AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

17 March 2020

 

Time:

6pm

Location:

Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

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

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

Copyright

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


PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC SPEAKING TIME

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS

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

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

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

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

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

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

·         If you have any issues or concerns with the live streaming of meetings, please contact the City’s Governance Team on 9273 6000.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

3          (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 7

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice. 7

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 9

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 9

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 9

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 9

8          Declarations of Interest 9

9          Strategy & Development 10

9.1             No. 15 (Lot: 5 D/P: 3192) Leake Street, North Perth - Proposed Three Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings. 10

9.2             No. 12 (Lot: 829; D/P: 40498) Newcastle Street, Perth - Proposed Third Party Digital Billboard Sign. 84

9.3             No. 17 (Lots: 1-8; D/P: 4465) Florence Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Multiple Dwellings and Alterations and Additions to Eight Existing Multiple Dwellings. 209

9.4             City of Vincent Submission on Commercial Building Approval Reforms - Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement 260

9.5             Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 - Outcomes of Advertising. 358

9.6             Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grants Application - Leederville Tennis Club. 372

10        Infrastucture & Environment 386

10.1           Response to Petition Requesting the Relocation of Parking on Turner Street, Highgate Adjacent Jack Marks Reserve. 386

10.2           Florence and Carr Streets Bike Network Improvements. 389

10.3           Waste Strategy Project - 8 Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal 407

11        Community & Business Services. 418

11.1           Investment Report as at 31 January 2020. 418

11.2           Mid year budget review 2019/2020 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 426

11.3           Financial Statements as at 31 January 2020. 440

11.4           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020. 511

11.5           Major Public Artwork Commission Artist and Design Selection. 529

12        Chief Executive Officer 540

12.1           Consideration of submissions on proposal to Lease Beatty Park Cafe. 540

12.2           Minutes and motions from Annual General Meeting of Electors held on 28 January 2020. 546

12.3           Licence of Road Reserve Adjacent to Lot 47 (No. 29), Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth - Chinta Cafe. 557

12.4           Advertising of Development on City Owned and Managed Land Policy. 561

12.5           Annual Corporate Business Plan Quarterly Update. 573

12.6           Reimbursing the external members of the City's Audit Committee. 584

12.7           Lease of 4 View Street, North Perth - Pride WA Inc. 610

12.8           Amendments to City's Risk Management Policy and approval of Risk Appetite and Tolerance Statements. 617

12.9           Recording Public Question Time and Deputations - Amendments to City's Policy 4.2.4 - 'Council Meetings - Recording and Web Streaming' 640

12.10        Elected Members Continuing Professional Development Policy [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 647

12.11        Local Government Statutory Compliance Audit Return 2019. 662

12.12        Report and Minutes of the Audit Commitee Meeting held on 3 March 2020. 678

12.13        Information Bulletin. 727

13        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 782

Nil

14        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 782

Nil

15        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 782

16        Urgent Business. 782

Nil

17        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 782

Nil

18        Closure. 782

 

 

 


1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

3            (A)         Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements

(B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

Response to questions from Dudley Maier at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 11 February 2020

 

1.         In respect to Item 12.4, stated that the lease of 246 Vincent Street is significantly different from the previous approval in that there is no longer a requirement for the $1.6 million portion of the incentive to be spent in accordance with an approved schedule of works. On this basis queried whether the City had complied with regulation 10 of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996?

 

Regulation 10(3) provides that this regulation does not apply to a change of decision unless “the effect of the change would be that the decision would be revoked or would become substantially different.” The effect of the 11 February 2020 amendment to Council’s decision made at the 10 December 2019 Meeting is that a further $25,000 of the incentive is paid to the Minister for Works, and there is no requirements for how this portion of the incentive is to be spent by the Minister for Works. The rent and the total incentive payment (40 per cent of the rent) did not change. Therefore it is Administration’s view that Council’s decision was not substantially different. It is noted that this item was carried unanimously at the 11 February 2020 Meeting, which would satisfy the absolute majority requirements if regulation 10 was applicable.

 

2.         Did the City formally approach the Minister with a view of amending the vesting order for Leederville Oval (also known as Reserve 3839), as had previously been done in 1994, prior to the building of the child care centre on a portion of the land. If so, when?

 

Administration has discussed the management order for Leederville Oval with State Government officials as part of the Leederville Oval Masterplan process – not the Minister.  The City does intend to meet with the Minister for Sport to discuss the Leederville Oval Masterplan shortly.

 

3.         Can the City confirm that a change of use is just one of a number of circumstances that triggers the need to obtain Development Approval, noting that parking requirements and building works are examples of other triggers?

 

Not all changes of use require development approval but, yes, it is one of the circumstances that may trigger the need for Development Approval. Building works would normally require development approval but, again, not in all cases.

 

4.         Can the City confirm that since the gazettal of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, development approval is not required for a change of use of a non-heritage listed property, if the use is permitted under the scheme, and if there is no works component, or development approval is not required for any of the works component?

 

Yes, that is correct.

 

5.         Has the City been adhering to these Regulations since 2015?

 

Yes, it has.

 

6.         Between 2015 and 24 July 2019 would development approval be required for a proposal in the Mount Lawley- Highgate town centre that involved a change of use to one permitted under the scheme but which required discretion in terms of parking provisions?

 

Yes, Development Approval would be required in this instance.

 

7.         Would such a proposal be required to seek such a development approval if contemplated after 24 July 2019?

 

No, development approval is not required for changes of use in the Mount Lawley/Highgate Town Centre for 12 months since the commencement of operation.

 

8.         Is development approval required if a business in the Mount Lawley- Highgate town centre requested a change of use which would see a significant increase in parking requirements from the current permitted use but which does not require any building works?

 

No, not for the first 12 months of operation. After 12 months, a development approval is required to continue operating.

 

9.         Is development approval required if a business in the Mount Lawley- Highgate town centre wants to significantly increase its patronage numbers therefore requiring more parking but does not require any building works and does not propose a change of use.

 

No, not for the first 12 months of operation. After 12 months, a development approval is required to continue operating.

 

10.       On 23 July 2019 Council approved advertising changes to policy 7.51 - Minor Nature Development. Why hasn’t these policy changes been advertised yet?

 

The change of use exemption/amnesty is being run as a trial first to inform advertising and consultation material for Policy 7.5.1. Once the results of the trial have been collated, advertising of the policy amendment will have significantly more value than if no results had been collected. Since the Council approved advertising, the State Government has also proposed its own measures to achieve a similar outcome through ‘Planning Reform’. The full extent of these proposals must be understood prior to advertising the proposed amendment.

 

11.       On the 18 September 2018 Council noted amendments to the Design Guidelines for William Street and Design Guidelines for Perth and noted that they would be advertised for 28 days. When were the changes to the two design guidelines advertised and why haven’t the amendments to these guidelines come back to Council?

 

The guidelines were advertised between 23 October and 11 December 2018. The changes proposed to the guidelines are contingent on a simultaneous amendment to the Built Form Policy. The proposed modifications to the guidelines will be reported back to Council at the same time as Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy.

 

12.       What items were presented to the Council Workshop held on 28 January 2020 and which Council Members attended?

 

All Elected Members attended this Workshop. The items discussed related to the 2020/21 budget and the Long Term Financial Plan.

 

13.       Why do the reports on the Agenda no longer show the author and the authorising officer of the reports?

 

This is internal administrative detail not relevant to Council’s decision making process. The CEO is the authoriser of all reports to Council. 

 

14.       Why hasn’t the community funding register for 2019/2020 been placed on the City’s website?

 

The Community Funding Grants Register for the 2019/20 Financial Year is on the City’s website under “Accountability and Governance - Publicly Available Council Registers” – link here - https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council/publications/public-documents.aspx

The register is updated as funding is awarded.

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 11 February 2020

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

9            Strategy & Development

9.1          No. 15 (Lot: 5 D/P: 3192) Leake Street, North Perth - Proposed Three Aged or Dependent Persons' Dwellings

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Applicant's Written Justification

4.       Superseded Advertised Plans

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

6.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response

7.       Detailed Streetscape Analysis

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 three Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings at No. 15 (Lot: 5; D/P: 3192) Leake Street, North 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.       Land Use

This approval is for three Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings as shown on the approved plans dated 19 February 2020, 27 February 2020 and 28 February 2020. No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       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;

3.       Boundary Walls

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

4.       Visual Privacy

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

5.       Schedule of Colours and Materials

Prior to the lodgement of a building permit, a schedule detailing the colour and texture of the building materials (including the retractable screens to the outdoor living areas of Units 2 and 3), demonstrating that the proposed development complements the surrounding area, must be submitted to and approved by the City, 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 City, 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 12.2 percent deep soil area, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

·       The inclusion of informal seating in the communal open space area;

·       The inclusion of a shade tolerant lawn variety in the communal open space area; and

·       The provision a minimum of 17.5 percent canopy coverage at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list and should be selected to maximise canopy coverage on site; and

6.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 6.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

7.       Sight Lines

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;

8.       Parking & Access

8.1     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;

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

8.3     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

8.4     All new crossovers to lots are subject to a separate application to be approved by the City. All new crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications, which specify that the portion of the existing footpath traversing the proposed crossover (subject to the Footpath being in good condition as determined by the Infrastructure and Environment Services Directorate), must be retained  The proposed crossover levels shall match into the existing footpath levels. Should the footpath not to be in satisfactory condition, it must be replaced with in-situ concrete panels in accordance with the City's specification for reinstatement of concrete paths;

9.       Front Fence

The gate and/or fencing infill panels above the approved solid portions of wall shall be visually permeable in accordance with the Residential Design Codes of WA, to the satisfaction of the City;

10.     Right of Way Widening

A 0.5 metre wide right-of-way widening is to be provided, constructed and drained to the specifications of the City of Vincent at the landowner/applicant cost along the North eastern boundary of the subject land (see advice note 8). The right-of-way is to be accurately illustrated on any future Deposited Plan or Survey-strata plan and vested in the Crown under Section 152 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, such land to be ceded free of cost and without any payment of compensation by the Crown;

11.     Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

11.1   Prior to issue of a Building Permit, the owner must execute and provide to the City a notification pursuant to Section 70A of the Transfer of Land Act 1893 (as amended) to be registered on the Certificate of Title advising prospective purchasers that the use of the land is subject to the aged persons or dependent persons restriction set out in Condition 11.2 to the satisfaction of the City;

11.2   Any Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwelling must be designed and used only for the permanent accommodation of persons who:

11.2.1   are aged 55 years or more; or

11.2.2   have a recognised form of disability requiring special or supported accommodation, and may also accommodate the spouse or carer of those persons;

11.3   The internal design of each dwelling shall be in accordance with Clause 5.5.2 C2.2 - 2.4 of the Residential Design Codes which requires specific design features; and

11.4   The external paths and car parking areas shall be developed in accordance with the requirements of AS4299/1995 – Adaptable Housing; and

12.     Alteration to Blade Wall Between Units 2 and 3

Prior to issue of a Building Permit and subject to compliance with the Building Code of Australia, amended plans shall be submitted to the City that reduces the extent that the upper floor blade wall projects out from the building façade between Units 2 and 3 and that faces the right-of-way. The blade wall is to be in line with the vertical portion of the feature awning.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for three Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings at No. 15 Leake Street, North Perth (the subject site). A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes three two-storey Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings. Unit 1 would have direct frontage to Leake Street whilst Units 2 and 3 would have direct frontage to the right of way (ROW) and have pedestrian access to Leake Street via a 1.5 metre wide pedestrian access way.

 

The development plans subject of this report are included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s written justification is included as Attachment 3.


 

Background:

Landowner:

Christopher and Helen Manus

Applicant:

Carol Manus

Date of Application:

26 June 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban      

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R40

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

Lot Area:

527.7 square metres

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – City owned, 5.0 metres wide, sealed and drained.

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site currently contains a single storey single house. The subject site is bounded by Leake Street to the east, a ROW to the west and single storey single houses to the north and south. The broader area is generally characterised by single and two storey dwellings of varying architectural design.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties are zoned Residential R40 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site and all adjoining properties are within the Residential built form area and have a building height limit of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). Under LPS2, Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings are a permitted ‘P’ use, meaning Council’s discretion is not required to consider the appropriateness of the land use.

 

The subject site is located 170 metres from Fitzgerald Street which is a high frequency bus route and 235 metres to the North Perth town centre area.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, the Built Form Policy, the City’s Policy No. 7.4.2 – Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings (Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings Policy) and the State Government’s Residential Design Codes (R Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

ü

 

Density

ü

 

Street Setback

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Sight Lines

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

ü

 

Building Height

ü

 

Open Space

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Privacy

ü

 

Parking

ü

 

Vehicle Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

 

ü

Surveillance

ü

 

Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

 

ü

 


 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.5.2 Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

 

Plot Ratio Area

Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings shall have a maximum plot ratio area of 100 square metres.

 

 

Visitor Parking

Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings shall have visitor parking spaces at the rate of one per four dwellings, with a minimum of one space.

 

 

 

 

Unit 1 – 122.0 square metres.

Unit 2 – 120.3 square metres

Unit 3 – 120.3 square metres.

 

 

No visitor parking space is provided for the use of Units 2 and 3.

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.3.1 Outdoor Living Areas

 

An outdoor living area to be provided behind the street setback area.

 

 

The Unit 1 outdoor living area is proposed to be within the primary street setback area.

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Clause 5.4.4 External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

 

An enclosed, lockable storage area with a minimum dimension of 1 metre (when provided within a garage) and an internal area of at least 4 square metres shall be provided for each grouped dwelling.

 

 

 

Unit 1 – 3.7 square metres.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 14 November 2019 and concluding on 27 November 2019. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received 11 submissions, all of which objected to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       The additional plot ratio and reduced open space results in excessive building bulk and an overdevelopment of the site;

·       The omission of a dedicated visitor parking space would result in off-site traffic issues and potential blocking of the ROW;

·       Concerns that a disabled parking space has not been provided given that the development is intended to be used by aged or dependent persons’;

·       Concerns with the provision and quality of landscaping provided;

·       The communal courtyard being predominantly paved would result in a poor amenity outcome for future occupants of the dwellings;

·       The internal design of the dwellings with bedrooms on the upper floors would not be easily accessible for aged or dependent persons;

·       The internal design of the dwellings would not comply with the Australian Standard for Adaptable Housing (AS4299);

·       The proposed development would not be in keeping with the aesthetic and built form of the existing streetscape; and

·       Concerns that the intent of the development was to achieve three conventional grouped dwellings when only two would be permitted based on the R40 density code.

 

A copy of the plans advertised during the first round of community consultation are included as Attachment 4.

 

The applicant provided amended plans in response to the submissions received during the first round of community consultation. The amended plans were readvertised to the previous submitters for a period of seven days commencing on 4 February 2020 and concluding on 10 February 2020. The City received nine submissions in objection to the revised proposal. The objections that were received generally reiterated previous concerns, with emphasis on the following:

 

·       The increased plot ratio for all three units resulting in a development of a scale more consistent with conventional grouped dwellings rather than aged or dependent persons’ dwellings;

·       The lack of a visitor car parking space and potential for congestion of on-street parking spaces;

·       The appearance of the dwellings not being in keeping with the existing streetscape;

·       The overall design of the development resulting in a poor amenity outcome for aged or dependent persons; and

·       Management and occupancy of the dwellings.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 5. The applicant’s written response to the submissions received is provided in Attachment 6.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

During the consultation period concerns were raised in relation to the internal floor plan design of the aged or dependent persons’ dwellings and the compatibility of the development with the existing streetscape.

 

Following the conclusion of the advertising period, Administration facilitated a meeting with the applicant and a DRP member with expertise in Architecture to inform the submission of amended plans. The purpose of this was to improve the design outcome in relation to internal building layout and streetscape presence. The DRP member provided the following key comments and suggestions with respect to the proposal:

 

·       The ‘heavy’ red face brick elements should be located on the ground floor level with ‘lighter’ looking materials at the upper floor level;

·       The staircase design should be simplified by removing the ‘dog legs’ and providing a straight run. This would allow for a stair lift mechanism to be fitted in the future if required by any of the occupants;

·       Wet areas should be grouped where possible;

·       The upper floor of Unit 1 could be reworked to provide another bedroom fronting the street to increase street surveillance;

·       The roof form appears too complex and should be simplified;

·       The internal floor plans should be given further consideration to reduce ‘dead areas’;

·       The configuration of the Unit 1 windows fronting Leake Street should be rationalised and be more consistent with one another;

·       Consider incorporating an additional façade treatment/material such as weatherboard. The material should complement the proposed red face brick and render;

·       The brick element could be more of a feature for the Unit 1 façade fronting Leake Street;

·       Explore opportunities to increase deep soil zone areas and canopy coverage. Consider consolidating the two landscaped areas in the front setback area;

·       The bathroom design appears quite constricted and should be given further consideration; and

·       The development should aim to achieve silver level performance under the Liveable Housing Australia Design Guidelines (LHA Design Guidelines).

 

Following this meeting the applicant submitted amended plans for consideration that incorporated the following key changes:

·       Reducing the size of the internal floor plans for all three units;

·       Providing private outdoor living areas for all three units;

·       Providing visitable toilets at the ground floor level for all units;

·       Providing increased landscaping and deep soil zone area, particularly in the area of communal open space between buildings to the front and rear of the site;

·       The window design and configuration was simplified, and all street facing windows were given vertical emphasis;

·       Redesigning the form and materials of the primary street and right of way facades, using red face brick at the ground level, lighter materials at the upper level, simplifying the design and configuration of windows and simplifying the roof form; and

·       Redesigning and simplifying the internal layout of Units 2 and 3 to ensure that the staircases have a straight run.

 

The amended plans were referred back to the DRP member for review and comments were provided advising that a number of the inefficiencies of the original design had been addressed but further amended plans should be provided to address the following:

 

·      The vertical brickwork expression on the street and right of way facing facades should be removed as it is disjointed and is not a clear and unified form;

·      The upper floor bathrooms still appear to be tight; and

·      Consideration should be given to introducing a weatherboard or timber cladding material to the recessed walls of the Unit 1 balconies facing the street and Units 2 and 3 facades facing the right of way.

 

The applicant provided further amended plans in response to the DRP member’s comments, removing the vertical brickwork expressions and adding feature panelling to the street and ROW facing facades of all units. Whilst the size of the upper floor ensuites were not increased, the applicant added a note on the upper floor plan stating that all ensuites are to be 1.5 metres minimum internal dimension, showers are to be hobless, screens are to be removable and floors are to have non-slip tiling.

 

These final set of amended plans that the applicant is seeking approval for are included as Attachment 2. The DRP member has advised that based on these plans the development should be capable of achieving silver level accreditation under the LHA Design Guidelines.

Legal/Policy:

·      Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·      City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

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

·      Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·      Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

·      Policy No. 7.4.2 – Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings.

 

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 at its April 2020 meeting to consider its acceptability following community consultation.


 

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council for determination as the proposal has received more than five objections during the City’s 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:

Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings

 

Plot Ratio Area

 

The R Codes deemed-to-comply standard requires that aged or dependent persons dwellings are to have a maximum plot ratio area of 100 square metres. The application proposes that Unit 1 would have a plot ratio area of 122.0 square metres and Units 2 and 3 would each have a plot ratio area of 120.3 square metres.

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns that the additional plot ratio resulted in excessive building bulk and scale. The applicant submitted amended plans in response to these submissions which decreased the internal floor areas of each unit, reducing the plot ratio of Unit 1 from 159.2 to 122.0 square metres and Units 2 and 3 from 130.4 to 121.1 square metres.

 

The proposed plot ratio area of each dwelling meets the design principles of the R Codes and are supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The development provides open space, street setbacks and lot boundary setbacks that meet the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes. This indicates that the development does not constitute an overdevelopment of the site and would not result in excessive building bulk and scale as viewed from the street or adjoining properties;

·       The proposed development provides landscaping contribution including two new trees and 21.4 square metres of deep soil areas within the primary street setback area. This would positively contribute to the existing streetscape and assist in reducing the appearance of building bulk;

·       The proposed development would positively contribute to the diversification of housing stock available within the North Perth area. The City’s Local Planning Strategy identifies that the number of people aged over 65 within the City is expected to increase by more than 20 percent over the next 20 years and that the provision of aged care housing is of direct relevance to suburbs in the City of Vincent. An objective of this Strategy is “to cater for the diversity of demands, interests and lifestyles by facilitating and encouraging the provision of a wide range and variety and choice in housing to support the changing social needs of the community; including the ageing population and affordability”. The provision of aged or dependent persons’ dwellings is consistent with this objective.

·       The location of the subject site is well suited to an aged or dependent persons’ dwellings development due to its close proximity to public transport options, services and public open spaces. The site is located 170 metres from Fitzgerald Street which is a high frequency bus route, 235 metres from North Perth town centre and 370 metres from Hyde Park. There are also four smaller areas of public open space for passive use along the eastern side of Leake Street within 50 metres from the subject site; and

·       The topography of the site and surrounding area is well suited to an aged or dependent persons’ dwellings development as it is relatively flat which enables ease of access and mobility.

 

Visitor Parking

 

The R Codes deemed-to-comply standard requires the development to have a minimum of one visitor parking space with a minimum width of 3.8 square metres to allow for wheelchair accessibility. The proposed development does not provide a dedicated visitor parking space for Units 2 and 3.

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns that visitors to the site would park along Leake Street or in the ROW. The applicant provided amended plans in response to these submissions which consolidated the deep soil areas within the front setback area of Unit 1 into one deep soil zone and widened the paved area in front of the garage of Unit 1 to 5.5 metres which is sufficient to accommodate a wheelchair accessible parking space. The applicant also provided written justification in support of the proposal stating that the development is intended to be occupied by dependent persons with mild intellectual disabilities who do not drive motor vehicles. The single garages proposed as part of each of the dwellings are intended to be available to live in carers and visitors if required.

 

The proposal for no dedicated visitor parking space being available for Units 2 and 3 meets the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The Unit 1 driveway is of sufficient dimension to accommodate a wheelchair accessible vehicle, however because this driveway is for the exclusive use of Unit 1 it cannot be considered to be a visitor parking space available for use by Units 2 and 3;

·       The R Codes design principles for Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings state that these types of developments should reduce car dependence by being located in close proximity to public transport and services. The proposed location is considered to be appropriate on the basis that:

o   The site is highly accessible by public transportation as it is located 170 metres from Fitzgerald Street which is a high frequency bus route and this will provide people visiting the occupants of the dwellings with a transportation option other than by car; and

o   The site is located within a 235 metres of the North Perth town centre area which provides a wide range of services including medical practices;

·       There are accessible on-street parking options available along Leake Street which are able to be utilised by visitors. The City’s parking survey data identified that there are a total of 51 parking spaces along Leake Street between Alma Road and Vincent Street which are restricted to a two hour time limit between 8:00am and 6:00pm Monday to Friday and unrestricted outside of these times. This parking survey data identifies that usage of these parking spaces did not exceed 51 percent of capacity during the study times (being 9:00am to 8:00pm Wednesday, Friday and Saturday). This data indicates that there are on-street parking spaces which could be readily used by visitors to Units 2 and 3, and that this would not detrimentally impact the availability of on-street parking in close proximity to the subject site; and

·       The R Codes deemed-to-comply provision relating to Aged or Dependant Persons’ Dwellings require that visitor parking spaces are to be provided at a rate of one per four dwellings, with a minimum of one space. However, this provision assumes compliance with another deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes requiring these types of developments to consist of a minimum of five dwellings. The City’s Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings Policy replaces this provision of the R Codes and permits these types of developments to consist of a minimum two dwellings. This means that there should be a lesser visitor parking demand for the lesser number of dwellings being proposed on site compared to the deemed-to-comply standard in the R Codes.

 

Liveable Housing Design

 

The DRP member suggested that the applicant should aim to achieve silver level performance under the LHA Design Guidelines. These guidelines have been developed as a set of voluntary inclusions that can be incorporated into a new or existing dwelling but it is not a statutory document that the development is required to comply with. These guidelines have been written to assist the residential building, property industry and government to better understand how to incorporate easy living features into new housing design and construction. These guidelines describe 15 liveable design elements and each element provides guidance on what performance is expected to achieve either silver, gold or platinum level accreditation. Elements 1 to 7 outlined below cover the core elements of the basic silver level accreditation which focus on the key structural and spatial elements that are critical to ensure future flexibility and adaptability of the home.

 

1.       A safe continuous and step free path of travel from the street entrance and/or parking area to a dwelling entrance that is level;

2.       At least one, level (step-free) entrance into the dwelling;

3.       Internal doors and corridors that facilitate comfortable and unimpeded movement between spaces;

4.       A toilet on the ground (or entry) level that provides easy access;

5.       A bathroom that contains a hobless shower recess;

6.       Reinforced walls around the toilet, shower and bath to support the safe installation of grab rails at a later date; and

7.       Stairways are designed to reduce the likelihood of injury and also enable future adaptation.

 

The DRP member has reviewed the development plans shown in Attachment 2 and has advised that these plans should be capable of achieving silver level accreditation under the LHA Design Guidelines.

 

The R Codes Clause 5.5.2 (Aged or Dependent Persons’ Dwellings) provides deemed-to-comply standards in relation to pedestrian pathways, level entries, doorway widths, corridor widths and toilets. The application has been assessed against and satisfies these deemed-to-comply standards.

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

The R Codes deemed-to-comply standard in relation to outdoor living areas require these areas to be located behind the street setback area. The proposed Unit 1 outdoor living area would be located within the primary street setback area.

 

The initial proposal submitted by the applicant did not provide private outdoor living areas for each unit but rather an area of communal open space between the buildings to the front and rear of the site. The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns that there were no private outdoor living areas for each unit and the amenity provided by the communal open space would be poor. The applicant responded to these concerns by submitting amended plans with private outdoor areas for each unit and additional landscaping and deep soil zones within the communal open space.

 

The proposed Unit 1 outdoor living area within the primary street setback area meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The outdoor living area is open to the northern aspect and associated winter sunlight, and is accessible from the ground floor lounge room of Unit 1 which is a habitable room;

·       The proposed development provides upper floor balconies with a total area of 8.5 square metres and an area of communal open space with an area of 61.7 square metres located between the buildings which can be used by the occupants of Unit 1 in addition to their primary outdoor living area with an area of 36.8 square metres. A condition of development approval has been recommended for informal seating to be incorporated into the communal open space area as part of the detailed landscaping design, which would improve its usability and resident amenity;

·       The outdoor living area is separated from the street by a 0.9 metre high solid wall with horizontal, visually permeable slats atop to a height of 1.8 metres. This defines the private domain from the public realm, whilst providing privacy for future occupants of the dwellings as well as maintaining street surveillance and a sense of openness from the dwellings to the street; and

·       The outdoor living area is provided with 22 square metres of deep soil area and two new trees which would increase amenity for occupants of the dwelling and the streetscape.

 

Landscaping

 

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

 

The Built Form Policy requires 15 percent of the site provided as deep soil zones and 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 12.2 percent deep soil zones and 17.5 percent canopy coverage at maturity.

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns that the reduction in landscaping would result a poor amenity outcome for future occupants of the dwellings and that hardscaping is the dominant landscaping feature within the primary street setback area which is not consistent with the immediate area. The applicant’s written justification outlines that the intended occupants of the dwellings would have mild intellectual disabilities and would benefit from a low maintenance garden and tree species.

 

The proposed landscaping meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and design principles of the R Codes and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       0.3 metre landscaping strips planted out with box hedges are provided in addition to 12.2 percent deep soil area;

·       Two Magnolia Grandiflora trees are proposed within the communal open space which would effectively contribute to a sense of open space between the buildings to the front and rear of the site;

·       Two new trees being a Magnolia Grandiflora and a Lemon Citrus as well as various smaller plants and groundcovers within the front setback area are proposed which would soften the appearance of the development as viewed from the street; and

·       The landscaping plan has been referred to the City’s Parks team and it has been confirmed that the proposed tree species are supported. However, it was recommended that the two Crepe Myrtle trees initially proposed within the communal courtyard area be changed to two Magnolia Grandifloras. It was recommended because this species has a greater canopy coverage at maturity whilst also being relatively low maintenance. The applicant provided amended plans to incorporate this change;

·       The application does not require the removal of the existing street tree located within the verge adjacent to the subject site; and

·       The proposed landscaping would provide increased amenity for the future occupants of the site and the surrounding area.

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

 

The R Codes deemed-to-comply standard applicable requires an enclosed, lockable storage area with a minimum area of 4 square metres be provided for each dwelling. The application proposes the Unit 1 store to have an area of 3.7 square metres.

 

The proposed storeroom meets the design principles of the R Codes and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The storeroom is proposed to be located within the garage and integrated into the design of the building. The storeroom is not visible and would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape or adjoining properties;

·       The size of the storeroom is appropriately sized to ensure that it can adequately be used and is functional for the purposes of storing goods by the occupants;

·       Being located in the garage allows for the storeroom to be easily secured and managed by occupants of the dwellings; and

·       The storeroom is located on the ground floor level and would be convenient and easily accessible for occupants of the dwellings.

 

Streetscape

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns that the proposed built form outcome would not be consistent with the existing and desired streetscape surrounding the subject site. The submissions received indicate that the majority of the existing houses along Leake Street are single storey dwellings of similar aesthetics.

 

The applicant has provided written justification in response to the submissions advising that the proposed development would not be inconsistent with the surrounding streetscape. This is because Leake Street contains both single and two storey developments and a range of architectural styles including modern contemporary.

 

Administration has undertaken a streetscape analysis of Leake Street and determined that the area consists of single and two storey dwellings of varying architectural design. This analysis showing images of existing dwellings that form the character of the streetscape has been included as Attachment 7.

 

The DRP member provided comments on the plans which were advertised during the first community consultation period. These plans are included in Attachment 4. The following comments and suggestions were provided by the DRP member in relation to the appearance of the development from the primary street:

 

·       The ‘heavy’ red face brick elements should be located on the ground floor level with ‘lighter’ looking materials at the upper floor level;

·       The roof form appears too complex and should be simplified;

·       The configuration of the Unit 1 windows fronting Leake Street should be rationalised and be more consistent with one another;

·       Consider incorporating an additional façade treatment/material such as weatherboard. The material should complement the proposed red face brick and render; and

·       The brick element could be more of a feature for the Unit 1 façade fronting Leake Street.

 

The applicant provided amended plans making the following design changes in response to the DRP member comments and suggestions:

 

·       All red face brick elements were removed from the upper floor level;

·       The pitched roof form was changed to a concealed roof form. The amended plans were referred back to the DRP member in relation to this change and it was advised that the roof form was improved and simplified via flat roof-expression and that this also reduced the perceived impact of bulk and scale;

·       The window design and configuration was simplified, and all street facing windows were given vertical emphasis;

·       Lighter colours and materials in the form of white render and feature panelling were incorporated at the upper floor level to complement the red face brick at the ground floor level; and

·       The red brick element has been applied to the entirety of the Unit 1 façade which faces Leake Street to serve as a feature.

 

The amended plans provided by the applicant effectively address the comments and suggestions provided by the DRP member in relation to the aesthetics of the development. The proposed development would be compatible with its setting and would not have an adverse impact on the character of the locality.

 

A condition of approval and accompanying advice note has been recommended to reduce the extent that the blade wall to the upper floor of Units 2 and 3 projects out from the building façade that fronts onto the ROW so that it is in line with the feature awning. This will ensure that unnecessary building bulk associated with the extent of the blade wall proposed is removed and is subject to compliance with the Building Code of Australia.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



 



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 



 


 



 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

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

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Location and Consultation Plan

2.       Development Plans

3.       Applicant's Written Justification

4.       Safety Assessment Review Report

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

6.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response

7.       Main Roads WA Comments

8.       Design Review Panel Minutes  

 

 

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 the proposed Third Party Digital Billboard Sign at No. 12 (Lot: 829; D/P: 40498) Newcastle Street, Perth, in accordance with the plans in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed Third Party Digital Billboard Sign does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising as it constitutes a Billboard advertising third party content;

2.       The proposed size, scale and visual prominence of the Third Party Digital Billboard Sign:

2.1     Would not be compatible with its setting and is inconsistent with Clause 67(m) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

2.2     Would have an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area and is not consistent with the objective of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising and Clause 67(n) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

2.3     Would have the potential to impact on the safety of motorists and is inconsistent with Clause 67(r) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

3.       The proposal does not meet the requirements of the Policy and Application Guidelines for Advertising Signs Within and Beyond State Road Reserves, taking into account the submission received from Main Roads WA as per Clause 67(za) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a digital billboard sign for the purposes of displaying third party advertising. The sign is proposed to be installed on the roof of an existing four storey office building at No. 12 Newcastle Street, Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the installation of a digital billboard sign to display third party advertising on the roof of the existing four storey office building at the subject site. Details of the proposal are as follows:

 

·       The structure that the proposed signage is to be affixed to has four sides and is proposed to be 8.0 metres in height, 27.1 metres in width and 20.0 metres in depth;

·       The digital screen of the sign itself is proposed to be 6.3 metres in height and 19.2 metres in width, with a total area of 121 square metres;

·       The digital screen faces Lord Street and would be visible from the Graham Farmer Freeway. There is no signage proposed on the remaining three elevations of the structure. These elevations are proposed to be detailed in a contemporary manner to appear pixelated with ‘hit and miss’ openings;

·       The structure is proposed to be constructed primarily using two different shades of grey cladding material;

·       The billboard sign structure is proposed to be constructed with a 2.0 metre setback on the south eastern side of the rooftop fronting Lord Street, a 3.6 metre setback on the south western side of the rooftop fronting Newcastle Street and a setbacks in excess of 15.0 metres to the north western and north eastern lot boundaries;

·       Images displayed on the proposed screen of the billboard would be fixed, remain for at least 30 seconds and have a non-animated transition; and

·       The screen would operate between 5:00am and midnight every day and the screen would be fitted with a light sensor that adjusts the brightness to suit ambient light conditions.

 

The following aspects of the design were not part of the initial proposal and have been incorporated by the applicant as a result of the Design Review Panel process:

 

·       The proposal includes a rooftop terrace which would be integrated with the design of the billboard sign structure. The terrace would be accessed via a new staircase from the upper floor lobby of the existing building and would be used by tenants of the existing building;

·       The proposal includes 72 new solar panels on the roof of the existing building; and

·       The applicant has expressed that they would be open to discussing the possibility of including advertising material promoting City of Vincent community events into the screen rotation, should this be considered appropriate. Administration has not pursued this possibility through the assessment of the development application as it is not a relevant planning consideration;

 

The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s written justification is included as Attachment 3. A copy of the Safety Assessment Review Report submitted with the application is included as Attachment 4.

Background:

Landowner:

Superline Enterprises Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Adbrands Media

Date of Application:

23 May 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Mixed Use     R Code: R100

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Office

Proposed Use Class:

Addition to Office (Third Party Digital Billboard Sign)

Lot Area:

1,749m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 12 Newcastle Street, Perth, and is above the Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. The subject site is bound by Newcastle Street to the south, Lord Street to the east and three storey office buildings to the north and west.

 

The subject site and all directly adjoining properties are zoned Mixed Use R100 under the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site is located within the Activity Corridor area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) and has a six storey building height limit. The subject site is located on the boundary between the City of Vincent and the City of Perth. The adjacent land to the south within the City of Perth is zoned City Centre under the City of Perth’s City Planning Scheme No. 2 and there is a development currently under construction at this site which will be nine storeys and 54 metres high when completed.

 

The subject site currently contains a four storey office building which was previously approved in 2008 by the City. The surrounding area is characterised by mutli-storey commercial developments. These buildings include signage affixed to the facades, but do not include signage protruding above the roofline. There are no existing approved examples of large format digital signage in the immediate locality.

 

The initial proposal was for the third party digital billboard sign only. As a result of two meetings with the City’s Design Review Panel, the applicant submitted amended plans on 11 November 2019 which have incorporated a rooftop terrace into the design of the structure which would be used by the tenants of the existing building. Attachment 3 includes the evolution of the proposed sign through the development assessment and design review process.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2 and Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising (Signage Policy).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Signage

 

ü

Building Height

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Signage

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

Part 2(i) – Standards Common to all Signs

 

All advertisement signs are to:

 

a)    Not pose a threat to public safety or health.

 

 

 

 

 

The proposed signage would require motorists to look up away from the road to view the sign when travelling westbound along Graham Farmer Freeway and southbound along Lord Street. The size, scale, digital nature and visual prominence of the sign could be distracting to motorists and cause threat to public safety or health.

 

c)    If they advertise services or products other than those available on the lot, require the submission of a sign strategy acceptable to the City of Vincent for the whole site.

No signage strategy was provided with the application.

d)    not comprise flashing, intermittent or running lights, or images that change more than once in any five minute period.

 

The applicant’s written justification states that the screen would display each advertisement for no less than 30 seconds.

f)     No signage is permitted on fences, walls or the like structures which do not form an integral part of the building.

Signage is proposed as part of a new structure to be placed on top of the existing building.


 

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

Part 3(i) – Sign Specific Standards: Above Roof Sign

 

The construction of a new Above Roof Sign is as follows:

 

a)    No Above Roof Sign is permitted to be erected on buildings except where such signs are designed as an integral part of design of the building and are for the purpose of the identification of the building, its ownership or the major activities carried on within it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Signage is proposed as part of a new structure to be placed on top of the existing building and is not for the purposes of identifying the building or the activities carried on within it.

b)    An Above Roof Sign other than those identified in a) above, are only permitted where it can be demonstrated that they do not adversely affect the character or amenities of the area in which they are to be situated, or those of other areas.

 

The signage would be of a size, bulk and scale that is not consistent with the existing building or surrounding streetscape.

c)    No Above Roof Sign is to protrude above the highest ridge of the roofline.

 

Signage protrudes 8 metres above the existing roofline.

A maximum of one Above Roof Sign may be placed on a building and is to:

 

b)    Comply with the following table:

 

Height of Roof

Maximum Projection above Roof

Maximum Area

> 8 metres

4 metres

18 square metres

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Height of Roof

Maximum Projection above Roof

Maximum Area

14.2 metres

8 metres

121 square metres

 

 

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

Part 3(iiii) – Bill Posting and Billboards

 

Bill Posting, Billboards and the structures of a similar or identical type are not permitted within the City of Vincent

 

 

 

The application proposes the installation of a billboard sign on the subject site for the purposes of third party advertising.

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Clause 2.1

 

20.5 metre concealed roof height

 

 

Proposed concealed roof height of 22.2 metres.

 

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 26 July 2019 to 9 August 2019. Community consultation was undertaken by way of mailing 286 letters (176 for City of Vincent and 110 for City of Perth) to all owners and occupiers of the surrounding properties within 150 metres of the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1, and a notice on the City’s website, in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received a total of five submissions, four in objection and one in support of the proposal during the community consultation period.

 

The submissions received in objection raised the following concerns:

·       The size and scale of the signage detrimentally impacting on the amenity of the locality;

·       The purpose of the signage being for third party advertising; and

·       The inconsistency of the signage with the objectives of the City’s Signage Policy.

 

A summary of the submissions received and Administration’s response to these is provided in Attachment 5. The applicant’s response to the summary of submissions is included in Attachment 6.

 

City of Perth

 

The application was referred to the City of Perth for comments given that the subject site abuts the municipal boundary between the City of Vincent and the City of Perth. In its correspondence dated 12 August 2019, the City of Perth advised that it does not support the proposal for the following reasons:

 

·       The sign is not designed as an integral part of the building and will be excessive in scale;

·       The third party advertising content will potentially impact on the visual quality, amenity and safety within the area;

·       The sign is likely to cause a distraction to road users as it is intended to be viewed by passing motorists entering various intersections and freeway interchanges, creating potential traffic safety hazards;

·       The sign is not facing or within a public space where the viewing area is designed and intended for pedestrians to linger for an extended period of time. The sign is designed to be viewed exclusively be motorists travelling along the Graham Farmer Freeway; and

·       Its adverse impact on traffic safety noting it is unlikely to satisfy the 'location' and 'physical characteristics' (size and shape) criteria of Main Roads Western Australia's Policy and Application Guidelines for Advertising Signs Within and Beyond State Road Reserves.

 

Main Roads WA

 

The proposal was referred to Main Roads WA (MRWA) for comments as the subject site is located above the Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel, in accordance with the Development Design Guidelines for Structures Above or Adjacent to the Graham Farmer Freeway Tunnel Northbridge.

 

In its correspondence dated 7 August 2019, MRWA advised that it did not support the application in accordance with the MRWA’s Policy and Application Guidelines for Advertising Signs Within and Beyond State Road Reserves (MRWA Policy) for the following reasons:

 

·       The signage fails to comply with the Turbulence Zone and Extension Zone of the MRWA Policy;

·       The signage fails to comply with the maximum dimensions listed in the MRWA Policy; and

·       The Safety Assessment Review Report crash analysis concluded that the signage is above the critical crash threshold, and failed this criteria.

 

A copy of MRWA’s correspondence is included in Attachment 7.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The application was referred to the DRP on 14 August 2019. The DRP’s comments are summarised as follows:

 

·       Elements of the proposed sign structure including the overall height, the thick white framing and the box design result in bulk and scale that is inappropriate given the context of the site;

·       In order to be better integrated with the existing building, the design of the structure should be less visible and invasive, more futuristic and minimalistic;

·       The applicant should consider a highly refined design that delivers a simple façade, the screen should be a seamless insertion into the existing building fabric and skyline perspectives;

·       Consider options for on structure planting to mitigate impact on the surrounding sites;

·       The design needs its 360° visual impact to adjacent properties and beyond to be considered further; and

·       The applicant should look at engaging a designer for a proposal that mitigates the bulk and scale.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans for the City’s consideration on 23 September 2019 in response to the initial DRP meeting minutes. The amended proposal was referred to the DRP on 2 October 2019. The DRP’s advice is summarised as follows:

 

·       The minutes from the 14 August 2019 DRP meeting appear to have been misinterpreted based on the amended plans that have been produced. Whilst the white border of the sign and elements referencing the existing building have been removed, the amended proposal does not integrate the sign with the existing building at all;

·       The sign should be read as part of the building rather than a billboard. Consider approaching the building differently in terms of its detail by hiding the structure and creating a seamless façade. The signage should be secondary to the design of the structure and a sculptural, sophisticated design is required;

·       The intent of the previous DRP comments was to consider options for physical landscaping to be provided on structure to mitigate the impacts of the sign rather than for digital images of landscaping to be programmed on the sign itself; and

·       The applicant should consider engaging an architect to interpret the comments from both DRP meetings and produce an amended design accordingly.

 

In response to the second DRP meeting minutes the applicant engaged Mackay Urban Design and submitted amended plans for the City’s consideration on 11 November 2019. The amended proposal incorporated a rooftop terrace was referred to the DRP on 27 November 2019. The DRP’s advice is summarised as follows:

 

·       The sign still appears to be disproportionate in size to the existing building. The design still appears heavy and overpowering and it should be more sculptural and sophisticated rather than rectangular and box-like. Recessing the base of the structure could make the sign appear less heavy and give the appearance that the sign is floating above the building;

·       The proposed sign is in a prominent, highly visible location and needs to be ‘something special’ in terms of design;

·       The introduction of the roof terrace is considered to be positive, however, further consideration should be given to the functionality and amenity provided for users; and

·       Consideration should be given to incorporating sustainability initiatives such as solar panels and green power.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans for the City’s consideration on 2 January 2020 in response to the third DRP meeting minutes. The amended proposal was referred to the DRP on 15 January 2020. The DRP’s advice is summarised as follows:

 

·       The sign does appear as though it is floating somewhat more than in previous iterations;

·       The addition of the solar panel array on the roof of the existing building is considered to be a positive; and

·       The proposal does appear to be more integrated with the existing building with the inclusion of the white screen border, however, this design element increases the appearance of building bulk and fights with the pixelated design elements that were introduced in the previous iteration of the plans. These are two distinctive design approaches which clash, the proposal should be refined to reflect one of these design approaches only.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans for the City’s consideration on 8 February 2020 in response to the fourth DRP meeting minutes. These plans were referred to the Chairperson of the DRP for review and comment. The DRP Chairperson’s comments are summarised as follows:

 

·       From an aesthetic standpoint the design has further refined the screen and the structure enclosing the roof terrace. This design refinement has improved the junction between the existing building and proposed screen and roof terrace; and

·       Whilst the design of the proposed structure has improved throughout the DRP process, the commentary throughout this process has consistently outlined concerns that the size of the proposed screen is disproportionate to the existing building to which it relates.

 

The minutes from the most recent DRP meeting are included as Attachment 8. Attachment 3 includes the evolution of the proposed sign through the design review process.

 

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

14/08/2019

DRP 2

23/09/2019

DRP 3

27/11/2019

DRP 4

15/01/2020

DRP Chair Comments 11/02/2020

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

·       Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising;

·       Development Design Guidelines for Structures Above or Adjacent to the Graham Farmer Freeway Tunnel Northbridge; and

·       Main Roads WA Policy and Application Guidelines for Advertising Signs within and Beyond State Road Reserves.

 

In accordance with Schedule 2 Clause 76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) 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.

 

Should Council resolve to approve the application, the approval would only be issued under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2. Council would not have the delegation to approve the application under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and it would need to be referred to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for determination in accordance with Clause 4(b) of the WAPC instrument of Delegation (DEL 2017/02). This is because Main Roads WA has provided a recommendation that it is not supportive of the application.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

Administration has delegation to refuse applications for billboard signs. This matter is being referred to Council at the written 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:

Signage

 

The proposed billboard signage would be illuminated and display third party advertising material that does not relate to the subject site. The City’s Signage Policy does not permit such billboard advertising proposals.

 

The objective of the Signage Policy is:

 

“To ensure that the display of advertisements on properties does not adversely impact upon the amenity of the surrounding areas while providing appropriate exposure of activities or services.”

 

In addition to this objective, the Signage Policy provides that where a particular standard or provision is unreasonable or undesirable in the particular circumstances of the application, the City may use its discretion to waive or vary a standard having regard to the following relevant principles:

 

“Appropriateness of Setting:

(a)      The scale and design of the proposed signage is appropriate to the building and the architectural detailing to which it relates;

(b)      The scale and design of the proposed signage is compatible with existing surrounding development and is appropriate to the general nature of land use in the area;

(c)      The proposed signage does not dominate the streetscape;

(d)      The proposed signage does not block important views, obscure architectural detailing or is not detrimental to the amenity of nearby properties; and

(e)      The proposed signage does not result in the destruction of important elements of the building fabric”.

 

Applicant’s Justification

 

The applicant has provided written justification in support of the proposal which is included as Attachment 3 and a Safety Assessment Review Report which provides further justification and is included as Attachment 4. The written justification provided by the applicant is summarised as follows:

 

·       Digital signage is a component of the world’s most popular and dynamic places;

·       The proposed signage would not be distracting as the images are fixed, remain for at least 30 seconds and have a non-animated transition;

·       The brightness of the sign can be managed through screen quality and light sensors;

·       Raised digital signage clears signage away from the pedestrian zone, is integrated into the building and results in the requirement for less advertising signs overall as a number of images can be shown on the same screen on rotation;

·       The proposed rooftop signage structure has limited visual impact on the surrounding streetscapes as the sign itself is 170 metres from the nearest residential property with a view of the screen;

·       The amended proposal is for an articulated structure where the screen itself is secondary to the overall design of the structure with a rooftop terrace;

·       A number of other large format advertising signs exceeding the typical industry standard dimensions for billboards have been approved previously by MRWA and/or local governments;

·       Lateral placement of the sign would not be an issue as it would be located outside of the road reserve on the roof of the building, would not impinge on clear zones or present a potential hazard to errant vehicles; and

·       Whilst the proposed sign would be within a Device Restriction Area (DRA) as outlined in the MRWA Policy and Application Guidelines for Advertising Signs within and Beyond State Road Reserves, this is not necessarily unacceptable as a number of other electronic billboard signs have been previously approved by MRWA and Local Governments within DRA’s in the metropolitan area including at Bull Creek train station above the Kwinana Freeway and in Yagan Square.

 

Administration’s Comment

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objective or principles of the Signage Policy and Administration does not support the proposal for the following reasons:

 

·       The locality is characterised by medium to high density commercial development and is envisaged as being an Activity Corridor under the Built Form Policy. The advertising for commercial tenancies in the immediate area promote only the businesses and services offered at the respective sites. These instances of advertising signs are affixed to the façade of the building, do not protrude above the roofline, are not digital and are proportionate and relevant to the premises where they are located. The proposed billboard sign would protrude above the roofline, be digital, display third party advertising that do not relate to the site and be disproportionate in size in comparison to the existing building to which it relates. The Signage Policy does not permit such billboard advertising proposals and the proposed digital billboard sign displaying third party advertisements would be inconsistent with the nature of existing signs and the character of the immediate area;

·       The digital screen of the proposed billboard sign would have an area of 121 square metres. This far exceeds the permitted standard of 18 square metres for an above roof sign under the City’s Signage Policy. The sign would also be characterised as a ‘spectaculars’ advertising device under the MRWA Policy which limits the dimensions and area of such an advertising device to 18.99 metres x 4.45 metres and an area of 84.5 square metres. The comments provided by MRWA state that the proposed sign exceeds the permitted sign size under the MRWA Policy by 108 square meters. These comments were based on the superseded plans and the amended plans have reduced the size of the sign to 121 square meters. The amended plans would exceed the permitted size under the MRWA Policy by 34.8 square meters. The screen size is excessive in its context and inconsistent with existing signage within the surrounding area which would result in an adverse impact on the streetscape character;

·       The Signage Policy sets out that an illuminated sign should not change more than once in a five minute period. The billboard is proposed to display advertising images for a period of no less than 30 second which would be inconsistent with the policy requirements. The constant changing of advertising material would be inconsistent with existing signage in the immediate area and would constitute a proliferation of signage that would be detrimental to the character of the area; and

·       The proposed sign has been designed to be orientated towards Graham Farmer Freeway, and to be highly visible and prominent to motorists and passing trade on the approach westbound. The purpose of this being to maximise exposure and to attract the attention of these passing motorists, contributing to driver distraction. The proposed signage would be located outside of motorist’s view when driving along the Graham Farmer Freeway and would require them to look up away from the road to view the sign. The Safety Assessment Review Report submitted with the application and included as Attachment 4 identifies that the proposed location of the digital billboard sign is within a Device Restriction Area (DRA). The DRA has been established to control development and to protect against driver distraction at the merge point on the Graham Farmer Freeway and to avoid conflicts with the digital speed limit signs above the tunnel entrance. The proposed signage would be distracting to motorists on the approach to the Graham Farmer Freeway tunnel entrance. The applicant’s Safety Assessment Review Report also identifies that the proposal would exceed the MRWA casualty crash rate (CCR) calculation. The comments provided by MRWA (included as Attachment 7) confirms this and raises concerns in relation to motorist safety. The City’s Technical Services have also reviewed the applicant’s Safety Assessment Report and agree with the CCR calculation and that the proposal should not be supported.


 

Building Height

 

The proposed sign would result in the building having a maximum concealed roof height of 22.2 metres in lieu of 20.5 metres permitted under the Built Form Policy. The proposal is consistent with the relevant design principles of the Built Form Policy Clause 2.1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed structure to which the billboard sign would be affixed to has been subject to extensive consideration and feedback from the City’s Design Review Panel. This has resulted in the design of the structure being refined to effectively reduce the impact of the additional building height proposed. The proposed structure has been hollowed out to allow the integration of a rooftop terrace. This is the key design change which has been implemented to effectively reduce the appearance of building bulk and scale; and

·       There is an adjacent development located to the south-west of the subject site across Newcastle Street that is currently under construction located which will be nine stories and 54 metres in height once completed. This development is located within the City of Perth and forms part of the surrounding development context which is characterised by medium to high density commercial land uses. The overall height of the proposed structure to which the billboard sign would be affixed would not be inconsistent or out of character in the context of the surrounding area.

 

Previous Billboard Signage Proposals

 

The applicant’s justification for the proposal refers to previous approvals issued for billboard signage. The examples referred to are outside of the City of Vincent municipality. In 2018, Council determined two billboard signage proposals. These are detailed below.

 

On 6 March 2018, Council resolved to conditionally approve an application for an extension of time for two billboard signs that have been in-situ since 2004 at Nos. 596-598 Newcastle Street, Perth. The report to Council on that matter acknowledged the following:

 

·       The signs are billboards and present third party advertising;

·       The billboards have been on the site with approval from the City for the past 14 years and formed part of the established streetscape;

·       The billboards are not visible from the nearby residential properties;

·       The site and vehicular access to the site is constrained given its location on the corner of Loftus and Newcastle Streets; and

·       The site is identified as being within the Activity Corridor Area under Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form with six storeys permitted for the site.

 

In approving the application at Nos. 596-598 Newcastle Street, a time limitation for the billboard signs was imposed to allow the site to be used for the interim until the development context of the area changes in line with the desired development outcome envisaged in the Built Form Policy. These circumstances do not extend to the proposed billboard signage at the subject site.

 

More recently, on 24 July 2018, Council resolved to refuse an application for third party billboard signage at No. 2 Edward Street, Perth. The details of this proposal as outlined in the report to Council were as follows:

 

·       The billboard sign was proposed to be 1.8 metre high by 9 metre long and was proposed to display digital third party advertising;

·       The billboard sign was proposed to be located on top of the roof of the building;

·       The billboard sign was proposed to be setback 3.7 metres from the southern edge of the building and facing towards the Graham Farmer Freeway;

·       The overall height of the development, measured from the natural ground level to the top of the proposed billboard signage on top of the building, was proposed to be approximately 17.7 metres; and

·       The sign was proposed to advertise for a maximum of ten organisations at a time, with one advertisement being displayed at any given time. Each advertisement was proposed to have a dwell time of 40 seconds, and the illumination proposed was to be steady rather than flashing, intermittent or running.


 

The application was refused by Council for the following reasons:

 

“1.      The proposal is contrary to the orderly and proper planning of the area for the following reasons:

 

1.1     the scale of the proposed signage will have a negative visual impact and detract from the amenity of the surrounding area; and

1.2     the LED signage has the potential to endanger the safety of the public using Graham Farmer Freeway; and

2.       The sign does not comply with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising, as it constitutes a Billboard advertising third party signage.”


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

9.3          No. 17 (Lots: 1-8; D/P: 4465) Florence Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Multiple Dwellings and Alterations and Additions to Eight Existing Multiple Dwellings

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Supporting Information

4.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

5.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response

6.       Design Review Panel Minutes  

 

 

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 Four New Multiple Dwellings and Alterations and Additions to Eight Existing Multiple Dwellings at No. 17 (Lots: 1-8; D/P: 4465) Florence Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed four new Multiple Dwellings are not permitted under Clause 32(1) of the Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

2.       The proposed development is contrary to the Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Residential zone objectives as the alterations and additions to the existing Multiple Dwellings would not facilitate high quality design, built form and streetscape within the locality. The design and siting of the car parking results in a visual dominance to the streetscape that negatively impacts the prevailing amenity and character of the neighbourhood; and

3.       As a consequence of the scale and intensity of the proposal, the development does not meet the Element Objectives of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments as:

3.1     The design and location of car parking does not minimise negative visual impacts on the amenity and the adjoining public domain and is inconsistent with the existing neighbourhood streetscape character and dominates the interface of the development (Element 3.6, Element 3.9 and Element 4.6);

3.2     The provision of screening devices to the private open spaces of Unit 6 and Unit 7 reduce the external outlook from the balcony and adjoining living spaces, resulting in decreased residential amenity for occupants (Element 3.5  and Element 4.4); and

3.3     Units 5 – 8 are not provided with well-designed, functional and conveniently located storage areas, resulting in a decreased amenity on-site (Element 4.6).

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for four Multiple Dwellings and alterations and additions to eight Multiple Dwellings at No. 17 Florence Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes two new double storey buildings located to the rear of the development site. The applicant submitted these buildings as two Grouped Dwellings. Following an assessment, Administration determined that each new building provides kitchen and living spaces on both the ground floor and upper floor levels, as well as bedrooms, bathrooms and outdoor living areas. The layout of these buildings allow for each level to be accessed and lived in independently to the other. Based on the layout of each building, the units are defined as ‘Multiple Dwellings’ under State Planning Policy 7.3 – Residential Design Codes Volume 2 – Apartments (R Codes Volume 2). Multiple Dwellings are defined under the R Codes Volume 2 as follows:

 

“A dwelling in a group of more than one dwelling on a lot where any part of the plot ratio area of a dwelling is vertically above any part of the plot ratio area of any other but:

 

·       does not include a grouped dwelling; and

·       includes any dwellings above the ground floor in a mixed use development”.

 

The application also proposes to retain the existing two-storey building on the subject site that contains eight single bedroom Multiple Dwellings. Alterations and additions to upgrade the existing two-storey building on the subject site are proposed to re-locate existing parking and service facilities in order to accommodate the proposed new buildings to the rear of the development site.

 

The eight single bedroom Multiple Dwellings within the existing building on site has four of these units located on the ground floor and four units located on the upper floor. The application proposes the following upgrades to these eight units:

 

·       Internal renovation of each unit. The renovation does not involve any increase in floor area of these units;

·       Provision of private open space areas to each existing unit;

·       Provision of outdoor storerooms for the use of Units 1 – 4;

·       Provision of a new bin store;

·       Provision of eight car bays for the use of the existing units;

·       Provision of four bicycle bays for the use of the existing units;

·       New front fence;

·       Amended pedestrian access to the upper floor units;

·       External upgrade to the building, including new paintwork to the existing face brickwork walls and tiled roof; and

·       Additional landscaping.

 

The subject site currently consists of one lot containing eight existing multiple dwellings. The application indicates that the site would subsequently subdivided with the existing multiple dwellings being on Strata Lot 1, and the proposed new multiple dwellings being on Strata Lots 2 and 3. A portion of common property is proposed between the three strata lots to facilitate compliant vehicle manoeuvring. A right of carriageway easement is also proposed over Strata Lot 1 to provide vehicle access to Strata Lots 2 and 3. The configuration of the intended future strata lot layout is illustrated on the development plans which are included in Attachment 2.

 

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

Background:

Landowner:

R M Piller

Applicant:

Ecologic Homes

Date of Application:

8 April 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Multiple Dwellings

Proposed Use Class:

Multiple Dwellings

Lot Area:

1013.22m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is located at No. 17 Florence Street, West Perth, as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1. There are eight existing Multiple Dwellings on the subject site.

 

The site immediately adjoins a mix of Single Houses and Grouped Dwelling developments. The broader area is generally characterised by single storey and two storey Single Dwelling and Grouped Dwelling developments with some Multiple Dwelling developments also within the area.

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

 

A sewer line runs through the rear of the site and is a constraint on development due to its location and being unable to be built over. The proposed development at the rear of the site is in the form of two buildings to avoid development over the sewer line.

 

Permissibility of Multiple Dwellings

 

The eight existing Multiple Dwellings on the site are afforded non-conforming use rights under Clause 22(1)(a) of LPS2 that states:

 

“Unless specifically provided, this Scheme does not prevent –

 

a)       the continued use of any land, or any structure or building on land, for the purpose for which it was being lawfully used immediately before the commencement of this Scheme”

 

The City is able to consider a development application for alterations to these eight existing Multiple Dwellings under Clause 23(1)(b) of LPS2 which states that:

 

“A person must not, without development approval –

 

b)       erect, alter or extend a building used for, or in conjunction with, a nonconforming use of land”.

 

The site is also subject to Clause 32(1) of LPS2 which states that:

 

“Notwithstanding any other provisions in this scheme, multiple dwellings are not permitted”.

 

Multiple Dwellings have been restricted on the subject site and the surrounding area. The introduction of the new buildings proposed to be located to the rear of the development site defined as ‘Multiple Dwellings’ under R Codes Volume 2 are not permitted in accordance with Clause 32(1) of LPS2.

 

The strategic context of Clause 32(1) of LPS2 is that the City’s Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), gazetted in 1998, included a provision prohibiting multiple dwellings in the former Cleaver precinct. The intent of the prohibition was to ensure low scale development that includes single houses and grouped dwellings remain the predominant dwelling type in the precinct with new development designed in a manner that complements the low height, scale and character of existing housing.

 

In the preparation of the City’s Local Planning Strategy and LPS2, the intent to retain character housing and the scale of the precinct was acknowledged and reviewed. It was recommended that the Scheme provisions be put in place that continue to prohibit multiple dwelling development in this area. This would ensure that the low scale residential character of the area is protected, whilst also maintaining the R50 density coding to still enable other housing choice, in the form of grouped dwellings. This was ultimately carried into the provisions of LPS2 that was recommended for approval by the WAPC and approved by the Minister on 16 May 2018.

DetAils:

Summary Assessment

The proposal was assessed in accordance with the requirements of LPS2, the Built Form Policy and the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments, which relates to multiple dwelling developments. The R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments provides guidance for the development 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 - Apartments.

 

As the proposed four Multiple Dwellings to the rear of the site are not permitted in this location, a detailed assessment has not been completed against the proposed built form. The existing eight Multiple Dwellings on the subject site have non-conforming use rights since LPS2 was gazetted. This means that the detailed assessment of this report is based only on the proposed alterations and additions to the existing eight Multiple Dwellings.

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.

 

As the application proposes alterations and additions to the existing multiple dwellings only, not all Element Objectives of the R Codes Volume 2 - Apartments are applicable. The detailed assessment has been completed against applicable Element Objectives only.

 

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

 

Side and Rear Setbacks

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.4

 

A2.4.1 Development complies with the side and rear setbacks set out in Table 2.1, except where:

(b)   a greater setback is required to address 3.5 Visual Privacy

 

 

Greater setbacks are required to address 3.5 Visual Privacy for the Unit 5 Balcony to the north and Unit 8 Balcony to the south. Refer to Visual Privacy section of this table for the setbacks proposed.

Building Separation

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 2.7

 

A2.7.1 Development complies with the separation requirements set out in Table 2.7

 

To adjoining property boundaries

Ground floor to fourth storey as per ‘Side and Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual Privacy’.

 

 

Building setbacks proposed to the northern and southern lot boundaries as set out in the ‘Side and Rear Setbacks’ and ‘Visual Privacy’ Design Elements contained within this table.

Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.3

 

A3.3.5 One medium tree and small trees to suit area.

 

 

Nine small sized trees provided.

Visual Privacy

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.5

 

A3.5.1 Cone of vision from unenclosed outdoor living areas setback 7.5m.

 

 

Northern boundary

·      Unit 5 Balcony setback 6.0m.

 

Southern boundary

·      Unit 8 Balcony setback 6.5m.

 

A3.5.2 Balconies are unscreened for at least 25% of their perimeter.

Unit 6: Balcony is screened for 100% of its perimeter

Unit 7: Balcony is screened for 100% of its perimeter

 

A3.5.3 Living rooms have an external outlook from at least one opening that is not obscured by a screen.

Unit 6: Privacy screen restricts the external outlook from the living room.

Unit 7: Privacy screen restricts the external outlook from the living room.


 

Public Domain Interface

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.6

 

A3.6.2 Car parking is not located within the primary street setback area.

 

 

Three car parking spaces located within the primary street setback area.

Vehicle Access

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.8

 

A3.8.7 Walls truncated or reduced to no higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where a driveway meets a public street.

 

 

Front fence higher than 0.75m within 1.5m of where the driveway meets the street.

Car and Bicycle Parking

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 3.9

 

A3.9.4 Car parking areas are not located within the street setback and are not visually prominent from the street.

 

A3.9.6 Car parking is designed, landscaped or screened to mitigate visual impacts when viewed from dwellings.

 

 

Three car parking bays located within the street setback area. Parking behind the street setback area is visually prominent from the street.

 

Car bay 2 is directly adjacent to the living room major opening of Unit 1.

Private Open Space and Balconies

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.4

 

A4.4.2 Where private open space requires screening to achieve visual privacy requirements, the entire open space is not screened. Privacy screening is designed such that it does not obscure the outlook from adjacent living rooms.

 

 

Balconies provided to Units 4 and Unit 5 are screened in full and obscures the outlook from adjacent living rooms.

Circulation and Common Spaces

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.5

 

A4.5.1 Circulation corridors are a minimum 1.5 metres in width.

 

A4.5.5 Bedroom windows and major openings to living rooms do not open directly onto circulation or common spaces and are designed to ensure visual privacy and manage noise intrusion.

 

 

The proposed external walkway/corridor servicing the upper floor units has a minimum width of 1.1m.

 

The Unit 5 living room door opens directly onto the proposed upper floor walkway/corridor.

Storage

Acceptable Outcome

Proposal

R Codes Volume 2 – Clause 4.6

 

A4.6.1 Each dwelling has exclusive use of a separate, ventilated weatherproof, bulky goods storage area. Minimum area is 3m2 with a 1.5m minimum dimension.

 

 

 

Units 1-4 storerooms:

Minimum dimension: 0.7m

Storage area: 1.5m2

 

Units 5 – 8 storerooms:

Storerooms are provided within the bedroom of each unit.

Minimum dimension: 1.2m

Storage area: 3.0m2

 

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 14 days commencing on 9 October 2019 and concluding on 22 October 2019. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification being sent to surrounding landowners and occupiers (shown in Attachment 1) and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received five submissions by the conclusion of the consultation period, all of which objected to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       Concerns that the new buildings would be used as Multiple Dwellings which are not permitted in this location;

·       Overdevelopment of the site is proposed;

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

·       Adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties;

·       Overlooking to adjoining properties;

·       Overshadowing to adjoining properties;

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

·       The number of car bays is insufficient for the scale of the development;

·       Insufficient amenities and services such as storerooms, bin stores and laundry services have been provided; and

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

 

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

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The development has been referred to the DRP on two occasions on 5 June 2019 and 2 October 2019 following lodgement of the application. Refer to Attachment 6 for an extract of the minutes from each meeting.

 

Following the 2 October 2019 DRP meeting, further changes were made to the plans by the applicant. In relation to the alterations and additions proposed to the existing building and its surrounds, the applicant sought to address the DRP comments by undertaking the following:

 

·       Providing additional storerooms for the use of each unit;

·       Amending the location of the bin store area;

·       Providing private open space areas to each unit;

·       Providing additional landscaping; and

·       Reviewing the pedestrian access between the front building and the rear buildings.

 

In relation to the new buildings to the rear of the development, the applicant sought to address the DRP comments by undertaking the following:

 

·       Providing amendments to the internal layouts of the new buildings involving the removal of laundry facilities on the upper floors;

·       Providing additional landscaping;

·       Increasing surveillance to the common property; and

·       Changes to balcony and major opening locations to enable greater access to northern light.

 

These amended plans received on 2 December 2019 were referred to the City’s DRP Chairperson and DRP member with Urban Design expertise for comment.

The DRP Chair and member advised that previous concerns and comments had not been suitably addressed in the amended plans, and that the Ten Principles of Good Design have not been achieved. The following concerns were raised:

 

·       The proposed communal storeroom and bin store location is inconvenient and occupants of the development would be required to walk through car bay 2 or out onto the footpath within the road reserve to access this area. The pedestrian path to this area should be clearly identified;

·       It is unclear how individual security of the communal storeroom will be managed;

·       The location of storerooms within the upper floor bedrooms of existing Units 5, 6, 7 and 8 would not be appropriate for the nature of items stored;

·       Car bay 2 is directly in front of a major opening into the living area of Unit 1. There are privacy, amenity and security concerns with the proximity of this car bay to this habitable room;

·       There is no clear and legible walking path to the four proposed additional dwellings to the rear of the site from the street. This raises concerns regarding safety; and

·       Aesthetically the design does not come together. There is disconnect between the upgraded existing building and the proposed new buildings. Whilst the design of the buildings could contrast one another, there needs to be synergy between the existing and new buildings which is not currently achieved.

 

Amended plans received by the City on 4 February 2020 removed a communal storeroom provided for the use of Units 5 – 8.

 

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

14/08/2019

DRP 2 

02/10/2019

Referral to DRP Chairperson

14/01/2020

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

 

 

 

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; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

 

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 Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

Administration received legal advice confirming that the layout of the proposed dwellings to the rear of the site appear to be more conducive to separate accommodation between the upper and ground floors, and that there is enough evidence to suggest that the development should be classified as Multiple Dwellings rather than Grouped Dwellings.

 

Administration also sought legal advice in relation to whether there is an ability to contemplate the proposed new Multiple Dwellings and the alterations proposed to the existing Multiple Dwellings under LPS2. The legal advice concluded that Clause 32(1) of LPS2 would not act to prevent the continuation of non-conforming use rights afforded to the eight existing Multiple Dwellings under Clause 22(1)(a) of LPS2, nor would it act to prevent the ability for the City to grant development approval for alterations to these existing Multiple Dwellings under Clause 23(1)(b) of LPS2. The legal advice also concluded that Clause 32(1) of LPS2 would act to prevent the City from approving the addition of four new Multiple Dwellings proposed to the rear of the site. This is because a prospective approval is being sought for the Multiple Dwellings use. The City would be acting beyond its powers by granting approval for a use that is prohibited under LPS2.

 

Administration’s assessment of the proposal has been undertaken on the basis of this legal advice.

 

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 the April 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council to consider its acceptability following community consultation.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being 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:

Land Use

 

The two-storey building to the rear of the development site falls under the definition of ‘Multiple Dwellings’ land use under the R Codes - Volume 2.

 

Both of the proposed buildings are designed in a way that enables the upper and lower floors to operate independently to the other. The only shared area is the downstairs entry and although the ground floor plans do not show a door in the internal opening between the entry and the activity room, a door could easily be added. The upper floor plans do not show a laundry or washing machine, however a separate laundry is not a mandatory element of an independent 'self-contained' dwelling. By providing bedrooms, kitchen facilities, bathrooms, and both indoor and outdoor living areas on both levels, the layout is conducive to separate accommodation between the upper and ground floors rather than shared accommodation. Based on the layout of the development, there is enough evidence to suggest that the development could reasonably be classified as four Multiple Dwellings, in lieu of two Grouped Dwellings as proposed by the applicant.

 

Multiple Dwellings have been restricted on the subject site and this locality. The introduction of the new buildings located to the rear of the development site defined as a ‘Multiple Dwellings’ use class under R Codes Volume 2 is not permitted in accordance with Clause 32(1) of LPS2.

 

The approval of the proposed Multiple Dwellings on the subject lot would conflict with the intent of the Local Planning Strategy and Clause 32(1) of LPS2 that acts to prevent the City from approving the addition of four new Multiple Dwellings to the rear of the site. The City would be acting beyond its powers by granting approval for a use that is prohibited under LPS2.

 

Side and Rear Setbacks & Building Separation

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 2.4 and Element 2.7 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed upper floor balconies are separated from the adjoining southern properties by the vehicle access leg and the setback of these balconies to the adjoining properties would be sufficient to reduce amenity impacts of bulk and scale;

·       The proposed development provides additional deep soil areas and canopy coverage to what currently exists within the side setback areas; and

·       The proposed building separation between the upper floor balconies and the adjoining properties to the south is appropriate in the context of the two storey building height.

 

Private Open Space and Balconies & Visual Privacy

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 3.5 and Element 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

 

The proposal results in the removal of all existing communal open space that was previously afforded to the existing eight multiple dwellings. Private open space areas have been proposed for the exclusive use of each unit. The private open space areas for all units have been provided in accordance with the minimum dimension and area requirements specified within Table 4.4 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments.

 

Private Open Space Design

 

·       Private open space areas have been provided to Units 1 – 4 that are appropriately sized, accessed and oriented to enhance the liveability of residents;

·       The balconies provided to Units 5 and 8 provide less than 25 percent of their respective perimeters as privacy screening. These balconies have been designed to retain good external outlook from the internal living spaces and from the private open space. The balconies have also been designed to enhance residential amenity and are integrated into the overall architectural form; and

·       The Units 6 and 7 balconies are screened for their entire perimeter. While screening protects the privacy of the applicable units and adjoining properties, the residential amenity of both Units 6 and 7 is diminished as the privacy screens restrict daylight access and outlook for both the balcony and adjoining habitable rooms. These are the only outdoor open space areas that can be used by occupants for passive recreation as the development does not provide separate communal open space areas to compensate for the decreased amenity provided to these balconies. The Units 6 and 7 balconies have not been sited and designed to enhance residential amenity or liveability for residents.

 

Visual Privacy: Northern Boundary

 

·       The front balcony of Unit 5 is not setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The Unit 1 balcony overlooks the adjoining northern property’s front setback area and front porch. The balcony does not result in any direct overlooking to the adjoining northern property’s major openings or primary outdoor living area, which is located to the rear of the site. The areas to which the Unit 1 balcony overlooks can also be clearly viewed from the public domain.

·       The setbacks provided ensure adequate separation between properties and provide no direct overlooking to habitable rooms with major openings and outdoor living areas. The design also reduces all direct overlooking to major openings to habitable rooms and primary outdoor living areas which are considered to be sensitive areas within the subject site; and

·       All other major openings to habitable rooms facing the northern adjoining properties are as existing.

 

Visual Privacy: Southern Boundary

 

·       The balcony of Unit 8 is not setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The Unit 8 balcony overlooks the rear of the southern adjoining property’s backyard area. This area is extensive garden area and is not the primary outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property. There are a number of mature trees located on the southern adjoining property that reduce vision from the Unit 8 balcony to the primary outdoor living area of the this southern property. The balcony does not result in any direct overlooking to the adjoining southern property’s major openings or primary outdoor living area; and

·       All other balconies and major openings facing south are setback in accordance with the distances specified within Table 3.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments or have been provided with privacy screens to restrict all overlooking to the southern adjoining properties. 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 design also does not result in direct overlooking to major openings to habitable rooms and primary outdoor living areas which are considered to be sensitive areas within the subject site.

 

Tree Canopy and Deep Soil Areas

 

The proposed tree canopy and deep soil areas are consistent with the objectives of Elements 3.3 and 4.12 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes 15.9 percent (99.8 square metres) deep soil area, which exceeds the prescribed requirement of 10 percent as detailed within Table 3.3 of the R Codes Volume 2. Deep soil zones have been provided within the front setback area and adjacent to the side lot boundaries which would positively contribute to the landscape amenity and visual appeal of the site;

·       The application proposes one small sized tree to be provided within each private open space area of Units 1 – 4 as well as within the front setback area, providing shade to open car bays. The adjoining southern property also contains mature planting along the shared boundary that shades some of the driveway. The trees are provided in a range of species and in locations that would facilitate substantial landscaping visible from adjoining properties and the public domain, while contributing to the amenity of the development site;

·       The landscape quality is substantially improved when compared to the current condition of the development site and improves the outlook for residents on the subject site and adjoining properties; and

·       If approved, Administration would recommend a condition of development approval requiring the provision of one medium sized tree to be provided in accordance with Table 3.3 of the R Codes Volume 2. The application currently proposes a surplus of small trees. The condition would require at least one of these small trees to be replaced by a medium tree. The medium tree would provide additional canopy coverage, a higher landscape quality outcome and an improved amenity for residents.

 

Car and Bicycle Parking & Public Domain Interface

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 3.6 and Element 3.9 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The development proposes six 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. Three of the proposed car parking bays provided are located within the front setback area of the development site. In addition to the bays located within the front setback area, Car bays 3 and 4 are also visually prominent from the street;

·       The cumulative impact of the car bays and privacy screen between Car bay 2 and Visitor Car bay reduces street surveillance from the ground floor and detracts from visual appeal of the site when viewed from the street;

·       While the application proposes deep soil areas and four mature trees within the front setback area that would assist in offsetting impacts of the car bays, more than 50 percent of the front setback area remains as hardstand areas. The grass pavers provided to the car bays does not offset the adverse impact of parked cars being visually prominent and detracting from the street. Administration does not support grass pavers for parking areas as they generally deteriorate as a result of vehicle movements, are difficult to maintain and result in a poor amenity outcome;

·       The provision of Car bay 2 directly adjacent to the Unit 1 major opening would provide adverse amenity and visual impacts to the occupants of this unit. The location of this car bay may diminish the sense of security and privacy of Unit 1; and

·       The City’s DRP has also raised concerns in relation to the siting of the car bays and their impact on the street and the amenity of the units.

 

Circulation and Common Spaces

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 4.5 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The corridor layout is simple and legible and does not contain excessive or unnecessary changes of direction. The proposed upper floor corridor would be of an adequate size to service the four upper floor Units of the existing multiple dwelling building on this basis;

·       The upper floor corridor would allow for occupants of the units to interact socially and result in increased amenity in this respect; and

·       Whilst the Unit 5 living space does open out onto the communal corridor, this portion of the corridor services Unit 5 only and there would be negligible amenity impact on the occupants of that unit.

 

Vehicle Access

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of Element 3.8 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The development proposes one pier with a 350 millimetre width and visually permeable fencing within the sightline area to the south of the driveway. The reduced width of the piers proposed and visually permeable infill ensures that the driveway would maintain sufficient sightlines where it intersects with the adjacent footpath to ensure visibility and safety. The City’s technical officers have reviewed the proposal and confirmed that fencing has been provided in a manner that enables a safe view of the pedestrian and vehicular traffic for vehicles leaving the property boundary; and

·       The proposal involves the provision of one single crossover, being 5.4 metres in width. The crossover is similar in width with that existing on-site and ensures the vehicle access point is not visually and physically intrusive to the streetscape. The vehicle access points has been designed to ensure safe vehicle access and appropriate sightlines.

 

Storage

 

The proposal is not consistent with the objectives of Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments for the following reasons:

 

·       The existing building in its current from does not provide any meaningful storage areas for the eight units. As the application proposes to upgrade the amenities on site, storerooms are required to be provided in accordance with current planning requirements, specifically Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments;

·       Units 1 – 4 have been provided with storerooms within the respective private open space areas. These storerooms do not meet the required areas and dimensions as specified in Table 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. While they do not meet the minimum area and dimension requirements, the storerooms have been accommodated in lieu of no storage space previously provided for the one bedroom units. The storerooms for Units 1 – 4 are conveniently located and have been provided at dimensions that allow them to accommodate larger and less frequently accessed items. These storerooms are also not visible from the street and are secure;

·       Units 5 – 8 are not provided with any external storerooms for bulky-good storage. The application instead provides storage areas within the bedroom of each unit. These areas within the bedrooms do not fall under the definition of ‘storage’ under the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments. The definition of ‘storage (inside apartments)’ specifically excludes storage located within bedrooms. The definition of ‘storage (external to apartments)’ requires storage areas to be in addition to any internal storage in bedrooms. The storage area proposed within the bedrooms are also not provided in addition to a separate wardrobe within the bedroom. Whilst Element 4.6 of the R Codes Volume 2 – Apartments allows for storage areas to be located internally to the dwelling, the location of the storage area within the bedroom is not well-designed, functional nor convenient and results in a decreased amenity to the units; and

·       The City’s DRP confirmed that the location of storerooms within the upper floor bedrooms of existing Units 5, 6, 7 and 8 would not be appropriate for the nature of items stored.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020


 



 


 


 



 



 


 


 


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

9.4          City of Vincent Submission on Commercial Building Approval Reforms - Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement

Attachments:             1.       Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement

2.       City of Vincent Submission - Commercial Building CRIS  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES Attachment 2 as the City of Vincent’s submission in support of all proposals within ‘Reforms to the approval process for commercial buildings in Western Australia – Consultation Regulatory Impact Statement’; and

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

 

Purpose of Report:

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

Background:

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

 

The City is currently responsible for issuing building and occupancy permits for new apartment and commercial buildings located in its jurisdiction.  Apartment and commercial building applications are pre‑certified by the private certification industry. This scheme is referred to as full privatisation for all apartment and commercial buildings. Once certification has occurred, the builder applies to the Local Government for a permit, which the Local Government issues if all of the required certifications are submitted. Only then can construction begin.  The City has only 10 business days to assess apartment and commercial applications.  Failure to issue a building permit within the legislated timeframe risks the fees collected for that application being refunded back to the applicant.  Large projects can attract high assessment fees, depending on the size of the development, often above $10,000.

 

The purpose of the CRIS is to seek stakeholder comments on options for reforms to the building approval process. This CRIS considers the recommendations of Building Confidence: Improving the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry across Australia. This report was prepared by the Building Ministers’ Forum in February 2018 with a goal to enhance public trust in the effectiveness of compliance and enforcement systems for the building and construction industry across Australia.

 

The CRIS highlights the impacts of problems with the enforcement framework, recognising a lack of enforcement could lead to structural defects, which then results in costs imposed on the building industry and community to remedy the defects. There are many high profile examples to support this observation, including:

 

·       Grenfell Tower, London (2017) – an electrical fire spread quickly through the 24-storey apartment building due to combustible cladding panels being fitted on the building. Similar products have been fitted on buildings in Australia including the Lacrosse Apartments in Melbourne, where a fire occurred in 2014, with the spread of the fire being prevented by fire hydrant and sprinkler systems. These cases have led to an audit of buildings which could contain combustible cladding in WA;

·       Opal Tower, Sydney (2018) – this 36-storey apartment building was evacuated after cracks appeared in the concrete, due to over-stressed beams. This was caused by design, construction and material deficiencies that did not meet the National Construction Code and Australian Standards; and

·       Lidcombe Apartment Building, Sydney (2016) – during a storm, the roof blew off this 53-unit building. The insurer denied the claim for cost of repairs, and found the damage was due to non-compliant work.

In its capacity as a building permit authority, the City has experienced challenges which impacts the building approvals process, including:

 

1.       Poor quality applications being submitted, requiring City building surveyors to spend more time than is budgeted to review applications;

2.       Very large applications (circa ~1000 pages) having to be reviewed within the statutory 10 day timeframe by multiple units in the City;

3.       Performance issues relating to the private sector having to be referred to DMIRS, and then managed within a regulatory framework that could better mandate code of conduct requirements. This can impose an enforcement burden on the City, which is also highlighted in the Building Confidence Report; and

4.       Limitations associated with full private certification, which could lead to a private building surveyor not being independent of anyone whose work they certify.

Details:

The CRIS contains 28 proposals to improve building compliance for apartment and commercial buildings (class 2-9 of the Building Code of Australia). These proposals are derived from the recommendations of the Building Confidence Report. Collectively the proposals are designed to:

 

1.       Empower regulators to take strong compliance and enforcement action;

2.       Ensure fire authorities are engaged during the design process;

3.       Establish statutory controls to mitigate conflicts of interest;

4.       Introduce a code of conduct for building surveyors;

5.       Enhance supervisory powers for private building surveyors;

6.       Improve the standard of documentation that is submitted as part of a building approval application, and for performance solutions;

7.       Improve processes for approving retrospective building work, and variations during construction;

8.       Incorporate third party review for high-risk design work;

9.       Require on-site inspections during the build; and

10.     Have a building manual prepared and made available to successive owners of the building.

 

Administration supports the recommendations of the Building Confidence Report and the 28 proposals of the CRIS. This position is consistent with the outcomes of a workshop delivered by the Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) on 13 February 2020.

 

While most of the reforms would have minimal or no long-term cost implications, it is estimated that third-party reviews of high risk designs, and inspections during construction would increase construction costs by 0.8 percent, or $33.5 million per year in WA. It is estimated that this cost is equivalent to the cost of rectification works for 44 buildings per year, should the proposals not be implemented.

 

Proposal 26 of the CRIS provides two options for mandatory inspections. One of these options is for the permit authority (local governments) to manage these inspections (Option A) and to also become responsible for certifying that buildings have been constructed in compliance with the building standards. Administration’s preferred approach is Option B which involves the inspections being completed by private building surveyors and design engineers, given they are already responsible for certifying the compliance of the design and so are familiar with the details of the building. The inspection details would then be provided with the occupancy permit application to the City at the completion of the build. Under Option B, the cost impacts for the City would be negligible. The cost implications to the City for the remaining 27 proposals would also be negligible, and could in fact reduce the amount of time required to assess an application with improved quality and accountability provisions in place.

 

Key proposals that would benefit the City as a Permit Authority are highlighted below:

 

Proposal 3 enables the Building Commissioner to prescribe requirements on technical matters. This means improvements to the regulatory system can be made in a more efficient and timely manner than the current process of having to update the Building Regulations 2012 (Building Regulations). Technical matters can include guidance on risk analysis and codes to govern registered practitioners (e.g. Building Surveyors, Builders and supporting Trades).

 

Changing technical aspects of the Building Regulations would require political involvement. This process could not swiftly react to industry requirements.  Under this proposal, state level implementation of technical and procedural enhancements could be introduced readily and delivered more effectively in response to emerging concerns.

 

Proposal 10 would require building surveyors, both those who work privately and for government, to be independent of anyone whose work they certify. This would address one of the City’s concerns, that there is a possibility private building surveyors could put the wishes of a client first due to potential conflicts of interest.

 

Proposal 11 is to mandate a Code of Conduct of Building Surveyors. The City supports this proposal as it may help clarify the requirements for the private sector to abide by. The City’s Building Surveyors would also fall under the Code of Conduct, however already operates under these general principles of governance. A Code of Conduct would be in line with the Australian Institute of Building Surveyors (AIBS) Code of Conduct for its members.

 

Proposal 12 would solidify the engagement of a private building surveyor from start to end of the building process, allowing the contracted building surveyor to confidently administer the Building Codes and Australian Standards without fear of the client terminating their contract. The current system permits the applicant to terminate private building surveyor contracts as a means of resolving differences of opinion in the interpretation and application of building requirements. This could lead to applicants ‘shopping around’ for alternative building surveyors to seek someone with the interpretation of requirements that suits their purpose. This change may lead to better quality applications once they arrive at the City for building permit issue.

 

Proposals 14 – 17 are designed to improve quality of building applications by requiring information to be supplied which increases assurance of compliance with building requirements. For example, a private certifier currently could reference an applicable Australian Standard on a technical drawing without illustrating how compliance with that standard is to be achieved. To ensure accountability, a specified practitioner or contractor would be allocated for each submitted document to be a reference point for investigating compliance.

 

These proposals also improve document control, as plans can be amended multiple times before and after a building permit is issued. If there is no clear record of which revision of the plans and specifications were approved, inspecting the construction and completing certificate of construction compliance can be problematic. A minimum standard for building documentation is also proposed in order to create consistency across all building application types.  This can reduce assessment time by the City of complex commercial applications with the 10-day time constraint.

 

Proposal 18 and 28 prescribes maintenance conditions that would apply over the life of the building and would require a digital building manual be provided to owners and regulators setting out these conditions. This approach would help the owners and end users understand their obligation to ensure the necessary and ongoing functions and safety of the building. These conditions should be in place as apartment and commercial building systems are quite complex and require periodic maintenance and checks through its lifetime (e.g. fire safety systems).

 

This proposal is designed to alleviate the misunderstanding by building owners and the ongoing maintenance requirements of more complex apartment and commercial buildings.  This extends to obligations in relation to fire and early occupant warning systems and mechanical ventilation systems.  The Australian Standards often specify ongoing tests and checks to be carried out periodically throughout the life of the building. For example, AS1851 requires scheduled maintenance of building fire systems and test records to be kept onsite.  This proposal is a measure to improve awareness of building owners and managers to the building’s ongoing requirements.

 

Proposals 20 – 27 looks to improve and clarify technical aspects of the private building surveyor role, mainly targeting retrospective approvals and the purpose of building performance solutions.  It is also proposed that mandated construction inspections be introduced, which could be done either by a local government (Option A) or private building surveyor or engineer (Option B). Option A would also shift responsibility for certifying the final compliance of buildings with the building standards. This would create inefficiencies and risks in the process, given the private certifier would still be responsible for assessing and approving the original design but would not be involved in then confirming that this design had been constructed. Having the local government confirm that the privately approved design had been constructed in accordance with the standards would require the local government to undertake a full reassessment of the design, given the local government would be taking on most of the risk if there was to be any issue with building once completed. There would also be additional resourcing required by local governments to undertake this responsibility, though it is proposed that this would be covered by additional building application fees.

 

In relation to retrospective applications, the proposals would require a thorough assessment of those works and mandatory reporting of certain non-compliant work that present risks. For example, combustible building materials, which increase the risk to the safety of a building’s occupants, and non-compliant water proofing in wet areas which presents a risk to occupant health through mould growth. Such non-compliances are likely to result in significant rectification costs. These proposals would ensure that regulators are made aware of the level and types of non-compliant work, enabling better targeting of enforcement and education resources.

 

Variations to building approvals which occur during the construction process can often be carried out without the appropriate level of oversight.  Often these are changes attributed to cost reduction by the builder, usually by product substitution and can lead to a building code non-compliance.  In extreme cases the approval deviations can risk life safety and health of the buildings eventual users and occupiers. These proposals suggest improved processes for managing building permit variations.

 

In summary, most if not all proposals above are designed to improve industry accountability, which creates positive flow on outcomes for local governments as permit authorities, end users and owners of commercial buildings.  Giving additional powers to state regulators will help early detection of possible systemic issues.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation on the CRIS closes on 3 April 2020.

Legal/Policy:

·       Building Act 2011

 

A CRIS is required as part of a Regulatory Impact Assessment process when policy proposals may result in new or amended legislation. If any of the 28 proposals are to be progressed, the Building Act and Building Regulations would require amendment. The City is a ‘permit authority’ designated by the Building Act.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

 

Innovative and Accountable

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

It is recommended Council support and endorse the detailed comments on the CRIS proposals. These proposals are designed to improve compliance with building standards.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



 


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

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

Attachments:             1.       Map of Character Streets - LPS2 Clause 26(6) Outlined

2.       Advertised Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

3.       Summary of Submissions - Scheme Amendment No. 5  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the submissions received and ENDORSES Administration’s response to those submissions in relation to the advertising of Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 3;

2.       DOES NOT SUPPORT Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 pursuant to Part 5, Division 3, Regulation 50(3)(c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

3.       FORWARDS Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and any required documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission within 21 days, pursuant to Regulation 53(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider:

 

·       The outcomes of community consultation on Amendment No. 5 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2); and

·       Not supporting Amendment No. 5 to LPS2 pursuant to Part 5, Division 3, Regulation 50(3)(c) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

Background:

The City’s (former) Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1) came into effect in 1998 and included Clause 20(4)(d)(ii) which limited development in the Norfolk Precinct to a maximum of two dwellings per lot. LPS2 came into effect on 16 May 2018 and included Clause 26(6) which continued to limit development to a maximum of two dwellings per lot and was worded as follows:

 

“Within the areas coded R40 bounded by Vincent Street, Beaufort Street, Walcott Street and Fitzgerald Street, a maximum of two dwellings will be permitted per lot.”

 

Clause 26(6) was amended in 2018 and the current Clause now reads:

 

“Within the areas coded R40 bounded by Vincent Street, Beaufort Street, Walcott Street and Fitzgerald Street, a maximum of two dwellings will be permitted per lot, with exception of lots with subdivision approval for more than two strata or survey-strata lots granted prior to gazettal of Local Planning Scheme No. 2.”

 

The intent of these provisions was to retain the character of the area by restricting development to a predominately low-density residential development pattern in the area, by permitting and encouraging infill development in the form of subdivision to the rear of the existing dwelling and to discourage greater levels of development in the form of multiple dwellings.

 

A review of development in the area has shown that there are a number of properties that have existing development with more than two dwellings per lot. There are a number of reasons for this, including:

 

1.       The legal interpretation of ‘two dwellings per lot’ under the Town Planning and Development Act 1928 (repealed 2006), which allowed more than two dwellings.

 

2.       Decision makers used Clause 40 of former TPS1 to vary the requirement and approve ‘non-complying’ development.

 

3.       Clause 20(4)(d)(ii) of former TPS1 and Clause 26(6) of LPS2 was not referenced or acknowledged during the approval process; and

 

4.       Lots were subdivided into green titles allowing two dwellings to be built on each of the newly created green title lots.

 

The first three issues have been addressed and are not anticipated to arise again and Clause 26(6) is now being implemented in accordance with its original intent. Despite these improvements the current clause does not provide an effective mechanism to address point four above as land could still be subdivided into green titles allowing two dwellings to be built on each of the newly created green title lots.

 

Further investigations have revealed that limiting development to a maximum of two dwellings per lot, even when implemented properly, has not led to the retention of character within the area. The introduction of the Planning and Development Act (Local Planning Schemes Regulations) 2015 removed the requirement for development approval for the demolition of single houses. Clause 26(6) currently does not contain a mechanism to retain character dwellings and there are many circumstances where character dwellings have been demolished and replaced with a new single house or two new grouped dwellings. There is currently no mechanism within the planning framework to actively prevent the demolition of character dwellings except for the heritage listing process. Under the existing planning framework demolition of character dwellings is expected to continue in the area.

 

No. 6 Burt Street, Mount Lawley falls within the amendment area and has a development approval for nine Serviced Apartments, two Multiple Dwellings, a Caretaker’s Residence and a Restaurant/Café. Following approval, the applicant lodged a scheme amendment to remove the subject properties from Clause 26(6). The intent being to enable consideration of the Serviced Apartments to be converted to Multiple Dwellings.  Following discussion with the City the applicant chose to withdraw the scheme amendment so that further investigations could be undertaken to consider a broader approach for Clause 26(6).

 

A desktop study of the area subject to Clause 26(6) has revealed that there is an existing character building constructed prior to 1940 on approximately 49% of the 1035 properties within the area. A detailed investigation revealed that there were six intact character streetscapes in the area subject to Clause 26(6). A map showing the intact character streetscapes and those at risk of development is included as Attachment 1.

 

The City considered the ‘at-risk’ character streetscapes and prepared Amendment No. 5 to LPS2 at its meeting held on the 30 April 2019 (Item 9.7). The intent of Amendment No. 5 was to encourage the retention of character dwellings, while still managing the scale of development in the area consistent with existing development patterns.

 

The amendment proposed to allow development of more than two dwellings (up to an R40 density) where a significant portion of a character building, built prior to 1940, was retained. The development potential for all other lots would remain as a maximum of two dwellings per lot. The advertised amendment is included as Attachment 2, and as follows:

 

“Within areas coded R40 bounded by Vincent Street, Beaufort Street, Walcott Street and Fitzgerald Street, a maximum of two dwellings are permitted per lot except where:

 

·       A lot has subdivision approval for more than two strata or survey-strata lots granted prior to the gazettal of the Local Planning Scheme No. 2; or

·       Development on a lot proposes the retention of an entire building, or a significant portion of a building, constructed prior to 1940 and maintains all character elements of that building as viewed from the public realm.

 

Following approval from the Environmental Protection Authority, Amendment No. 5 was advertised for a period of 42 days between 20 July and 31 August 2019. Fifteen submissions were received and the proposed wording of Clause 26(6) was amended to respond to the concerns. The amended wording was subsequently presented to Council at the Council Briefing held on 3 December 2019 but withdrawn from the 10 December 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council by Administration to further review the wording of the provision following community feedback and questions from Council Members during the Council Briefing.

Details:

The City received fifteen submissions during the consultation period covering two key issues in relation to the amendment. Six submissions expressed support for the proposed amendment and nine submissions objected to the proposal. A full summary of submissions and responses to those submissions is included in Attachment 3.

 

1.       Role and Purpose

 

Submitters raised concerns that the advertised amendment would not be capable of protecting character in the area as intended. Submitters advised that not all dwellings constructed prior to 1940 have significance or contribute to the unique character. Concerns were also raised that the advertised amendment fails to define what a ‘character element’ of a building is.

 

In response to these concerns, Administration suggests that further detailed analysis of the streets in the subject area should be undertaken to determine which dwellings or streetscapes have significance or contribute to the unique character of the area. This will also allow the City to identify the specific character elements that contribute to the streetscape that are worthy of protection and provide clarity to land owners, applicants and decision makers.

 

2.       Managing Density

 

A key technical issue was raised by submitters and Elected Members at the Council Briefing on 3 December 2019. Submitters identified that the advertised amendment fails to address a situation where multiple lots are acquired in a single ownership and then developed in accordance with their R40 coding. Submitters were concerned that this could result in a situation where a number of character buildings could be demolished, with only one being retained and the potential development outcome would not be in line with the intent of the provision. Administration presented a modified version of the amendment that attempted to address this issue at the 3 December 2019 briefing. On further investigation, Administration determined that the proposed modifications were not sufficient to address the concerns and subsequently withdrew the item from the 10 December 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council.

 

Administration now considers that this issue cannot be addressed through amending the Clause. Acknowledging the submissions, further investigation, and discussions with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage officers, Administration considers the advertised amendment raises the following issues:

 

1.       Pre-1940s dwellings

 

While pre-1940s dwellings are generally considered to have a certain aesthetic quality, the requirement included in the proposed provision is not specific enough about the actual character elements that are worthy of protection. Further work should be undertaken to provide detailed guidance as to what character elements are worthy of protection in the area, or which individual buildings/streetscapes are worthy of protection and which elements are required to be retained and why. Experience in recent development assessments shows that it is imperative the character elements of a streetscape are identified up front if they are intended to be protected through the planning and development process.

 

2.       Other established planning mechanisms exist

 

The proposed amendment seeks to establish a new mechanism within LPS2 to control matters relating to character and heritage protection. Following further investigations, Administration does not consider the creation of a new mechanism to be an appropriate approach when there are other existing statutory mechanisms which could better protect the character of the area than the advertised amendment.

 

3.       There is no guaranteed protection for dwellings where a property is amalgamated

 

This potential outcome directly opposes and undermines the intent of the amendment. Administration considers that the identified issue cannot be addressed through the wording of this Scheme Amendment alone, but that alternate planning mechanisms may be more appropriate and nuanced to achieve the intended outcome of character protection.

 

Through consideration of the above, Administration recommends that Council resolve to not support the advertised amendment.

Consultation/Advertising:

Following the formal decision from the Minister, the City will notify submitters of the outcome by publishing a notice in a local newspaper and on the City’s website advising of the final decision and the location where it can be viewed in accordance with Part 5, Division 5, Regulation 64 of the Regulations.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent LPS2;

·       Local Planning Policy 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

There are minimal risks to Council and the City’s business function when Council exercises it power to make a recommendation to the Minister on a Scheme Amendment.

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:

Costs can be met by the City’s existing operational budget.

Comments:

Council’s decision on this amendment along with the amendment documents will be forwarded to the WAPC. The WAPC must make any recommendations to the Minister for Planning in respect of the amendment that is considered appropriate, and submit the recommendation and associated documents to the Minister in accordance with section 87(1) of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

If the advertised amendment is not supported by Council, Administration will work to protect the character of this area by considering it as part of the City’s ongoing character retention and heritage areas program.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

9.6          Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grants Application - Leederville Tennis Club

Attachments:             1.       2020 CSRFF Small Grants Application Form  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grant submission received from Leederville Tennis Club and ENDORSES Administrations assessment of the submission, included as Attachment 1;

2.       SUPPORTS IN PRINCIPLE the Leederville Tennis Club’s Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund Small Grants application included as Attachment 1 subject to:

2.1     The application being successful in obtaining funding from the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries; and

2.2     Including $21,548 in the City’s budget for the 2020/21 financial year to fund one third of the project; and

3.       NOTES that Administration will forward the submission to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for consideration.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider supporting in principle the Leederville Tennis Club’s funding submission to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSCI) Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund (CSRFF) Small Grants Round.

Background:

Local governments and not-for-profit sport/recreation organisations are eligible to apply for CSRFF grants aimed towards increasing participation through the development of sustainable, good quality, well-designed and well-utilised facilities. The DLGSCI offers small grant funding twice annually in March and August.

 

The CSRFF Small Grants allow eligible clubs, groups and local governments to apply for grant funding to assist with smaller projects that have a total cost of $300,000 or less. Any applications for the current CSRFF Small Grants need to be submitted to the relevant local government for assessment, Council endorsement and submission to the DLGSCI by 4pm 31 March 2020.

 

The applications are then assessed by DLGSCI and rated as either:

 

A.      Well planned and needed by municipality;

B.      Well planned and needed by applicant;

C.      Needed by municipality, more planning required;

D.      Needed by applicant, more planning required;

E.      Idea has merit, more planning work needed; or

F.       Not recommended.

 

Successful/unsuccessful applicants are notified by DLGSCI in June 2020.

 

The City generally coordinates these applications between our community groups, sporting clubs and our own submission to ensure that there is no duplication in applications and to rank the applications in order of priority. The City has received one application for this round of funding from the Leederville Tennis Club. The City is not submitting its own application this round.

Details:

Leederville Tennis Club is one of four tennis clubs delivering tennis participation opportunities within the City. The Club was established in 1924 and currently has 133 members.

 

The Club has 16 courts including 10 grass courts, four synthetic grass courts and two hard courts. The four synthetic grass courts and two hard courts currently have floodlights for night tennis, with two lights per court for coverage. The 10 grass courts do not require floodlights.

 

The Club has identified that their current lights have become problematic and are faulting on a regular basis. In the 2018/2019 financial year the Club’s floodlight maintenance costs increased by $6,696. The City and the Club assessed the existing floodlight infrastructure and it was identified that the internal light boxes have reached end of life.

 

The Club has submitted a CSRFF application to the City seeking support for the floodlighting upgrade on the six courts in accordance with the relevant Australian Standards.

 

The Club has done its due diligence and identified the need to upgrade the lighting to LED. It is not a preferred option for the Club to replace like for like due to the higher use of electricity and higher maintenance costs. The LED lights have the following benefits:

 

·       Instant on/off function with immediate full brightness;

·       Lower maintenance requirements;

·       Energy savings of approximately 50 percent;

·       Lamp life of approximately 50,000 hours;

·       Improved control of light spillage when using shields; and

·       Lower running temperature.

 

Ten of the current light towers will support the new LED lights, however, when the City undertook the inspection of the floodlighting it was identified that two of the towers were structurally unsound and these have been removed. Two new towers will need to be installed to be able to support the new LED lights. These are included in the grant application. The total project cost is $64,644 (excluding GST) and it is intended that it be funded in equal parts by the City, the Club and the CSRFF Grant.

 

The proposed floodlighting upgrade is not currently included in the City’s renewal program, however the City has completed an assessment of the infrastructure and recognises that it has reached end of life and requires replacement so supports resolving this matter through a collaborative approach. The City will consider including $21,548 in the 2020/21 budget for this project as a one third contribution.

 

The Club has demonstrated over an extended period that it is well governed and managed, and has consistently submitted its annual health check to the City. The Club has proven that it is capable to provide and maintain the proposed infrastructure. The Club’s current lease status is in ‘holding over’ awaiting the City’s new property management framework. In the Clubs current lease, which commenced in 2004, it is unclear who is responsible for the renewal and upgrade of the floodlights. Given this, it is appropriate for the City to work collaboratively with the Club to share responsibility for the renewal of the floodlights. The ongoing maintenance and further renewal of the floodlights will be addressed in the new lease agreement.

 

This project is rated ‘B – Well planned and needed by applicant’ and ranked priority one, in accordance with DLGSCI’s assessment criteria.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

It is considered low risk for Council to endorse a grant application for the Leederville Tennis Club Lighting Upgrade and consider including funding for this purpose in the upcoming budget.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The City will list $21,548 for consideration in the 2020/21 budget for consideration. The total project cost is $64,644 (excluding GST). The application is seeking a one third contribution of from the City, one third from DLGSCI and the remaining one third will be the Club’s contribution.

Comments:

This project supports the outcomes from the recent Tennis West Strategic Facilities Plan. The Metropolitan facility priorities are specific to the metropolitan area and are considered essential to address the current and future infrastructure challenges. The project meets the following priorities:

 

1.       Increasing venue access and use;

2.       Enhancing venue capacity;

3.       Develop stakeholder partnerships; and

4.       Prioritising infrastructure investment.

 

This project will have a positive impact on both the City of Vincent and the local community. A sustainable upgrade to the lighting will support participation of tennis across extended hours and increase the availability of recreation to the wider demographic. The lighting upgrade will also increase the safety at the facility for users. The project will provide a long-term cost saving for both the Club and the City.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

10          Infrastucture & Environment

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

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.         NOTES the results of the consultation;

 

2.         DOES NOT APPROVE the relocation of parking as requested in the petition presented to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 12 November 2019; and

1.       

3.         NOTES that Administration will inform the residents, owners and lead petitioner of Council’s decision.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcome of the consultation regarding the proposal to relocate parking bays in Turner Street, Highgate

Background:

The City regularly receives requests for the introduction of, or changes to, parking restrictions in both residential and commercial areas. Administration generally undertakes a range of investigations including parking demand and traffic volume surveys to assess traffic and on street parking conditions.  That data is then used to determine whether new or amended restrictions are warranted to improve parking availability and amenity. 

Details:

At the City’s Ordinary Meeting of Council on 12 November 2019 a petition was received from Ms Lauren Ireland of Turner Street, Highgate, comprising of 109 signatures, requesting Council to consider changing the parking restrictions on Turner Street, Highgate. This would involve moving all on street parking from the north side of Turner Street to the south side of Turner Street. This would also involve moving the ‘No Stopping’ zone from the south side to the north side due to the narrowness of Turner Street.

 

Jack Marks reserve is designated a local open space where the catchment is 400m from residence not necessarily for people to drive to the reserve. Local open space is usually small parklands that service the recreation needs of the immediate residential population.

 

Administration considered that there are a number of advantages and disadvantages to the changes proposed in the petition:

 

Advantages

 

·       Improved access to users of the reserve who choose to drive

·       Improved line of site for residents whilst reversing out of driveways

·       Increased number of parking bays overall as the park side does not have crossovers


 

Disadvantages

 

·       Lack of parking directly outside of residences

·       Decreased turning circle whilst exiting driveways

·       Additional parking may encourage people to drive to the park instead of walking

 

Administration sought approval at the City’s Ordinary Meeting of Council on 3 December 2019 to consult with the residents and owners of properties on Turner Street, Highgate as only 22 signatures of the 109 who signed the petition were from residents surrounding Jack Mark’s Reserve.

Consultation/Advertising:

In January 2020 residents and owners of Turner Street and 381 Lord Street were consulted regarding a proposal to relocate the parking in Turner Street, Highgate.

 

A total of 21 consultation packs were distributed and respondents were asked to support one of the following options;

 

·       Existing parking restrictions (no change)

·       Parking changed to the southern side of Turner Street

·       Parking changed predominately to the southern side of Turner Street with two spaces on the northern side near Lord Street

 

At the close of consultation on 7 February 2020, 16 valid responses were received. (A further 15 responses were disregarded as they were not from residents or owners of Turner Street or 381 Lord Street).

 

Of these responses, ten were in favour of the existing parking restrictions (no change) and six were in favour of moving the parking. Of the six in favour of moving the parking, four were residents of one dwelling.

 

In the report to Council at its Ordinary meeting of 3 December 2019 the Administration noted that three additional bays would be created if the parking were ‘switched’ to the southern or park side.  This figure was subsequently questioned by resident in favour of the change, with specific reference to bays shown adjacent No. 18 Turner Street.  Prior to the recent development at this location 3 vehicles could be accommodated but as a result of the completion of the development and installation of a crossover the existing on-road parking has been reduced by two bays. This would mean in practical terms that there would be five additional parking bays created if the parking were changed to the southern side of Turner Street.

 

It should be noted that the consultation did not specifically mention the bays that could be provided by changing the parking arrangements and so this is not considered a material issue such that the consultation needs to be repeated.

Legal/Policy:

The City of Vincent Parking and Parking Facilities Local Law 2007 regulates the parking or standing of vehicles in all or specified thoroughfares and reserves under the care, control and management of the City and provides for the management and operation of parking facilities.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:                     There is low risk in not changing the current parking restrictions in Turner Street.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Accessible City

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The consultation has demonstrated that there is no clear support for change from affected residents and owners. Administration therefore recommends that the parking in Turner Street, Highgate is not relocated and remains as existing.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

10.2        Florence and Carr Streets Bike Network Improvements

Attachments:             1.       Carr St Occupancy Studies Summary

2.       Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Letter to Residents Launch Consultation

3.       Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Consultation Feedback Grouped

4.       Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Map of Consultation Responses

5.       Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Cycle Lane Map 1

6.       Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Cycle Lane Concept 1

7.       Florence & Carr Streets Bike Network Improvement Cycle Lane Concept 2

8.       DoT Letter Outlining Position re Carr St Cycle Lane  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.   NOTES the outcome of the Public Consultation for the proposed Florence Street bike friendly improvements and Carr Street protected bike lanes;

2.   APPROVES the construction this financial year of the Florence and Carr Streets bike network improvements, in line with the $150,000 grant funding approval provided by the Department of Transport;

3.   REQUESTS Administration to advise the Department of Transport and the respondents of its decision; and

4.   NOTES that further parking surveys will be undertaken between three and six months after construction is complete to establish if further changes or restrictions to parking arrangements are required.

 

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the results of the Florence and Carr Streets bike network improvements public consultation and to recommend that the City proceed with construction in March/April 2020.

Background:

The City’s 2013 Bike Network Plan identified Florence and Carr Streets, West Perth, within the Cleaver Precinct, as an important east-west link but concluded that it was not an attractive cycle route due to high traffic volumes, speeds, and on-road parking.  In addition, it was identified as a 'spending priority' by the community as part of the Strategic Community Plan engagement in 2018 to 'connect discontinuous bicycle facilities and link paths to destinations'. The percentage of ‘heavy’ traffic on Carr Street has declined since 2018 with the opening of the Charles Street bus bridge and re-directing of services away from Carr Street.  However, this is seen as an enhancement of the route, by both the Administration and Department of Transport (DoT), as it will make it more attractive and safer for cyclists.

 

In 2018 the City applied for, and received, grant funding from the DoT for design and construction of an on-road cycle route on Florence and Carr Streets, West Perth.

Details:

The DoTs funding approval was in recognition of Florence and Carr Streets not only being identified as a key route within the City’s Bike Network Plan but also their own (DoT’s) Long Term Cycle Network Plan.

 

This route will improve the east-west linkages identified in the Bike Network Plan by providing protected cycle lanes in Carr Street between Florence and Fitzgerald Streets, and traffic calming on Florence Street, similar in concept to that of a Safe Active Street.  The project will also improve access to Beatty Park and Robertson Park and further enhance the connectivity of the City’s wider cycle network, linking into the new signalised crossing on Vincent Street and connecting to the shared paths on Vincent Street, Smiths Lake, Charles Veryard Reserve and recently constructed Loftus Street improvements.

 

The proposed works will also act as a traffic calming measure and reinforce the reduced 40kph speed limit within the precinct through narrowed lane widths and the use of nibs, line-marking and signage to create the protected bike lanes.

 

Carr Street, Florence Street to Fitzgerald Street

 

The Carr Street protected bike lanes are funded through the DoTs Perth Bike Network grants which stipulates the provision of separated cycle lanes as a minimum standard where traffic volumes and speeds are not low enough for cyclists to mix with traffic (this requires a target speed of 30km/h as per Shakespeare Street). Cyclists are classified as vulnerable road users as they are at increased risk of serious injury when involved in a collision and need to be provided protection to prevent such collisions and increase the attractiveness of cycling as a means of transport. Research shows that protected/separated cycle lanes encourage more people to use them than unseparated, on road lanes.

 

The protected cycle lanes chosen for Carr Street are designed to protect cyclists and remove the risk represented by frequent parking manoeuvres, which was highlighted as part of the consultation for the Bike Network Plan, whilst losing as little parking as possible. The design also represents better value for money due to the limited amount of physical, or hard, infrastructure required.

 

The new on-road protected lanes nominally involve the loss of up to 19 parking bays.  Occupancy surveys conducted in May 2018, October 2018 and August 2019 showed that the on-street parking is rarely fully occupied (see Attachment 1). 

 

Several residents suggested that the City merely refresh the current cycle lanes or improve them with further signage and paint rather than install protected bike lanes. This no longer meets the DoTs minimum standard and would not be eligible for grant funding. Further, it does not offer cyclists any protection from traffic. The current ‘best practice’ design principle is to create cycling infrastructure that is safe, accessible and usable by a wide range of cyclists from the confident road cyclists and commuters to families.  The existing unprotected on road cycle lanes do not offer this improved amenity and security and are unlikely to encourage a ‘mode shift’.

 

To refresh the cycle lanes in their current format would cost in the order of $5,000, inclusive of bike symbols and signage. To paint the lanes ‘green’ using an Australian Standards/Main Roads Approved application (skid resistance, reflectivity etc.) would cost approximately $90,000 at the City’s cost. In addition the City would be responsible for ‘renewing’ the treatment at end of life, typically 10years.

 

Florence Street, Vincent Street to Carr Street

 

In respect of Florence Street, which will be funded through a Safe Active Street grant, the traffic speed and volumes are significantly lower than that of Carr Street and as a result only requires a lower level of intervention, which the existing traffic calming measures already achieve.  Therefore the only changes will be the installation of on-road tree wells to accommodate additional street trees.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation regarding the construction of bike network improvements along Florence and Carr Streets began on 15 November 2019 and ran until 9 December 2019.  Letters (see Attachment 2) were delivered to 615 residents and businesses within the area bounded by Loftus, Newcastle, Fitzgerald and Vincent Streets informing them of the consultation and directing them to the Imagine Vincent website. The City also wrote to all non-resident owners in February 2020. Many comments were received outside of these consultation periods and these comments have also been included. All comments have been summarised in Attachment 3.

 

Residents were invited to comment on the planned upgrades -“Please use the space below to submit any thoughts or comments you would like to share about the planned upgrades to Florence & Carr Street in West Perth.”

 

The City received 34 responses from the 1454 letters sent to residents, businesses and land owners with the following results.  Of the 34 responses received one specifically related to Florence Street and this concern has been addressed. Therefore it is assumed that there were no further objections to this part of the project.

 

Specific to Carr Street;

 

·      11 of the 34 responses (32%) supported the proposed upgrade.

·      19 of the 34 responses (56%) opposed the proposed upgrade.

·      4 of the 34 responses (12%) did not support or oppose the proposed upgrade.

 

The main concern from residents that were against the project focused on the impact of loss of parking and a perceived lack of road space for the new cycle lanes in Carr Street. There was particular focus on the loss of parking between Charles and Fitzgerald Streets, which will be between three and five bays. As a result of these comments, and feedback that previous occupancy studies were not current, the City has undertaken a final occupancy study in February 2020, which again shows that parking is rarely fully occupied (see Attachment 1).

 

It is unclear what the demand for parking would be following the proposed upgrades. For the purpose of forecasting occupancy, it is not appropriate to simply subtract these bays from the capacity and calculate a new percentage occupancy. This is because, in residential areas, demand for street parking would normally increase and decrease proportionally with the number of bays available. It is expected that there will be some lag period of about 3-6 months where the demand for parking in the area remains the same after the number of bays has been reduced.

 

During the consultation for the Sustainable Environment Strategy the community requested the following actions:

 

·      Install more bike lanes.

·      Improve the pedestrian environment to make it safer and easier to get around.

1.      

This was reiterated in the community consultation conducted for the Draft Integrated Transport Strategy. When looking at the network as a whole the following issues were typically highlighted:

 

·      Dissatisfaction with connectivity throughout the City, particularly for east-west and circular public transport, and for connectivity of cycling routes.

·      Concern for pedestrian and cycling safety in all areas of the City, including across major streets, at roundabouts, and when using existing cycle lanes.

Legal/Policy:

Not applicable.

Risk Management Implications:

The grant funding received from the Department of Transport has specifically been allocated to the 2019/20 financial year and the Department has repeatedly advised that the project has to be completed this financial year and that it will not carryover over any funds for outstanding works. There is a real risk that if the project is not approved the City will lose the funding.  Doing so may also negatively impact on future funding opportunities.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Accessible City

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

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed cycle lanes align with the following outcome of the Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024:

 

·       Public and active transport are the modes of choice for staff and community.

·       Car dependency is reduced.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for the project comprises $150,000 DoT grant funding and $150,000 of municipal funding from cash in lieu for parking.

 

There are sufficient funds on budget to proceed.

Comments:

Administration recommends that Council proceeds with the construction in 2020 due to its strategic importance and because the project is consistent with the City’s Strategic Community Plan and the Sustainable Environment Strategy.  The route was identified in the City’s Bike Network Plan and forms part of the Department of Transport’s Long Term Cycle Network.  The proposed project is a key part a route designed to facilitate east-west movements and connect Robertson Park and Northbridge to the rest of the City and currently no other viable alternative east-west route exists.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

10.3        Waste Strategy Project - 8 Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal

Attachments:             1.       Business Case - Waste Strategy Project 8: Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal  

 

Recommendation:

That COUNCIL:

1.       NOTES:

1.1     the commercial waste collection options appraisal which was a key action from the City’s Waste Strategy;

1.2     that the City’s current commercial waste service is no longer viable as it does not meet the objectives of the City’s Waste Strategy and as a result of the adoption of a FOGO third bin in October 2020; 

1.3     that administration will provide a communications plan to Council which supports implementation of any of these options apart from retaining status quo; and

1.4     that rebate considerations from operational savings will be determined and approved as part of the development of the long term financial plan (LTFP); and

2.       APPROVES the business case to discontinue commercial waste collection from 30 June 2021.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the outcome of Waste Strategy Project 8, the options appraisal for City commercial waste collections.

Background:

The City currently provides a commercial waste collection service for both rubbish and recycling inclusive of the businesses rateable charge. Each rate-paying business may receive a capacity allowance which is calculated using historical methods based on premise type and size (floor space m2) and commercial premises can also request additional capacity for a fee.

 

The service provided is not based on the best environmental outcome in terms of materials recovery, and the City does not currently have the ability to provide such a service. The current service is one that is suitable for domestic homes and has been extended to commercial premises, which may have been appropriate when waste was collected in a single bin destined for landfill. This single service approach has introduced inefficiency, does not incentivise landfill diversion and does not support the City’s vision of zero waste to landfill.

 

The City has an obligation to collect domestic waste; there is no obligation to provide a commercial waste service and businesses are not compelled to use the City’s waste service. The City has 2488 commercial premises paying business rates. Approximately 15% (377) of businesses do not use the City’s service and others purchase additional services from private providers on top of what the City provides. Private waste companies provide a wide ranging service that is tailored to the needs of a business and costed in a way that incentivises material recovery.

 

Project 8 of the City’s Waste Strategy 2018 – 2023 “Commercial Waste Collections Options Appraisal” was established to investigate the value of providing the existing commercial service in this capacity and review alternative options.

 

With FOGO being rolled out to all residential properties from October 2020 there is a further reason to review how the City provides commercial waste collection in the future as the standard domestic 3-bin system will not be suitable for commercial premises. On that basis there is a need for the City to have clear direction on the future of its waste services, so that transition arrangements implementeddo not adversely impact on the introduction of the domestic three bin FOGO service.

Details:

The City does not have a separate commercial waste collection service and commercial tonnages are currently collected comingled with domestic waste in the same vehicle. 

 

The City’s waste team has undertaken a review of the current services as well as a commercial rubbish truck trial and presents the following key findings:

 

1.       Bin Capacity Allowance

 

Each rate-paying business has a bin capacity allowance which was calculated using historical methods based on premises type and size (floor space).  Due to inadequately designed bin stores capacity and limited verge presentation space, many locations are also being serviced multiple times per week (without additional charges applied). It is worth noting that whilst the City’s commercial customers only account for 12% of the City’s total rateable properties, in terms of bin lifts they account for around 21%, demonstrating a disparity in service provision between commercial and residential customers.  Additionally, commercial customers are also receiving inconsistent and varied services which are not based on the value of the property or rates paid.

 

Work undertaken by the City has identified a variance between commercial and domestic bin weights, i.e. commercial bins are on average 6kg heavier than the equivalent domestic bin, thereby resulting in higher disposal costs. 

 

Collection costs are also generally higher for commercial properties as they are often situated in high density areas and cannot be collected by a side lift truck. The rear-lift rounds are more expensive to operate, as extra personnel are required for bin servicing and servicing times per premise are generally longer. In total approximately 36% of the total commercial lifts are undertaken by the rear lift vehicles. 

 

2.       Historical Data and records

 

The site audit highlighted that it is difficult to monitor the Commercial Asset Register due to the fact that commercial and domestic bin infrastructure is currently the same. Additionally, bins are constantly going missing or relocated. This is increasingly problematic at mixed use premises, where bin stores and/or presentation points may be shared and people simply use/take the nearest bin.

 

Waste Census data provision is currently optional, however the new DWER Approved Methods for Mandatory Reporting under the WARR Regulations 2008, which is effective from July 2020, will require more robust/accurate reporting on commercial waste tonnages and collection costs, which the City would currently struggle to provide with the existing collection methodology. If the service was to continue, it would ideally need to be resourced appropriately with a dedicated truck, appropriate bin infrastructure, personnel and business system to capture and maintain asset information.

 

3.       The current commercial service does not align with the City’s Waste Strategy.

 

The City currently only provides a limited commercial service. To provide a competitive, cost effective and contemporary service, would require a complete overhaul of existing services and collection methodologies.

 

A contemporary commercial service should be tailored to the client’s requirements, offering collection of variable waste and recycling streams, variable (including larger than 360 litre) infrastructure and collection frequencies that meet their waste generation needs (which may include shifts, 7 days per week).  This would subsequently be charged at appropriate commercial rates for the variable waste streams collected.

 

To provide such a professional commercial service for the City of Vincent would require dedicated vehicles, larger bin infrastructure, a dedicated Commercial Waste Officer with some administrative support to manage the waste contracts/payments, client relationships and waste education to ensure correct bin usage.

 

Contamination is currently an on-going issue at our commercial properties, as the standard “bin allowance” system does not incentivise correct waste behaviour/bin usage. A commercial service that is tailored to the needs of the business, would have bin configuration and charges that would maximise recovery.

The implementation of a standard domestic FOGO system from October 2020 is not suitable for commercial businesses.  For example, restaurants would have large volumes of food waste, which would not align with FOGO system collection frequencies and permissible bin weights. Each property would need an individual, tailored approach (as outlined above) to ensure cost efficiency and resource recovery to align with the City’s Waste Strategy targets. 

OPTIONS APPRAISAL:

Outlined below are the options considered, the associated advantages and disadvantages of each option and any potential cost implications:-

 

Option

Advantages

Disadvantages

Cost /

Savings $

1.  No change to current service

·  No change for commercial customers

·  Service continues to be limited and not fit for purpose. It does not incentivise correct waste behaviours, so will not achieve waste diversion/recovery rates and the City’s target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

·  Service continues to be subsidised and inequitable. Due to methodologies in the calculation of bin allowances, majority of the existing properties are receiving a far more superior service than residential ratepayers

·  Unable to separate commercial and residential waste collection data for Census information

·  Impact negatively on upcoming contracts as domestic 3 bin system with associated collection frequencies is not compatible with commercial collections; does not align with a domestic service

·  High contamination rates of commercial bins will continue

Collection cost likely to increase due to increased inefficiency and cost rises in disposal and recycling processing

2.  City provides a fit for purpose commercial service

·  Tailored service with the result of better resource recovery

·  Significant increase in costs to set up service and operate

·  Cost of new service would be borne by commercial service users

·  This would typically involve collection of six waste streams (general waste, comingled recycling, green waste, food (only), paper/cardboard and glass recycling) as well as variable bin sizes, operating seven days a week and has sufficient staff to support commercial customers.

·  Unlikely to be competitive with private sector and so fees will be higher than private operators; high risk of losing customers so not viable for a small local government with a small commercial customer base.

·  Currently no business system or staff in place to support a commercial service

Significant service cost increase by the City.

3.  Provide limited charged service as per residential customers (new three bin domestic FOGO service)

·  May suit smaller, non-food premises/businesses such as very small offices. 

·  Standard domestic FOGO 3- bin service is not designed for commercial customers i.e. general waste bin (140lt) collected fortnightly will be problematic and likely to result in higher contamination levels of all three waste streams

·  Not aligned with the City’s target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

·  Audit required to review suitability when service requested

·  May be seen as inequitable as not provided to all businesses

$0

4.  Discontinue  existing commercial service

·  Businesses would be able to received tailored waste service which increases landfill diversion

·  Data collection for Census: able to provide accurate residential waste data only

·  Operational savings

·  Capital expenditure reduction

·  Commercial customers would need to arrange and pay separately for a private service

$921,000 p.a. reduction in operational cost

5.  Discontinue existing commercial service with rate rebate

 

 

·  Advantages as per Option 4, but with rate rebate provided from operational saving

·  Rebate compensates for discontinuation of service

·  Commercial Customers would need to arrange and pay separately for a private service

$0 savings to the City

 

Discussion of Options

 

The service currently offered (option 1) is limited and not fit for purpose. It does not incentivise recycling and material recovery and is not consistent with the City’s Waste Strategy and its vision of zero waste to landfill. The service is subsidised and inequitable as the service is not consistent and is not provided to 15% of businesses. Operationally it is not compatible with domestic services as collection frequencies and waste streams are very different and this gap and inefficiency will worsen when the City introduces the domestic three bin system later this year. For these reasons option 1 is not seen as viable.

 

Option 2 would involve the setting up of a fit for purpose City collection service to provide a contemporary commercial service that increases resource recovery. The service would not be based on a capacity allowance but on the needs of individual businesses and fees charged would incentivise and increase resource recovery. This service would involve the collection of up to 6 different waste streams (general waste, comingled recycling, paper/cardboard, food, glass and green waste) via a range of bin sizes. It would involve significant up-front investment in plant and infrastructure and would require additional staff and a business system. The City would have a small customer base that would not be compelled to use the City for this service and so the number of participating businesses would be difficult to predict. As this is not core business for the City and it does not have the economies of scale of private providers it is highly unlikely that the City would be competitive in a highly competitive market. This option is not seen as viable for a small Local Government and therefore is not the recommended option.

 

Option 3 would involve providing a limited charged service for very small businesses that could accommodate the new three bin system e.g. a general waste -140l bin collected fortnightly. This would be considered on a case by case basis and would require individual audit to review suitability so will be resource intensive and difficult to quantify. It is not aligned with the City’s vision of zero waste to landfill as is not as good an option as a commercial service tailored to the needs of an individual business and therefore is not the recommended option.

 

Options 4 and 5 are similar in that they involve the discontinuation of the City’s activity in the commercial waste market. The result would be that businesses would receive a tailored waste service which would incentivise and deliver increased waste diversion which is consistent with the City’s Waste Strategy.  It would deliver substantial operational and capital savings and allow the City to accurately collect domestic waste data required for the waste census and enable the City to accurately calculate its waste diversion. The downside for businesses is that they would need to source and agree a service from the open market and the service would no longer be included as part of rates. This can be abated to some extent by providing early notice of any change in service to businesses with additional support and also by selecting option 5 over option 4 where rates could be rebated to compensate for the service reduction. Option 4 or 5 is recommended as they are the options that best meet the City’s Waste Strategy vision of zero waste to landfill.

 

It is impossible to calculate the financial impact on individual businesses as a commercial service is tailored to the businesses, the market is very competitive and rates charged are commercially sensitive and not published. It is likely that many businesses will see an overall cost increase if the City discontinues the service (options 4 and 5) or if the City were to provide a fit for purpose service (option 2) because the service will no longer be subsidised and provided by the City as part of rates.

Consultation/Advertising:

It will be essential that the City develops a comprehensive communications plan to inform, educate and support commercial businesses during any service change. A Communications Plan will be prepared for the selected option apart from retaining status quo.

Legal/Policy:

Waste Policy 2.2.11 will need to be reviewed as the operational elements of the policy will significantly change when the 3-bin FOGO system is introduced. Additionally much of the content is replicated in the Health Local Law and so are superfluous.

Risk Management Implications:

Medium    There will be negative feedback from some commercial businesses should the recommended option be agreed and the City discontinues the waste service to commercial customers.

 

High         There is a high risk that the City will not be able to deliver a fit for purpose commercial waste service or a service that meets the City’s strategic aims to increase diversion to landfill and achieve its target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

 

Low          There is a very low risk that a commercial business will not be able to find a private service provider.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

 

By discontinuing the commercial waste service, commercial customers will be provided with a tailored, contemporary waste service that incentivises and delivers diversion from landfill, which the City would be unable to deliver without significant investment and high risk.

The City’s Waste Strategy 2018-2023 has a vision of zero waste to landfill through maximising recovery and avoidance and cost effective, sustainable and contemporary waste services.

The City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 has identical aims and sets the target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

By ceasing the internal services, our commercial customers will have access to tailored waste packages, inclusive of variable recoverable/recyclable waste streams, which in turn will provide a cost effective collection services which incentivise correct waste behaviours; thus facilitating increased diversion from landfill and assisting in the delivery of our Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Target of zero waste to landfill by 2028.

 

Financial/Budget Implications:

There is the opportunity to reduce base operating costs by circa $921,000 per annum by discontinuing the current in-house commercial service.

 

In additional, capital savings of circa $470,000 for truck replacement costs could be retained in the waste reserve and be used to offset FOGO implementation costs.

 

The opportunity for cost savings to be offered as a rebate can be considered by Council as part of the budget setting process.

Comments:

A review of the City’s commercial waste collection service has been undertaken and an options appraisal carried out as required by the City’s Waste Strategy. The need for change has been identified and the option to discontinue the City’s commercial waste collection service is recommended.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

11          Community & Business Services

11.1        Investment Report as at 31 January 2020

Attachments:          1.       Investment report 31 January 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 January 2020 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s investments as at 31 January 2020 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 January 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $37,915,806 compared to $42,109,674 for the period ending 31 January 2019.

 

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 31 January 2020 is $33,773,707 compared to $35,225,189 for the period ending 31 January 2019. The total term deposit amount has reduced compared to last year for cash flow management purposes to cover for operating and capital expenditure during the month.

 

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

$37,915,806

$33,773,707

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 January 2020 is:

 

 

Annual Budget

YTD

Budget

YTD

Actual

% of YTD Budget

Municipal

$420,000

$245,000

$203,415

83.03%

Reserve

$278,688

$162,568

$163,605

100.64%

Sub-total

$698,688

$407,568

$367,020

90.05%

 

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$64,178

N/A

 

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

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 1.80% for current investments including the operating account and 1.78% excluding the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for January 2020 is 0.89%.

 

Sustainable Investments

 

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

 

As at 31 January 2020, $10,458,290 (27.58%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities. The portfolio exposure to non-fossil financial institutions has increased by 4.98% compared to last month.

 

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

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

  A1+

30%

21.8%

30%

Nil

90%

50.2%

A1

25%

2.1%

30%

Nil

80%

2.1%

A2

20%

22.2%*

n/a

Nil

60%

47.7%

 

* The maximum allowable position with A-2 accredited institution (Bank of Queensland) has exceeded the threshold. This is because the total investment closing balance at the end of January 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

 

(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                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

11.2        Mid year budget review 2019/2020

Attachments:             1.       Statement of Comprehensive Income - Nature & Type

2.       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program

3.       Rate setting statement

4.       Capital budget amendments

5.       Cash backed reserves  

 

Recommendation:

That Council ADOPTS BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the mid-year budget review for the 2019/20 financial year as detailed in this report and Attachments 1 – 5, in accordance with Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider and adopt the proposed mid-year budget amendments for 2019/20 financial year.

Background:

The Local Government Act 1995 and Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 require that a local government undertakes a review of its annual budget for that year between 1 January and 31 March.

 

The budget review must then be submitted to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (the Department) within 30 days after Council has made its determination. The Department does not prescribe a format for the budget review, however the Regulations prescribe that the review must –

 

(a)      consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

 

(b)      consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and

 

(c)      review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget.

Details:

A detailed review has been undertaken based on the actual year to date income and expenditure to 31 January 2020, with projections made to forecast the likely end of financial year result compared to the current budget.

 

Based on the input provided by the respective budget managers, various adjustments have been proposed. The proposed budget amounts are inclusive of previously endorsed amendments by Council and the amendments proposed during this review cycle as detailed in the following attachments:

 

·       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature & Type (Attachment 1);

·       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program (Attachment 2); and

·       Rate Setting Statement (Attachment 3).

 

For comparison purposes, the above statements include the following data:

 

·       Previous year actuals 2018/19 – actual income and expenditure for the previous financial year;

·       Current year budget 2019/20 – budget amounts including amendments previously approved by Council during the financial year;

·       Proposed revised budget 2019/20 – proposed budget amendments as part of the mid-year review cycle;

·       Budget increase or decrease: the net difference between the current year budget 2019/20 and the proposed revised budget 2019/20; and

·       Year to date (YTD) actuals 2019/20 – actual income and expenditure amounts recorded for the period 1 July 2019 to 31 January 2020.

 

Operating Budget

 

The net result from operations, as detailed in Attachment 1 and Atta.chment 2, is a deficit of $2,930,967 equating to an increase of $570,828 compared to the current budgeted deficit of $2,360,139. The table below outlines some of the major movements in this review cycle:

 

 

Current Budget

2019/20

Proposed Revised Budget

2019/20

Budget Increase/

(Decrease)

 

Comments

 

 

REVENUE

$

$

$

 

Rates

35,526,498

35,706,498

180,000

Budget is increased due to a forecast growth in the interim rates collection.

Fees and charges

19,766,310

19,562,776

(203,534)

Anticipated decrease in revenue of:

·        $172,746 for parking infringements & parking fees and

·        $197,793 for development application fees respectively.

 

This is offset by an increase of $103,000 in fees relating to Beatty Park membership fees & compliance related fees.

 

The remaining amount of $65,004 is as a result of a cumulative increase within multiple service areas that are individually immaterial

Interest earnings

1,033,288

981,788

(51,500)

Anticipated decrease in interest earnings due to lower interest rates offered by financial institutions.

Other revenue

1,226,243

1,350,258

124,015

$124,113 relating to trust monies classified as ‘unclaimed monies’ older than 10 years. The remaining items are individually immaterial.

Profit on Assets Held for Sale (TPRC Joint Venture)

0

250,000

250,000

The projected proceeds for land sales from Tamala Park updated based on revised sales forecast for the year. 

EXPENSES

$

$

$

 

Materials and contracts

(19,714,805)

(19,035,804)

(679,001)

Decreased expenditure in the following areas:

·        Reduction of $185,000 for operating initiative projects within multiple areas due to revised scopes. Some of these projects include;

o   $93,000 for Beatty Park options project; and

o   $60,000 for the ICT strategy.

·        $76,000 from the Oxford Street trial road closure as this event is not going ahead;

·        $102,500 for reduction in tipping costs due to lower waste tonnage expected for the remainder of the year; and

·        $82,912 reduction in leasing costs for Beatty Park as the equipment has been purchased after the end of the lease term.

Employee Costs

(25,525,892)

(25,899,065)

373,173

Increase in workers compensation claim costs relating to 2017/18 & 2018/19, resulting in an increased premium amount of $266,319.

 

The remaining amount of $106,854 is as a result of a cumulative increase within multiple service areas that are individually immaterial.

Depreciation on non-current assets

(11,191,787)

(11,717,502)

525,715

The original budget was understated as it did not reflect the capitalisation exercise undertaken at the end of last year.

Other expenditure

(3,399,117)

(3,742,073)

329,596

Increased budget proposals for the following areas:

 

·        IT Software annual maintenance costs $167,987 as the original budget was under stated; and

·        A cumulative increase of $158,500 for furniture and equipment expenditure within multiple areas due to the change in accounting treatment of assets less than the capitalisation threshold of $5,000.

 

The remaining amount of $3,109 is individually immaterial.

 

Rate Setting Statement Position

 

As shown in the Rate Setting Statement (Attachment 2), the overall impact of all proposed budget amendments is a projected budget surplus of $11,762. 

 

Capital Budget Amendments (Attachment 4)

 

The revised capital budget (including non-operating grants and subsidies) is projected to be $11,643,863 which represents a reduction of $888,941. The following items materially contributed to this reduction:-

 

1.         Non-operating Grants & Subsidies reduced by $316,000 materially contributed by carry forward projects completed last financial year and the associated funding received last year; and

1.      

2.         Capital Expenditure is being proposed to be reduced by $1,204,941. Below is a summary of the major movements that materially contributed to this position: -

2.       

a.       $373,000 saving proposed due a revision in scope for the implementation of the Public Open Space Strategy (POS) and Banks reserve Master Plan; and

3.       

b.       The purchase of a waste compacter ($470,000) has been deferred, the funds are proposed to be transferred to the Strategic Waste Management reserve; and 

 

c.       $160,000 from the ICT strategy implementation project due to revision in the scope of this strategy.

In addition to the above, there are two new Roads to Recovery (R2R) projects being proposed equating to $102,521.

 

Full details of capital budget amendments are listed on Attachment 4.

 

Cash Backed Reserve Transfers

 

The total reserves for 2019/20 including the budget amendments are included in Attachment 5. The revised ‘Transfers from reserves’ is proposed to decrease by $142,291. The breakdown is as follows

 

1.         DSR Office Building Reserve – associated carpet replacement project completed, hence no further transfers required resulting in a decrease of budget by $72,291.

4.       

2.         Asset Sustainability Reserve – Beatty Park risk renewals project budget reduced by $50,000.

 

3.         Cash in Lieu Parking Reserve – project for bike rack installation reclassified as an operating item, will now be funded from Municipal funds. This has resulted in a decrease of $20,000. 

5.       

The ‘Transfers to Reserves’ is proposed to increase by $1,018,411. The breakdown is as follows:

 

1.         Asset Sustainability Reserve – transfer of $250,000 identified as surplus as a result of the mid-year budget amendments. 

6.       

2.         Cash in Lieu Parking Reserve – reduction of $20,000 to align with current actuals to date.

 

3.         State gymnastics reserve – transfer of $8,411 to align with the sinking fund contribution for ongoing maintenance works.

 

4.         Strategic Waste Management Reserve - $470,000 increase due to the deferral of the purchase of the waste compacter.

 

5.         Tamala Park Land Sales Reserve – increase by $250,000 from proceeds of land sales at Tamala Park. This amount is based on revised land sales forecasts provided by Tamala Park. 

 

6.         Percent for Art Reserve – increase by $60,000 to account for contributions during this financial year.

Consultation/Advertising:

All key stakeholders in the budget process have been consulted throughout this review process.

Legal/Policy:

The Local Government Act 1995 requires that a budget review be undertaken each financial year, in the period between January and March of a financial year.

 

Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires:

 

(1)        Between 1 January and 31 March in each financial year a local government is to carry out a review of its annual budget for that year.

 

(2A)      The review of an annual budget for a financial year must –

 

(a)        consider the local government’s financial performance in the period beginning on 1 July and ending no earlier than 31 December in that financial year; and

 

(b)        consider the local government’s financial position as at the date of the review; and

 

(c)        review the outcomes for the end of that financial year that are forecast in the budget.

 

(2)        Within 30 days after a review of the annual budget of a local government is carried out it is to be submitted to the council.

 

 

(3)        A council is to consider a review submitted to it and is to determine* whether or not to adopt the review, any parts of the review or any recommendations made in the review.

 

*Absolute majority required.

 

(4)        Within 30 days after a council has made a determination, a copy of the review and determination is to be provided to the Department.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:    Undertaking a Budget review in the period between January and March in any financial year is in compliance with the Local Government Act (1995).

Strategic Implications:

The mid-year budget review 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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The overall impact of the proposed budget amendments results in a surplus of $11,762.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                       17 March 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

11.3        Financial Statements as at 31 January 2020

Attachments:             1.       Financial statements as at 31 January 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 31 January 2020 as shown in Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31January 2020.

Background:

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity including the sources and applications of funds, as compared to the budget.

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 31 January 2020:

 

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

56-62

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

63

7.

Rating Information and Graph

64-65

8.

Debtors Report

66

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

67

 

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

 

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

 

Revenue by Program is tracking slightly favourable compared to the YTD budget by an amount by $95,823 (0.7%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       A favourable variance of $ 206,834 due to the correct recognition of monies received previously for ‘Percentage of Art’ projects (Community Amenities)

·       A favourable variance of $170,132 due to the processing of receipts from December 2019 for income relating to Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and Culture).

·       An unfavourable variance of $268,878 as a result of a reduction in revenue generated from parking infringements and parking fees (Transport). 

 

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking slightly under by $39,991 (0.1%) compared to the budgeted revenue.

 

Expenditure by Program reflects an under-spend of $2,863,970 (7.8%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      An under-spend of $1,154,654 mainly contributed by the timing of works relating to waste collection and the delivery of operating projects within Policy and Place (Community Amenities);

·      Under-spend of $206,558 mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to Council election costs, management & operating initiatives costs in the CEO’s section and vacant positions in the Customer Service area (Governance);

·      Under-spend of $664,678 mainly contributed by a timing variance of delivery of events earmarked for the year and operating projects and maintenance works relating to Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and culture); and

·      Under-spend of $434,032 mainly contributed by a timing variance of works relating to infrastructure maintenance and costs relating to street lighting (Transport).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $2,841,734 (7.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $2,450,862. This variance is mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within the following areas:

 

·        Waste collection Service - $360,000;

·        Building maintenance - $116,000 ;

·        Infrastructure maintenance (Parks, sporting grounds) - $126,000 ;

·        Events - $110,000; and

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

 

·       Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $444,398 largely contributed by a timing variance in the delivery of works within multiple service areas.

 

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 $22,489,020, this is a favourable position ($6,854,077) 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 - 62)

 

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

 

6.         Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 63)

 

The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserves portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 31 January 2020 is $8,943,341.

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:

 

 

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 January 2020 is $5,750,294 including deferred rates ($105,250) and excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates. 

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 66)

 

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 31 January 2020 are $2,680,808, of which $2,108,819 relates to outstanding debtors. 89% 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:

 

·        $1,819,952 (97%) 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). Furthermore, 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).

 

·        $165,723 (8.5%) relates to cash-in-lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay over a fixed term of five years.

 

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

 

As at 31 January 2020, the operating surplus for the centre is $403,789 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $228,579.

 

10.       Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 - 55)

 

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 January 2020 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                                                                        17 March 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                      17 March 2020

11.4        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020

Attachments:             1.       Payments by EFT, BPAY and Payroll January 2020

2.       Payments by Cheque January 2020

3.       Payments by Direct Debit January 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020 as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

EFT and BPAY payments, including payroll

 

$5,035,831.93

Cheques

 

$656.75

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$226,820.63

 

 

 

Total payments for January 2020

 

$5,263,309.31

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020.

Background:

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

 

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

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 1 January 2020 to 31 January 2020, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT and BPAY Payments

2501 - 2509

$3,841,350.13

Payroll by Direct Credit

January 2020

$1,194,481.80

Sub Total

 

$5,035,831.93

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82589 - 82591

$656.75

Sub Total

 

$656.75


 

 

 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$15,598.42