The City provided a submission on the discussion paper in November 2018 supporting the State Government’s intention to further investigate options to better manage land use conflict and amplified music noise in entertainment precincts. This included requesting the Department to ensure an outcome that is scientifically robust and appropriately balances the desire to support existing and future entertainment venues whilst adequately managing the noise impacts on sensitive land uses. The City’s submission on this paper is included as Attachment 1.

The WAPC has since reviewed all comments received and produced a draft Position Statement: Special Entertainment Precincts. A special entertainment precinct is proposed to comprise a diverse mix of land uses, including entertainment venues, which contribute to an active night-time economy. This document was released in November 2019 and a copy is included as Attachment 2. The draft position statement no longer aligns with the agent of change principle and instead it sets out the WAPC’s position on how entertainment precincts could be designated as SCAs in a local planning scheme.

To complement the WAPC’s draft position statement, DWER has concurrently released the ‘Managing Amplified Music Noise in Entertainment Precincts’ Consultation Paper. A copy of the document in included as Attachment 3. The paper provides three options and/or proposed changes to the Noise Regulations that may be required to facilitate the implementation of the draft position statement from the WAPC. The State Government are currently seeking comments on both documents.

Details:

A summary of the key proposals in each document is included below.

1. WAPC Position Statement

Key Proposals

The draft Position Statement provides guidance to local governments to better manage land use conflicts and amplified music noise in entertainment precincts through a local planning scheme. It is suggested that this be done through a scheme amendment to introduce a special control area (SCA).

In order to support the establishment of a special control area, the following material is likely to be required:

· a robust problem definition statement, including current noise levels and any entertainment noise-related complaints;

· evidence of consultation with the local community and adjoining/impacted local governments;

· demonstration of a significant night time economy supported by an economic assessment;

· evidence of an established strategic vision for the precinct, including the existing and/or intended land use mix and the potential for future entertainment venue development; and

· specific performance criteria, development requirements and/ or guidance to be applied to development through a local planning scheme, redevelopment scheme or local planning policy.

These matters would be addressed by the proponent for such an amendment which could be the local government or an applicant. The position statement will guide the WAPC’s decisions regarding proposed scheme amendments to introduce SCAs. It does not require SCAs to be prepared or provide guidance on where they may be appropriate.

The designation of a SCA/special entertainment precinct would address the likes of the following:

· Establishment of a maximum amplified music level for entertainment noise. This would be measured at street-level, rather than at a receiver (i.e. residence);

· A requirement that new ‘noise-sensitive’ developments (e.g. residential) be planned, designed and constructed to achieve a set level of ‘building transmission loss’ to achieve a maximum internal noise level. No noise level would apply to external areas;

· Conversely, new noise emitting premises (e.g. entertainment venues) would need to be designed and constructed to ensure compliance with the set amplified music noise level is achieved;

· Existing entertainment venues emitting amplified sound would need to ensure compliance with the set amplified music level of the special control area;

· The special control area would contain requirements for a noise assessment to be undertaken for all new development. These assessments would determine the attenuation measures necessary and would be prepared by a qualified acoustic consultant; and

· A Section 70A Notification would be included as a condition of development approval for all new noise-sensitive premises, informing prospective buyers/owners of the likelihood of higher noise levels within the precinct.

Key Comments

Any change to the City’s Local Planning Scheme of this nature would require significant investigation to determine whether any location was suitable, and subsequently undertaking a noise study to establish an appropriate sound level for that location. A change of this nature in the City’s scheme would shift the responsibility of establishing suitable sound levels from the State Government to Local Government. This represents a significant shift, which has not been accounted for, in workload and responsibility to Local Government taking on the regulatory burden and responsibility that currently lies with the State Government.

The City would like to work with the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations to address the following matters prior to finalising the position statement:

	Matter	Recommendation
1.	The initial paper by the WAPC sought to protect established live music venues in line with the principles of Creative WA, however the proposed changes have been developed to cater to large entertainment precincts with a high concentration of entertainment venues (namely Northbridge). It seemingly fails to accommodate for isolated but significant local venues which cannot reasonably be considered to represent entertainment precincts, but which nevertheless contribute significantly to the cultural economy and provide for local activity and diversity.	That the Commission, in consultation with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations, undertake further investigation to establish a suitable option that balances the needs of supporting dispersed but culturally and economically significant live entertainment venues, with the needs of noise sensitive receivers in their locality.
2.	The position statement fails to address the conflict(s) that will exist where noise sensitive land uses are constructed or are already existing adjacent to a special control area. In the City of Vincent’s case, the proposed special control area of the City of Perth (Northbridge) directly abuts residents of Vincent along Newcastle Street. It is not clear how this would be managed.	That the Commission, in consultation with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations, investigate this conflict and provide a suitable solution prior to progressing with the position statement or amendments to the Noise Regulations. This includes providing guidance on investigation and enforcement with respect to cross boundary jurisdiction.
3.	The proposed approach will mean that existing noise sensitive premises within a designated entertainment precinct may experience higher than desirable noise levels. As the paper states, it is unlikely that these buildings have been adequately constructed or attenuated to accommodate for the higher sound levels of the precinct with any remediation costs to fall with the Owner.	That the City request the Commission engage with the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations to provide guidance as to how this may adequately be addressed.
4.	There is insufficient information to identify what support, if any, is proposed to be provided to Local Government in establishing set external sound levels of an entertainment precinct.	Recommended to provide support to Local Government to ensure a level of consistent implementation.
5.	The National Construction Code (NCC) outlines requirements for attenuating buildings. The Planning and Development Act outlines that Building standards prevail. Where a proposal needs to be attenuated to a high standard in accordance with a Local Planning Scheme how can the City require that the high standard be maintained when the requirements of the NCC are lesser.	Consideration and commentary regarding the NCC and how Local Government can require a higher standard of noise attenuation than that offered in the NCC.
6.	Establishing a special control area/entertainment precinct in a local planning scheme would require significant time and costs for the City.	As there is shift of roles/responsibilities from State to Local Government the City requests comment from the Department as to whether opportunities will be presented to seek grants or funding to undertake this work.

2. DWER Managing Amplified Music Noise

Key Proposals

To complement the draft position statement, the DWER Consultation Paper sets out three reform options, to provide for entertainment venues to exceed the assigned (prescribed) noise levels in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (Noise Regulations).

The current framework for regulation of noise is through the Environmental Protection Act 1986 and the Noise Regulations and is designed to protect the health and amenity of receivers, while still allowing for some activities that cannot reasonably and practicably meet noise limits (such as temporary sporting, cultural and entertainment events). The Noise Regulations set out levels that are permitted to be received by particular land uses (i.e. residential, commercial, industrial) at particular times of day. The responsibility for compliance with acceptable noise levels rests with the generator of the noise, irrespective of which use was first established. The Regulations are currently administered by Local Government.

The paper provides three options to complement the proposed planning approach, for the management of amplified music in entertainment precincts, summarised below.

Option 1 – ‘Status Quo’.

This option involves no amendment to the Noise Regulations, with Local Government continuing to manage noise complaints as they already do. Protection for all noise sensitive receivers remains, land use planning conflicts may persist and noise emitters remain responsible for compliance with the Noise Regulations. In the context of an entertainment precinct, should a noise complaint be justified, a venue may be required to alter the way it conducts its business to comply with the Noise Regulations. As the paper outlines, the State Government is committed to exploring reforms to support live music and entertainment venues in WA. It is considered that Option 1 will not easily facilitate progress as land use conflicts may remain in areas trying to strike a balance between residential and commercial uses. As reforms to manage these issues has not yet occurred, the City has an existing Sound Attenuation Policy (7.5.21) which provides a clear framework to minimise the adverse impacts of noise for the sustainable co-existence of a mix of land uses within the City. As a guiding document, the policy has provided better outcomes for new developments in areas where higher sound levels can be expected. It is worth noting, the City experiences a low number of noise complaints associated with encroaching land uses. It is considered the Policy has played an important role in effectively managing this, in the context of new developments.

Option 2 – ‘agent of change principle and indoor assigned levels’.

If implemented, this option would require that the person or business responsible for a new development in an entertainment precinct, would bear the cost associated with the protection of noise-sensitive receivers (primarily residents). New entertainment venues would also have to design and construct their premises sufficiently to implement noise attenuation measures at their business and control sound. Furthermore, it proposes to set indoor sound levels as the basis for assessment against the Noise Regulations (note: the current Noise Regulations set outside sound level limits). This principle was the basis for the initial consultation paper released by the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage in 2018 (Attachment 1). It was intended to provide protection for existing live music venues, from encroaching noise sensitive (residential) development. This option presents implementation and enforcement issues, a lack certainty for entertainment venues and provides no meaningful consideration to existing noise sensitive receivers (i.e. residents). For these reasons, the City does not support this option.

Option 3 – ‘special entertainment precincts’.

The draft position statement by WAPC does not (and indeed cannot) change the provisions currently contained within the Noise Regulations. Option 3 is a proposal to amend the Noise Regulations to complement the position statement. As detailed above, a local planning scheme would set a capped external amplified music level for an Entertainment Precinct. Entertainment Venues within the precinct would then be able to apply for an approval to exceed the existing assigned noise levels in the Noise Regulations.

These are proposed to be called ‘Venue Approvals’ and will be provided on an ‘opt-in’ basis only. It is intended that these approvals would be assessed and granted by the relevant local government CEO, and any approval would be subject to operational conditions and might also be time-limited. Venue approvals will generally be issued in accordance with the external amplified music level identified in the special control area. All venues which are not subject to these special approvals will continue to be assessed based on the existing assigned levels set out in the Regulations.

The implications to noise sensitive receivers includes:

· Existing noise sensitive receivers (i.e. residences) in a special entertainment precinct are unlikely to be appropriately acoustically treated to attenuate for the external amplified sound levels set within the planning scheme. These sound levels in the scheme will be higher than those in the Noise Regulations. Subsequently these residents may experience higher than desirable noise levels. The costs of retro-fitting a building would likely be imposed on the owner;

· For all new residential development in a special entertainment precinct, protection from the external amplified music levels would be limited to indoor living spaces only. Residents would not be able to expect quiet noise levels with windows and doors open or in external areas of their properties i.e. balconies/yards;

· For developers, it will provide certainty when or if they are considering development in a special entertainment precinct as a new standard for the design and construction of a building will be clearly set out. This will be represented in the scheme and be directly to the external amplified music noise level in the local planning scheme; and

· The constructions costs of development in a special entertainment precinct are likely to increase due to the attenuation measures (such as ‘winter gardens’, glazing, acoustic baffling and slab thickness) necessary to meet the scheme requirements.

Outcomes for entertainment venues who obtain a Venue Approval under the Noise Regulations includes:

· There would be increased certainty for a business’s operations (as management and control measures will be set out in the venue approval). Should the entertainment venue be successful in obtaining a venue approval and maintain compliance with that approval, their operations would be exempt from meeting compliance with the assigned levels as stipulated in the Noise Regulations;

· Venue approvals will effectively be ‘capped’ at the level set in the scheme, to future proof the area for a given level of noise.

The paper states that the City of Perth is currently contemplating a precinct based approach for Northbridge, given the area has been subject of significant deliberation, modelling and research for almost two decades. The Northbridge precinct contains 58 identified entertainment venues and is generally regarded as Perth’s premier entertainment precinct. The City of Perth has assigned a noise level of up to 95 decibels (dB) for the core entertainment area and up to 79 decibels (dB) for the surrounding fringe area. The sound level of 95dB is typical of that experienced by residential properties close to a venue hosting a rock concert or the equivalent of a ‘factory floor’. In establishing these standards, the City of Perth has acknowledged that attenuating sound levels of this magnitude (particularly in the core area) would render most residential development unviable.

It is worth noting an external amplified sound level at 79dB (@63Hz) is the effective limit to protect health and amenity of the occupants of new residential developments in an entertainment precinct through building and construction standards without becoming financially or practically restrictive.

Any application of the proposed reforms discussed in either paper in other locations such as the City of Vincent, would require thorough technical examination of the issue as well properly quantifying the economic, financial and amenity impacts of such changes. In addition, it will be crucial to undertake meaningful communication and consultation with all affected parties.

Key Comments

The City would like to work with the Western Australian Planning Commission and the Department of Water and Environmental Regulations to address the following matters prior to progressing with any proposed reforms of the Noise Regulations:

	Matter	Recommendation
1.	The paper does not provide details on what a Venue Approval may look like with regard to conditions (such as will a venue approval be time limited? what type of conditions can be applied?).	The City would request the Department consult with all relevant stakeholder prior to a decision being made.
2.	There is limited information in the paper on whether an amendment to the Noise Regulation would enable a venue to emit higher sound levels (in the prescribed area) that those set in a local planning scheme.	The City considers that this should be clarified, to ensure applications for a Venue Approval are made in line with the set sound levels in the local planning scheme.
3.	Will applicants (of a Venue Approval in a special entertainment precinct) have the ability to make an appeal to a condition of approval, namely the capped sound level of the precinct?	To clarify, the City considers this would be counterproductive to the intent of an established special entertainment precinct.
4.	The consultation paper fails to address the conflict(s) that will exist where noise sensitive land uses are constructed or are already existing adjacent to a special control area. In the City of Vincent’s case, the proposed special control area of the City of Perth (Northbridge) directly abuts residents of Vincent along Newcastle Street. It is not clear how this would be managed.	That the Department, in consultation with the WAPC investigate this conflict and provide a suitable solution prior to progressing with the position statement or amendments to the Noise Regulations. This includes providing guidance on investigation and enforcement with respect to cross boundary jurisdiction.
5.	In combination with the draft position statement of the WAPC, the implementation of Option 3 will likely see existing noise sensitive premises within a designated entertainment precinct experience higher than desirable noise levels. It is unlikely that these buildings have been adequately constructed or attenuated to accommodate for the higher sound levels of the precinct with any remediation costs to fall with the Owner.	That the City request the Department, in consultation with the WAPC further investigate this issue to provide guidance as to how this may adequately be addressed.
6.	The proposed reforms seemingly fail to address cumulative noise from multiple venues next to each other. Further the impact when new venues are established in an entertainment precinct.	That the Department investigate this issue and propose a resolution to adequately address and manage the impacts.
7.	Whilst there is a proposal to consider placing a Notification on Title for landowners in a special entertainment precinct (as a mitigation/control measure), it must be acknowledged that such notifications will only apply to new development and in any event, is often only effective on Owner-Occupier dwellings. In the City’s experience, tenants are often not made aware of such issues prior to occupying a dwelling.	It is recommended that additional measures are also pursued to ensure existing and future residents are made aware of the noise, the potential scale of impact on amenity, what can be expected and any processes for recourse.
8.	With reference to the enforcement of a venue approval, that the penalties for non-compliance be proportionate to the offence, having regard to the flexibility already afforded to those Venues.	The City supports proportional enforcement options should a breach of a venue approval exist. For clarity, the City considers that a breach of a condition of venue approval should be consistent with a Tier 2 offence of the Environmental Protection Act 1986.

Consultation/Advertising:

The closing date for submissions on the WAPC draft position statement and the DWER consultation paper is 14 February 2020.

Legal/Policy:

· Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

· Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

· Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for the City to prepare a submission on the WAPC draft position statement for Special Entertainment Precincts and the DWER consultation paper.

Strategic Implications:

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

Thriving Places

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

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:

There are no financial implications relating to making a submission on the draft position statement or consultation paper. However, the establishment of an Entertainment Special Control Area/s within the City of Vincent would require specialist modelling and assessment of economic and acoustic impacts which will require adequate resourcing and consultancy budget.

Comments:

The City supports the intent behind the proposed reforms to better protect the ongoing vitality of entertainment precincts within Western Australia. The changes have particular relevance to Vincent given the City’s strong desire to have a vibrant 24-hour city, the prevalence of existing entertainment music venues in our Town Centres, along with the City’s strategic desire to see an increase in residential accommodation within these areas. The Leederville Town Centre and the Jazz Precinct planned as part of the Arts Development Action Plan 2018-2020 are opportune areas where a SCA could be considered.

Whilst highly practical to do so in Northbridge, where there is a high concentration of entertainment venues in a single locality, the creation of a similar special entertainment precinct for Vincent is complicated by the dispersed nature of entertainment land uses. Designating one area of the CBD as an ‘entertainment precinct’ subject to relaxed noise regulations may have the unintended consequence of clustering entertainment land uses in a single area. This in turn could have undesired implications for land use diversity in Town Centres or the like. If the City were to pursue a special entertainment precinct for Vincent, its extent would need to be carefully considered not only to factor into account existing venues but to consider the desired future land use mix and character of Vincent.

The issue at hand is inherently complex and has the ability to impact both an important local industry and a significant number of residents. The City supports the intent of the draft position statement by WAPC on Special Entertainment Precincts but notes that any changes to the Noise Regulations needs to be balanced to ensure it is supported by extensive scientific research to ensure the wellbeing of affected residents is not unduly compromised.

It is recommended Council endorse the City’s proposed submissions for the reasons detailed above and note the queries and concerns raised for which a response has been requested (Attachment 4 and 5).

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

10 Infrastucture & Environment

10.1 Tender No. 575/19 Banks Reserve 'Active Zone' Construction

Attachments: 1. Evaluation Worksheet - RFT No. 575-19 - Banks Reserve Active Zone Construction - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Phase 3 Landscape Construction for Tender No. 575/19 to undertake the Banks Reserve ‘Active Zone’ construction;

2. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the reallocation of $60,000 within the 2019/20 Public Open Space Implementation capital works budget to the Banks Reserve Masterplan Implementation Stage 1 capital works budget to enable completion of the ‘Banks Reserve’ Active Zone; and

3. NOTES the following budget adjustments to facilitate 2. above:

	From	To
Existing Budget Item: Public Open Space Implementation capital works budget (Capex)	$60,000
Existing Budget Item: Banks Reserve Masterplan Implementation Stage 1 capital works budget (Capex)		$60,000

Purpose of Report:

To report to Council the outcome of the assessment for Tender No. 575/19 and to recommend acceptance of the tenderer and reallocation of funding from the 2019/20 capital works budget to enable completion of the project.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 5 March 2019 the Council adopted the Banks Reserve Masterplan of which construction of the ‘active zone’ was an integral component and listed as part of Stage 1 of the Masterplan implementation.

Subsequently, an amount of $500,000 was included in the 2019/20 capital budget to undertake the construction of the active zone as part of the total Banks Reserve Stage 1 Implementation budget of $687,000.

Details:

Tender Advertising

The allocated budget for the project was initially listed at $500,000. As the budget for the project exceeds $250,000, Policy No.1.2.3 Purchasing requires an open tender process.

Under CEO Delegation 1.19, the Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment approved the Procurement Plan which included the following Evaluation Criteria:

Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
Relevant Experience Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Relevant Experience” a) Provide details of similar projects undertaken including scope of the tenderers involvement and confirming successful completion of the project.	40%
Demonstrated Understanding of the Project Tenderers must provide the following information in an attachment and label it “Demonstrated Understanding” a) A project delivery plan including key stages and timelines. b) General site operation procedures/plans. c) Site safety procedures including measures to ensure public safety. d) Traffic management procedures/plans	30%
Key Personnel Skills and Experience Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Key Personnel and Experience” a) Their role in the delivery of the contract. b) Qualifications with particular emphasis on experience of personnel in projects of similar size and scope.	20%
Environmental Responsibility Tenderers must address the following information in an attachment and label it “Environmental Responsibility” a) Provide details of your organisation’s environmental policy and/or practices which manage or reduce the impact on the environment. b) Offer details of any initiatives for this project that would support the sustainability objectives of the Principal and assist them to achieve environmental targets 1. (e.g. use of recycled construction products, recovery/recycling of site waste)	10%
TOTAL	100%

The Request for Tender (RFT) No. 575/19 was publically advertised in the West Australian on 27 November 2019 and invited submissions until Wednesday 18 December 2019.

At the close of the advertising period, six tender submissions were received from the following companies:

· D.B. Cunningham Pty Ltd t/a Advanteering Civil Engineering

· Environmental Industries Pty Ltd

· Landscape Elements

· Menchetti Consolidated Pty Ltd

· Phase 3 Landscape Construction

· Total Eden Pty Ltd

Tender Assessment

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

Title	Role
Manager Parks	Chair - Voting
Assets Officer - Projects	Voting
Community Projects Officer – Leisure Planner	Voting
Procurement Officer	Non-voting

Evaluation

A summary table for each compliant tenderer is provided below. A full outline of the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria for each tenderer and pricing is contained within Confidential Attachment 1.

Company	Qualitative Score/100	Ranking
Environmental Industries Pty Ltd	83	1
Advanteering Civil Engineering	80	2
Phase 3 Landscape Construction	80	2
Total Eden Pty Ltd	76	3
Landscape Elements	76	3
Menchetti Construction Pty Ltd	71	4

Based on the evaluation panel discussion the submission from Environmental Industries was the highest ranked submission against the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria. All tenderers have shown in their submission that they have the capacity to deliver on this project with the evaluation panel agreeing that all submissions were of a very high standard.

Once the tenders were ranked on the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria, the evaluation panel made a value judgement as to the cost affordability, qualitative ranking and risk of each Tender in order to determine which Tender presented the best value for money to the City. The Tender considered to present to present the best value for money to the City is the one submitted by Phase 3 Landscape Construction.

Consultation/Advertising:

The RFT was advertised in the West Australian on 27 November 2019 and on both the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 27 November and 18 December 2019.

Legal/Policy:

The RFT was prepared and advertised in accordance with the City’s Purchasing protocols: Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing. Pursuant to section 2.7(2)(a) of the Local Government Act 1995 (Act) Council’s role includes to oversee the allocation of the local government’s finances and resources. Therefore it is necessary for Council to approve the reallocation of funds within the budget. Section 6.2(1) of the Act provides that the adoption of a budget requires an absolute majority decision of Council.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium The Banks Reserve Master Plan has been prepared based on comprehensive site planning and a thorough community consultation process.

All required services checks will be undertaken and all relevant safety/site plans completed, submitted and endorsed prior to on-ground works commencing.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

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

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Sensitive Design

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The Banks Reserve Masterplan aligns with the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2011-2016 as follows:

“6. Re-establish, conserve and enhance floral and faunal biodiversity, native vegetation, green spaces and green linkages within the City.

As part of the construction for the Banks Reserve ‘active zone’ all tenderers have been required to provide details of any initiatives that would support sustainability objectives of the City and assist in achieving environmental targets.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with this contract would be met from the City’s 2019/20 capital budget item, Banks Reserve Masterplan Implementation Stage 1 of which $500,000 had been originally allocated for this component of Stage 1 of the implementation plan. The lump sum price of the recommended contractor has come in over the allocated sum.

The evaluation panel have assessed the cost of individual components of the project, however cannot specifically identify any one component or various components of the project that could be omitted to reduce the total price without compromising the overall design.

Therefore, it is recommended that an additional $60,000 (with an allowance of up to $10,000 contingency variations) be reallocated from the Public Open Space Implementation budget to successfully complete this significant upgrade to Banks Reserve.

Comments:

The submission from Phase 3 Landscape Construction complies with all the tender requirements, was well presented and included all the relevant attachments. The Evaluation Panel deemed the response to be credible, demonstrating excellent capability and capacity to undertake the requirements of this project.

Reference checks were conducted for Phase 3 Landscape Construction by contacting three other organisations. Referees were satisfied with Phase 3’s performance on their delivery in undertaking similar projects.

The Evaluation Panel recommends that Phase 3 Landscape Construction be accepted for Tender No. 575/19 as they presented the best overall value for money for the City.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

11 Community & Business Services

11.1 Financial Statements as at 30 November 2019

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 30 November 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 30 November 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 30 November 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 almost on par with the budgeted revenue with a slight favourable variance of $20,106 (0.02%). There are no material variances that contribute to this position.

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking favourably against the budgeted revenue by $94,861 (0.2%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $113,448 due to an increase in revenue collected from Rates.

Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $1,607,632 (6.3%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· Under-spend of $609,669 mainly contributed by the timing of works relating to recycling waste and bulk verge collection activities (Community Amenities);

· Under-spend of $196,370 mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to Council election costs and vacant positions in the Customer Service area (Governance);

· Under-spend of $313,628 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within building maintenance and grounds maintenance works with major maintenance not required as yet (Recreation and culture); and

· Under-spend of $279,450 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works relating to parks maintenance and street lighting (Transport).

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $1,601,831 (6.2%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $1,375,057. This variance is largely contributed by a timing variance of works within multiple service areas as stated above, resulting in a cumulative under-spend;

· Utility charges reflects an under-spend of $130,514 due to a timing variance of utility related invoices; and

· Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $361,286 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 surplus position brought forward to 2019/20 is $5,811,178.

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 30 November 2019 is $13,384,727.

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 30 November 2019 is $10,012,403 including deferred rates ($122,230) and excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 66)

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 30 November 2019 are $2,624,446, of which $1,931,644 relates to outstanding debtors. 93% 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:

· $1,846,798 (94%) 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 of $186,666 has been calculated for doubtful debts in accordance to the new requirements of the changes in the Accounting standards.

In addition, $971,183 has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion). A provisional amount of $196,072 has been calculated as doubtful debts for this non-current portion.

· $165,879 (8.9%) 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 30 November 2019, the operating surplus for the centre is $222,679 compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $262,230.

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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

11.2 Investment Report as at 30 November 2019

Attachments: 1. Investment Report November 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

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

Background:

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

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

· Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

· Investment portfolio data;

· Investment interest earnings; and

· Current investment holdings.

Details:

The City’s investment portfolio is diversified across several accredited financial institutions.

As at 30 November 2019, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $46,118,236 compared to $44,188,761 for the period ending 30 November 2018.

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 30 November 2019 is $36,123,083 compared to last year’s amount of $42,678,504. 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	$46,118,236	$36,123,083
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 30 November 2019 is:

	Annual Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$420,000	$175,000	$148,215	84.69%
Reserve	$278,688	$116,120	$123,506	106.36%
Sub-total	$698,688	$291,120	$271,721	93.34%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$46,605	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 1.81% for current investments including the operating account and 1.91% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for November 2019 is 0.91%.

Sustainable Investments

The City’s Investment Policy states that preference “is to be given to investments with institutions that have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions”. Administration currently uses Marketforces.org.au to assist in assessing whether a bank promotes non-investments in fossil fuel related entities.

As at 30 November 2019, $8,708,290 (18.9%) 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 in the table below.

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Direct Investments Maximum % with any one institution		Managed Funds Maximum % with any one institution		Maximum % of Total Portfolio
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	28.5%	30%	Nil	90%	60.7%
A1	25%	1.7%	30%	Nil	80%	1.7%
A2	20%	20.5%*	n/a	Nil	60%	37.6%

* 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 November 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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

11.4 Financial Statements as at 31 December 2019

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 31 December 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 December 2019.

Background:

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 31 December 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	6-55
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule	56-63
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	64
7.	Rating Information and Graph	65-66
8.	Debtors Report	67
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	68

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

Revenue by Program is tracking under the budgeted revenue amount by $850,753 (7.1%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An unfavourable variance of $119,619 due to a timing variance in the processing of receipts for income relating to Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and Culture).

· An unfavourable variance of $655,060 due to a timing variance in the processing of receipts amounting to $400,000 for income relating to parking fees, infringement and fines (Transport).

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking under the budgeted revenue by $1,022,067 (2.1%).

An unfavourable variance of $776,356 due to a timing variance in the processing of receipts for income relating to Beatty Park, parking fees, infringements and fines (Fees and Charges).

Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $2,766,046 (8.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An under-spend of $1,271,532 mainly contributed by the timing of works relating to waste collection and the delivery of operating projects within Policy and place, resulting in a cumulative under-spend (Community Amenities);

· Under-spend of $198,205 mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to Council election costs and vacant positions in the Customer Service area (Governance);

· Under-spend of $652,552 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within multiple service areas resulting in a cumulative under-spend (Recreation and culture); and

· Under-spend of $290,491 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works relating to parks maintenance and street lighting (Transport).

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $2,778,812 (8.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $2,348,714. This variance is mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within the following areas:

· Waste collection Service - $550,000 underspent;

· Building and ground maintenance - $300,000 underspent; and

· Operating initiative projects within multiple areas - $ 650,000 underspent

· Utility charges reflects an under-spend of $144,828 due to a timing variance relating to utility invoices; and

· Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $433,221 largely contributed by a timing variance of works within multiple service areas resulting in a cumulative under-spend.

All accounts with an under-spend or over-spend will be reviewed and adjusted accordingly during the mid-year budget review.

Surplus Position – 2019/20

The surplus position brought forward to 2019/20 is $5,811,178 as per the City’s 2018/19 audited financials. The current closing position is $23,984,684, this is a favourable position ($4,322,319) compared to the budget.

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 Comprehensive Income 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 – 55)

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 56 - 63)

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

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 64)

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 December 2019 is $9,166,639.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 65 - 66)

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:

	Due Date
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 December 2019 is $8,831,698 including deferred rates ($105,250) and excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 67)

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 31 December 2019 are $2,604,714, of which $1,959,159 relates to outstanding debtors. 94% of the outstanding debtors balance is over 90 days.

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

· $1,807,556 (94%) 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.

$971,183 of this amount has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion). Due to the aged nature of some of the unpaid infringements, a provisional amount of $186,666 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the current portion (within 12 months) and a provisional amount of $196,072 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the non-current portion (greater than 12 months). This treatment is in accordance to the new requirements of the changes in the Accounting standards (AASB 9).

· $165,354 (8.7%) 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 68)

As at 31 December 2019, the operating surplus for the centre is $114,445 compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $197,565.

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

In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 31 December 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.

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

Risk Management Implications:

Low: Provision of monthly financial reports 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.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

11.5 Investment Report as at 31 December 2019

Attachments: 1. Investment Report December 2019 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 December 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 December 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 December 2019, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $38,557,295 compared to $40,977,846 for the period ending 31 December 2018.

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 31 December 2019 is $34,633,796 compared to last year’s amount of $38,633,796. The total term deposit amount has reduced compared to last year for cash flow management purposes to cover for major payments in December 2019 and January 2020 respectively.

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	$46,118,236	$36,123,083
December	$40,977,846	$38,667,039	$38,557,295	$34,633,796
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 December 2019 is:

	Annual Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	% of YTD Budget
Municipal	$420,000	$210,000	$162,493	77.38%
Reserve	$278,688	$139,344	$125,252	89.89%
Sub-total	$698,688	$349,344	$287,745	82.37%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$55,391	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 1.99% for current investments including the operating account and 1.87% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for December 2019 is 0.90%.

Sustainable Investments

As at 31 December 2019, $8,708,290 (22.6%) 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 in the table below.

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Direct Investments Maximum % with any one institution		Managed Funds Maximum % with any one institution		Maximum % of Total Portfolio
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	32.8%*	30%	Nil	90%	55.6%
A1	25%	2.1%	30%	Nil	80%	2.1%
A2	20%	21.8%*	n/a	Nil	60%	42.4%

* The maximum allowable position with an A-1+ (Westpac Bank) and A-2 accredited institution (Bank of Queensland) has exceeded the threshold. This is because the total investment closing balance at the end of December has decreased compared to when the investments were undertaken resulting in an increase in the portfolio percentage i.e. inversely proportional relationship.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

The power to invest is governed by the Local Government Act 1995.

6.14. Power to invest

(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:

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:

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 11 February 2020

11.7 Vincent Men's Shed License for Storage Containers - 10 Farmer Street, Woodville Reserve

Attachments: 1. Signed Vincent Men's Shed Lease 2014 ⇩

2. Plan of Existing Lease and Proposed License Areas ⇩

3. Development Application ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council;

1. Subject to the approval of the Minister for Lands, APPROVES a license for the use of a portion of Woodville Reserve, Lot 2545, 10 Farmer Street, North Perth, on the following key terms;

1.1 Term: One year;

1.2 Licence Fee: $221.00 plus GST (paid on demand);

1.3 Licence Area: Approximately 30 square metres^;

1.4 Permitted Purpose: Storage associated with existing lease purpose;

1.5 Outgoings: Licensee to pay all outgoings including utilities and ESL;

1.6 Insurance: Licensee to effect and maintain public liability insurance;

1.7 Cleaning: Licensee to keep clean and tidy;

1.8 Rates and Taxes: Any applicable rates and taxes to be paid by the licensee including bin and waste removal;

1.9 Maintenance: Licensee to keep, maintain and substantially repair the Premises including maintaining the health of any plantings associated with screening;

1.10 Pest Control: Licensee to cover costs necessary to keep free of pests and vermin; and

1.11 Termination: By mutual agreement in writing; or

1.11.1 In the event that the Lease between the City and Vincent Men’s Shed (The Lease) is terminated without replacement, this Licence terminates at the same time and date that the Lease is to terminate, at which time the Licensee will have removed any storage containers and made good to the satisfaction of the City the Premises to an unimproved state; or

1.11.2 In the event that the City’s strategic framework is updated, a new framework adopted, a master plan, or any other strategic instrument applied over Woodville Reserve, 10 Farmer Street, North Perth, the City may terminate the License by providing one (1) months’ notice in writing to the licensee, in which time the licensee will remove any storage containers and make good to the satisfaction of the City the Premises to an unimproved state; or

1.11.3 In the event that the Premises is deemed unnecessary to the continuing function of the Licensee’s permitted purposes outlined in Item 8 of the Lease, the Licensee may terminate the Licence by providing one (1) months’ notice in writing to the City, the Licence will terminate the day that the Licensee yields up the premises;

2. Subject to the Minister’s approval in clause 1 above and final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to affix the common seal and execute the License as set out above; and

3. NOTES that the Vincent Men’s Shed Inc. are required to notify immediate neighbours of the installation of the sea containers.

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider entering into a License for the placement of storage containers on Woodville Reserve by the Vincent Men’s Shed Inc. (Vincent Men’s Shed) for storage.

Background:

Woodville Reserve (Lot 2545) is a Class “A” Reserve set aside for ‘Recreation’ purposes. It is the subject of a 999 year Crown lease (CL 1013/1925) to the City of Vincent, originally issued on 30 June 1925. To ‘the Mayor and Councillors of the City of Perth’.

The Reserve is a multi-use facility, with leases held by:

· North Perth Bowling Club Inc.

· North Perth Tennis Club Inc.

· North Perth Community Garden

Vincent Men’s Shed currently holds a Lease on part of Woodville Reserve (Attachment 1). The Lease’s agreed initial term was from 1 October 2013, expiring on 1 October 2015, with a ten year option to renew at the lessee/lessor’s discretion. At the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 5 November 2013, it was resolved:

“That the Council APPROVES:

1.1 a peppercorn lease from 1 October 2013 to 1 October 2015;

1.2 one (1) further option of ten (10) year lease; and

1.3 rent not to exceed $2,000 per annum for the duration of the lease agreement for the premises at No. 10 (Lot 2545) Farmer Street, North Perth an area of approximately 252m² being granted to the Vincent Men’s Shed (Inc.) as shown in Appendix 9.4.1. (Drawing 2846-CP-01E)”

The ten-year option was not exercised in October 2015 by the Vincent Men’s Shed, and currently they are subject to a monthly ongoing tenancy in accordance with clause 14 of the Lease.

Details:

Administration received a proposal to install storage containers on the eastern side adjacent to the Vincent Men’s Shed (Attachment 2). As the containers would need to be located outside of their lease area a formal licence is required. The Men’s Shed would then need to seek a Development Application (Attachment 3) where aesthetic impact would be a key consideration, although the two storage containers will have visual screening from the street provided by a lightweight wall and plantings.

Action 23 of the City’s adopted Public Open Space Strategy 2018 lists the preparation of the Woodville Reserve Master Plan and as such, any requests for improvements on this Reserve must take into consideration the upcoming Master Plan.

A short term License is considered by Administration to be a low risk option for the City to support a successful community organisation in the short term. Administration will continue to liaise with Vincent Men’s Shed in regards to renewing their Lease with in line with the draft City Property Management Framework (Framework) once adopted. Entering into a License will provide Vincent Men’s Shed the opportunity to meet storage concerns in the interim between negotiating a new Lease and any capital works commenced resulting from the Woodville Reserve Master Plan.

This report covers the first of three approvals required before the development can be installed on the site. The approvals are as follows:

· Entering into a lease, license or other agreement for the additional land;

· Signing, lodgement and determination of the development application; and

· Signing, lodgement and determination of the Building Permit.

It should be noted that Policy 7.5.1 – Minor Nature Development restricts the installation of containers within the City, however a variation to this restriction is being requested, due to the temporary nature of the proposed licence and the urgent need for storage space for the Men’s Shed. Additionally the approval is conditional upon the installation of fencing and plants that effectively screen the containers from the street. Administration notes the temporary nature of the storage containers and will consider the optimal planting and fencing solution prior to implementation. A more permanent storage solution will be considered under the Woodville Reserve Master Plan.

Licence Terms

The license terms have been framed to match where possible the existing lease agreement dated 1 October 2013 that remains in effect.

Item	Proposed License Terms	Current Lease Terms
Area	Footprint of two storage containers to be placed on site. Approximately 30m²	Area of approximately 252m² within the shed
Length of Term	One year	2 years with a 10-year option (untaken). Currently a monthly periodic lease
Fee	$221.00 plus GST (paid on demand)	$1.00 plus GST (paid on demand)
Insurance	Licensee to pay costs of public liability insurance	Lessee pays public liability insurance
Utilities	No additional utility charges are anticipated. Licensee to pay a proportion part of any utility costs	Lessee pays a proportionate part of all utility charges where not separately charged
Pest Control	Licensee is to pay all costs of pest control	Lessee to pay all costs of pest control
Termination	Termination on mutual agreement or with one month notice from either party	Termination not explicitly outlined in Lease

The peppercorn lease of $1.00 is a historic arrangement. In the past the City intended these leases to be provided to community groups for a short term, while they were in the early stages of development. However, the leases were not then reset to a more reasonable lease arrangement in subsequent periods.

The recommended fee of $221.00 plus GST reflects the proposed charging methodology the City intends to transition to in future, and reflects the conditions set out in the draft Framework.

Administration has recommended a one (1) year licence term in order to provide maximum flexibility for both parties, whilst negotiating the overarching lease within the proposed Framework, and considering the possible impact of the Woodville Reserve Masterplan. It is Administration’s intention to combine the current Lease and the new Licence into one lease agreement once the Framework has been adopted.

The group queried termination clause 1.11.3 that allows either party to terminate this agreement within one month. Administration reassured the group that this was a standard clause and that the City would provide advance notice should this need to be enacted.

These licencing terms are acceptable to the Vincent Men’s Shed.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration consulted representatives from the Vincent Men’s Shed on 20 December 2019 and provided them with the proposed licence terms and conditions. These terms were then confirmed in an email on the same date.

Administration has subsequently provided the group with a draft copy of this report to review, and also advised them the report would be included on the agenda of this meeting.

There is no requirement for the City to advertise the License to the community; however, given this relates to the installation of sea containers, the Vincent Men’s Shed Inc. will be required to notify the immediate neighbours.

Legal/Policy:

Disposal of Property

As Vincent Men’s Shed is recreational in nature, and the members would not receive income from the Licence, it is evident that the proposed Licence would not be subject to the requirements of the Local Government Act, with regards to auction or tender nor the requirement for the City to advertise any intention to enter into a Licence agreement with Vincent Men’s Shed.

Execution of Documents

As per the City’s Policy 4.1.10 – Execution of Document Policy, the proposed Licence is a category 1(A) document. Category 1(A) documents require a resolution of Council to enter into an agreement, and authority to affix the common seal, and be signed by both the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer.

The Development Application is currently being processed.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: The proposed license is considered low risk based on the low cost, temporary and reversible nature of the intended development.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

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

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.

Innovative and Accountable

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

SuSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All costs generated as the result of the License and development proposed are to be paid by the Licensee. Operational and administrative costs can be met through the City’s existing operational budget.

Comments:

The Vincent Men’s Shed is a community-based, not-for-profit organisation that is accessible to all men and women, whose primary activity is the provision of a safe, friendly and welcoming environment where members are able to work on meaningful projects at their own pace in their own time in the company of others. A major objective is to advance the health and well-being of their members, particularly men, and to encourage social inclusion.

Administration supports the proposal to install storage containers on the eastern side adjacent to the Vincent Men’s Shed to assist with managing storage issues.

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ BATCH NUMBER	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
EFT and BPAY Payments	2487 - 2500	$7,833,243.50
Payroll by Direct Credit	November/December 2019	$1,909,897.56
Sub Total		$9,743,141.06

Cheques
Cheques	82578 - 82588	$3,844.52
Cancelled cheques	82578	-$1,755.03

Sub Total		$2,089.49
Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)
Lease Fees		$385.00
Loan Repayments		$5,367,445.61
Bank Charges – CBA		$20,596.48
Credit Cards		$9,319.66
Sub Total		$5,397,746.75

Total Payments		$15,142,977.30

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