Agenda of Council Briefing

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

5.1 Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation

Attachments: 1. Local Planning Scheme 2 and LPP No. 7.4.5 - Comparison Table ⇩

2. Proposed Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Amendment Document ⇩

3. Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation (Clean Version) ⇩

4. Proposed Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation (Tracked Changes) ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. PREPARES Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 2, pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

2. CONSIDERS Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 as a standard amendment under Regulation 35(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it is:

2.1 An amendment relating to a zone that is consistent with the objectives identified in the scheme for that zone;

2.2 An amendment that does not result in any significant environmental, social, economic or governance impact on land in the scheme area; and

2.3 An amendment that is not a basic or complex amendment;

3. PREPARES Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation included as Attachment 3 pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 5 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for the purpose of public consultation; and

4. NOTES:

4.1 Administration will forward Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005;

4.2 Subject to no objection being received from the Environmental Protection Authority, Administration will advertise Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Section 47 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015; and

4.3 Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation will be advertised for a period of 42 days pursuant to Schedule 2, Part 2, Clause 4 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Purpose of Report:

To consider preparing Amendment No. 6 to the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation for the purpose of advertising for public comment.

Background:

The City’s proximity to the CBD, public transport networks, tourist attractions and education facilities make it well located for the provision of short term accommodation. This type of accommodation operates in a variety of forms, generally differentiated by the number of guests permitted and whether the accommodation is hosted or un-hosted. The popularity of online sharing economy platforms such as Air BnB and Stayz appear to have caused an increase in short term accommodation uses within the City.

It is relatively easy for people to commence a short stay accommodation through the use of online platforms and many of them commence without obtaining the required approvals. Because of this it is currently very difficult for local governments to monitor the location, scale and management of these uses. Each form of accommodation presents a different level of potential impact and could be classified as low risk (small scale hosted) or high risk (large scale un-hosted).

Unauthorised short term accommodation uses have the potential to adversely impact the amenity of the adjoining properties, resulting in enquiries and complaints being received relating to issues such as car parking, excessive noise and anti-social behaviour. The City deals with compliance matters and investigations relating to unauthorised short term accommodation uses on a regular basis.

The City currently regulates short term accommodation through the provisions of LPS2 and its Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (LPP). LPS2 currently contains a general definition of short term accommodation and specific types including Bed and Breakfast, Holiday House, Holiday Accommodation and Serviced Apartment consistent with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Notwithstanding the above, there are some gaps in LPS2 provisions in relation to land use definitions and the permissibility of different forms of short term accommodation predominately operating in the City. The LPP provides some guidance on car parking, planning application requirements and the management of amenity impacts. The policy was in effect prior to gazettal of LPS2 and is currently inconsistent with the new requirements in LPS2.

Due to the age of the City’s local planning framework on short stay accommodation, recent industry disruptions, frequency of development applications, and an increase in compliance matters, the review of the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (LPP) is identified as a priority within the City’s Policy Review Program to be completed during the 2019/20 financial year.

As part of this project the City has reviewed three key factors that influence short term accommodation including the City’s planning framework, a review of recent development applications including State Administrative Tribunal decisions and a review of the State Government’s Parliamentary Inquiry into Short Stay Accommodation.

1. City of Vincent Planning Framework

LPS2 and LPP No. 7.4.5 include land use definitions for various types of short term accommodation land uses. Generally, land uses defined in LPS2 should also be listed in the Zoning Table to establish where those land uses are considered appropriate. Attachment 1 highlights inconsistencies in definitions between LPS2 and LPP No. 7.4.5 as well as which land uses are not listed in the Zoning Table.

LPS2 includes definitions for various types of short term accommodation uses including Bed and Breakfast, Holiday House, Holiday Accommodation and Serviced Apartment consistent with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. Only the Serviced Apartment use is included in the Zoning Table in LPS2 and the other uses are assessed as an ‘Unlisted Use’ under Clause 18(4). This means that there is limited guidance in LPS2 on where these other types of land uses should be located.

Bed and Breakfast, Holiday Accommodation and Holiday House are not listed in the Zoning Table. This means that applications for these uses are assessed as an ‘Unlisted Use’ under Clause 18(4) of the Scheme. The lack of guidance in the Scheme causes uncertainty around whether short term accommodation uses should be permitted in various locations.

LPP No. 7.4.5 addresses matters such as car parking and management controls, however there are a number of issues that need further policy guidance and clarity such as location criteria to ensure that short term accommodation uses do not unduly impact adjoining land uses. LPP No. 7.4.5 also includes provisions relating to Building Permits, Planning Compliance processes, and strata by-law requirements, which are largely outside the scope of what a local planning policy is permitted to cover under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

2. State Administrative Tribunal Decisions

The City has completed a review of recent development applications for short term accommodation. It was found that the City generally receives objections from adjoining neighbours and substantiated complaints regarding unauthorised short term accommodation, demonstrating that there is both a real and perceived impact to neighbourhood amenity as a result of some short term accommodation uses.

Short term accommodation uses have the potential to adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties, resulting in enquiries and complaints being received relating to issues such as car parking, excessive noise and anti-social behaviour. It is difficult to monitor the location, scale and management of these uses. Each form of accommodation also presents a different level of impact and could be classified as low risk (small scale hosted) or high risk (large scale un-hosted).

One relevant development application was a Change of Use from Single House to Unlisted Use (Holiday House) at No. 8 Moir Street, Perth, which was refused by Council on 16 October 2018, primarily on the basis of its location within a residential area and potential amenity impact. The matter proceeded to a State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) hearing, where SAT resolved to uphold the refusal. In consideration of the matter, SAT noted that there were contradictions in the City’s LPP No. 7.4.5 and a lack of direction and guidance relating to appropriate locations for short term accommodation. As a result of the appeal, the SAT found the following topics were inadequately addressed through the City’s local planning framework:

· The impact on car parking and traffic in residential areas;

· The potential impact of noise and antisocial behaviour and management in residential areas;

· A lack of guidance on the preferred location of temporary accommodation uses; and

· Whether the proposal is acceptable from a heritage perspective.

3. Parliamentary Inquiry Report

Concurrently with the City’s investigation and the above SAT appeal, a Parliamentary Inquiry into Short Term Accommodation was undertaken by the Economics and Industry Standing Committee. This inquiry covered land use planning, building standards, customer safety, neighbourhood amenity, registration, licencing and taxation. A report on the inquiry, Levelling the Playing Field – Managing the impact of the rapid increase of Short-Term Rentals in Western Australia was released on 26 September 2019.

The Parliamentary Inquiry made a total of ten recommendations for the State Government to action, including the following:

1. Update the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 to amend land use definitions to differentiate between hosted and un-hosted short term accommodation, include size and capacity and amend the definition of bed and breakfast accommodation;

2. Update planning guidance so that it aligns with the amended land use definitions and provides greater guidance to local governments about ways to appropriately regulate short term accommodation;

3. Develop model by-laws that assist strata companies to better manage short term accommodation in their strata scheme;

4. Update Landgate’s strata titles guidance to include discussion of the powers and processes open to strata companies to manage short term accommodation;

5. Establish an interdepartmental working group to co-ordinate a whole of government response to short term accommodation;

6. Investigate and establish a State-wide registration scheme;

7. Ensure online platforms display a registration number for each short term accommodation on offer; and

8. Local Government Authorities remain responsible for managing complaints and compliance with local requirements.

The Western Australia Government’s response to the Inquiry report was generally supportive of the proposed Standing Committee recommendations. The Government acknowledges that State level policy and guidance addressing short term accommodation is dated and inconsistent and has made a commitment to:

· Updating the short term accommodation definitions in the model provisions of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

· Consider developing and adopting policy to guide local governments about ways to appropriately regulate short term accommodation;

· Investigate exempting hosted short term accommodation in all local planning schemes; and

· Forming an interdepartmental working group to address some of the recommendations.

The City met with the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) in January 2020 and were advised that it will be at least six months before any draft documents would be available for public comment and finalisation is likely to take an additional six to nine months.

The Government did not support developing model by-laws for strata companies, as this could lead to confusion about the validity of existing by-laws. Instead the Government will look to provide support to stakeholders in understanding by-laws, which is supported by Landgate’s Strata Title Act Report project, due to conclude in 2020/21.

The City’s investigation into short term accommodation identified the following key areas that the City can address to achieve better outcomes:

1. Unlisted Uses in the Scheme result in limited guidance on where these types of uses should be permitted;

2. The requirement for all short term accommodation to obtain a Development Approval despite the location, scale and level of impact that it will have;

3. Inconsistencies between LPP No. 7.4.5 and the Scheme, which further reduces clarity and consistency of guidance for short term accommodation; and

4. The inclusion of matters in LPP No. 7.4.5 which are not planning considerations such as Building Permits, Planning Compliance processes, and strata by-law requirements.

Details:

In the absence of legislative or regulatory proposals from the State Government for at least the next 12‑18 months, the City can implement changes to its own planning framework to address the above matters.

1. Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

Short term accommodation uses have differing impacts to the local community. The permissibility of short term accommodation uses should take into consideration the potential impact of the use and the objectives of each zone in which they are proposed.

Amendment No. 6 proposes a risk-based approach to address permissibility based on the potential impact on the amenity of surrounding uses. Amendment No. 6 proposes that the Zoning Table include Bed and Breakfast, Holiday Accommodation and Holiday House land uses, with the following permissibility (included in Attachment 2):

USE CLASS	ZONES
USE CLASS	Residential	Mixed Use	Local Centre	District Centre/ Regional Centre	Commercial
Bed and Breakfast	A	A	D	D	D
Holiday Accommodation	A	A	D	D	D
Holiday House	A	A	D	D	D

Currently, these three land uses are not listed in the Zoning Table. Meaning they operate similar to an ‘A’ use and require advertising for every application. The proposed land use permissibility in Residential and Mixed Use zones would be effectively unchanged, also requiring advertising of all proposals for those land uses in accordance with the City’s consultation policies.

In the Local, District and Regional Centres and Commercial zones, the permissibility would change from unlisted (requiring advertising) to a discretionary use. The discretion to approve short term accommodation uses would be guided by the requirements of Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation which is proposed to include acceptable development criteria and refined management plan and code of conduct requirements.

2. Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5

There are five key changes proposed in Amendment No. 1 to LPP No. 7.4.5 (Attachment 3). A summary of the changes is included below and a track changed version of the Policy is included as Attachment 4.

(a) Modify general and land use definitions in the Policy to align with the Scheme to ensure the Policy can be used as an effective tool in the assessment and management of applications for short term accommodation;

(b) Include exemptions from Development Approval for low impact uses to streamline the approvals process;

(c) Include provisions relating to the location of short term accommodation uses to provide greater guidance and clarity, including acceptable development criteria for assessment of applications in Mixed Use and Residential Zones;

(d) Provide greater clarity on Management Plans and Codes of Conduct;

(e) Providing clarity that strata by-laws apply in addition to any planning approval; and

(f) Remove superfluous provisions around Building Permits, Planning Compliance processes, and specific land uses to ensure simplicity in policy guidance.

Further explanation on the proposed amendment is included below:

Land use definitions

The current version of LPP No. 7.4.5 provides for ‘temporary accommodation’ uses which operate for a continuous maximum period of 6 months within a 12 month period. It is proposed to remove this definition and instead include the Scheme definition of ‘short term accommodation’ which incorporates continuous temporary accommodation, provided no guest accommodated for more than 3 months within any 12 month period.

Specific land uses already defined in the Scheme are not required to be listed again in LPP No. 7.4.5, so these have also been removed.

Uses exempt from Development Approval

The City’s current planning framework requires all short term accommodation uses gain development approval before they can commence, regardless of their scale and impact on adjoining land owners. This approach does not provide a streamlined approach for lower impact uses.

Short term accommodation uses do not currently fall within the category of uses that are exempt from the requirement to obtain development approval set out at cl. 61(2) of the deemed provisions.

Clause 61(2)(e) of the provisions allows a Local Government to exempt a use from requiring a development approval by specifying the use in a Local Planning Policy.

Considering the potential impact to neighbourhood amenity, the following uses are considered low risk and are proposed to be exempt from development approval through the amended policy:

1. Bed and Breakfast in a Local Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre or Commercial Zone where there is a maximum of 4 guests or one family (noting that the definition of Bed and Breakfast requires a host to be present);

2. Holiday House and Holiday Accommodation in a Local Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre or Commercial Zone where a host is present and there is a maximum of 4 guests or one family, or there is no host present and a maximum of 2 guests;

3. Bed and Breakfast in a Residential and Mixed Use zone where there is a maximum of 2 guests (noting that the definition of Bed and Breakfast requires a host to be present); and

4. Holiday House in a Residential and Mixed Use zone where a host is present and there is a maximum of 2 guests.

In the above scenarios, written notification must still be provided to the City with a Management Plan and Code of Conduct to the satisfaction of the City.

The above approach recognises the need for more clarity and simplicity in the planning framework and provides an approval pathway for uses where a lower level of regulation is appropriate. This inclusion to the Policy will provide a more streamlined approach to addressing short term accommodation that are considered low impact, while at the same time ensuring that the City can register all short term accommodation uses and act on compliance matters should they arise.

Guidance on Preferred Location

Some short term accommodation uses have previously impacted on the amenity of surrounding uses, particularly in relation to car parking, noise and anti-social behaviour. While all proposals should aim to limit these impacts, certain short term accommodation types do inherently have a greater impact on surrounding properties and are best suited to commercial areas that can better support their needs.

In the last few years, it has become increasingly easy to set up a short term accommodation at home. As such, there is growing demand to run short term accommodation uses in Residential and Mixed Use Zones.

LPP No. 7.4.5 is considered to be the appropriate mechanism to provide further guidance on the location of short term accommodation, consistent with the proposed Scheme Amendment No. 6. This is reflected in a risk-based approach where short term accommodation in the Local Centre, District Centre, Regional Centre and Commercial Zones contain limited guidance around location, while proposals in the Residential and Mixed Use Zones contain more extensive guidance.

In Residential and Mixed Use Zones, the proposed amendment to LPP No. 7.4.5 provides Acceptable Development provisions to ensure clarity on the City’s preferred approach to acceptable uses. The following are considered acceptable development:

· A host is present on site;

· A minimum two-night stay is imposed;

· The proposal is located in a medium/high density area;

· Accommodation that proposes sufficient distance and separation from outdoor living areas of adjoining properties;

· The proposal has a direct interface with non-residential noise generating activity;

· The proposal adequately provides on-site parking;

· The proposal is near to public transport, a range of commercial or entertainment activities, or the Perth CBD; and

· The proposal does not impact on the site from a heritage perspective in terms of built form as well as the historical and social value of the place.

Proposals that seek variations to the acceptable development criteria will be assessed against the Objectives of LPP No. 7.4.5 taking into consideration the management plan and code of conduct. These applications may also be subject to a time limited approval as required.

Car parking

Parking for short term accommodation uses in non-residential zones is assessed in accordance with the City’s LPP No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements. In the case of Bed and Breakfast, Home Accommodation and Home House applications, a parking management plan is required to be submitted and assessed to ensure adequate parking is provided to accommodate guest parking onsite.

Strata Requirements

The current LPP No. 7.4.5 states that the City will not support short term accommodation where a strata company or council of owners does not approve.

Approval under strata by-laws is a matter for the strata company to consider and enforce in accordance with those by-laws independent of a planning approval. The City’s decision making around short term accommodation is required to be limited to planning matters and cannot consider strata requirements, which need to be addressed separately by applicants.

The provisions in the policy relating to strata by-laws have been amended accordingly.

Management Plan and Code of Conduct

The provision of an effective management plan and code of conduct are important in determining whether the operation of a short term accommodation use can be managed in a way to minimise the impact to the amenity of surrounding land uses.

In this regard, amendments are proposed to the management plan and code of conduct sections of LPP No. 7.4.5 to require an applicant provide:

· Procedures for guest screening;

· Minimum night stay;

· Sound monitoring and compliance regimes;

· After hours complaints procedures;

· Car parking advice for guests;

· House rules for guests; and

· Contact details of the owner or caretaker.

Building Permits and Planning Compliance

The proposed amendment removes requirements relating to Building Approval, as these are governed by the Building Act 2011 and cannot be altered through a local planning policy. The City includes this information as a standard advice note on all Development Approvals.

Provisions setting out a process for planning compliance are also proposed to be removed. These are incorporated in the City’s internal procedures and implemented as required on a case-by-case basis.

Specific Land Use Requirements

Specific requirements for Bed and Breakfast and Short Term Dwelling are proposed to be removed. These provisions are addressed through the definitions in LPS2 and the General Requirements for all Short Term Accommodation proposed to be included in the policy.

Consultation/Advertising:

Subject to approval of the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA), the proposed scheme amendment would be advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days. Advertising would occur in the following manner, in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, simultaneously with Amendment No. 1 to LPP No. 7.4.5:

· Advertisement in a local newspaper;

· Display notice of the proposal in Council offices;

· Referral in writing to affected persons/agencies; and

· Display on the City’s website.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

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

· Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk to propose an amendment to LPS 2 and Local Planning Policy 7.4.5 for the purpose of advertising.

Strategic Implications:

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

Thriving Places

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

Sensitive Design

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of advertising will be met through the City’s existing operational budget. The proposal has no cost imposition for future budgets.

Comments:

The proposed Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 would address short term accommodation permissibility based on the potential risk of impact to the amenity of surrounding uses by providing appropriate controls and clarity in the City’s Planning Framework to address the location of various forms of short term accommodation uses.

Alongside the above amendment, proposed Amendment No. 1 to LPP No. 7.4.5 relating to Temporary Accommodation would bring the policy into alignment with the Scheme and aims to address issues such as location, car parking and amenity impact and will provide clarity and consistency in the City’s Planning Framework.

These two proposed amendments would be a sufficient interim arrangement to address the issues identified by the City, the SAT, and the Parliamentary Inquiry, in advance of any action from the State Government to further regulate the short term accommodation industry. The DPLH is investigating whether changes to the State Planning Framework are required and, once complete, the City will consider whether a further amendments to its Scheme and LPP No. 7.4.5 are necessary. This is unlikely to occur for at least 12‑18 months.

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

5.2 No. 13 (Lot: 1; S/P: 787266) Mabel Street, North Perth - Proposed Single Dwelling

Ward: North

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Submitted & Advertised Plans (Superseded) ⇩

3. Applicant Justification ⇩

4. Development Plans ⇩

5. Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response ⇩

6. Summary of Submissions - Administration Response ⇩

7. 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 a Single Dwelling at No. 13 (Lot: 1; S/P: 787266) Mabel Street, North Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 4, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 8:

1. Amended Plans

Prior to the issue of a building permit, revised plans shall be submitted and approved by the City demonstrating the following:

a) The spiral staircase shall be setback 2.1 metres from the eastern lot boundary, and re-oriented to address the southern lot boundary;

b) The northern elevation of the timber batten portico shall be reduced to 3.2 metres above the finished floor level, to align with the ground floor ceiling height; and

c) The fixed window opening to the stairs on the first floor to the eastern elevation of the dwelling shall be obscured to at least 1.6 metres in height as measured from the finished floor level of the first floor;

2. Boundary Walls

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

3. External Fixtures

All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennaes, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, meter boxes and the like, shall not be visible from the street or are to be integrated with the design of the building, to the satisfaction of the City;

4. Landscaping Plan

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

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

· The provision of a minimum of 18.5 percent of the site area as deep soil zone and 32.2 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

· Areas to be irrigated or reticulated.

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

5. Stormwater

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

6. Visual Privacy

Prior to occupation 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 standards, to the satisfaction of the City;

7. Colours and Materials Schedule

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

8. Sight Lines

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

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

· driveway meets a public street; or

· two streets intersect;

unless otherwise approved by the City.

9. Parking and Access

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

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

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

10. Garage Door Design

The garage door to the dwelling shall be permeable. Plans depicting details of the garage door, including materials and colours, shall be submitted to and approved by the City prior to the use or occupation of the development; and

11. Substantial Commencement

Development must substantially commence by 19 May 2024, being four years from the date of this approval. If development of the subject of this approval has not substantially commenced within this period, the approval will lapse and have no further effect.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a three storey single dwelling at No. 13 Mabel Street, North Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a single dwelling on a vacant lot. The proposed dwelling has a building height of two storeys to the primary street and three storeys to the rear.

The proposed development plans have been included as Attachment 4.

Background:

Landowner:	Matthew and Dominique Seabrook
Applicant:	JCM Construction (WA) Pty Ltd
Date of Application:	06 December 2019
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Residential R Code: Residential R30/40
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Vacant Lot
Proposed Use Class:	Single Dwelling
Lot Area:	270m²
Right of Way (ROW):	Not applicable
Heritage List:	Not applicable

The subject site is bound by Mabel Street to the north, single storey dwellings to the east and west and two vacant lots to the south. Development applications for three storey dwellings at the two vacant lots to the south at Nos. 12 and 12A Nova Lane have previously been approved by Council at its meetings on 20 August 2019 and 17 September 2019 respectively, both of which are currently under construction. The broader area is generally characterised by single and two storey dwellings of varying architectural design. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

The subject site itself is in an ‘L’ shaped configuration, being 7.9 metres in width at Mabel Street, 10.0 metres in width at the rear boundary and 32.3 metres in depth. The site is also affected by an approximate 4 metre slope down from the front lot boundary to the rear lot boundary.

The subject site is zoned Residential R30/40 and is subject to Clause 26(1) of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) which states that “development will only be permitted to R40 standards where the existing house is retained”. The subject site along with the two vacant lots to the rear at Nos. 12 and 12A Nova Lane were created through a survey strata subdivision and titles issued in September 2018, and also which retained the existing house at No. 11 Mabel Street on its own parcel. The subject application has been assessed against R40 development standards accordingly. All of the properties adjoining the subject site are also zoned Residential R30/40 and subject to Clause 26(1) of 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).

Summary Assessment

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

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Street Setback	ü
Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls		ü
Building Height/Storeys		ü
Open Space	ü
Outdoor Living Area	ü
Landscaping (R Codes)	ü
Visual Privacy		ü
Garage Width	ü
Parking & Access	ü
Solar Access	ü
Site Works and Retaining Walls		ü
Essential Facilities	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Surveillance	ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.1.3 of the R Codes

Lot Boundary Setbacks

East

First Floor: Walk in Robe: 1.4 metres

First Floor: Walk in Robe – Balcony (bulk wall length): 3.0 metres

East

First Floor: Walk in Robe: 1.2 metres

First Floor: Walk in Robe – Balcony (bulk wall length): 1.5 metres

West

Ground Floor: Kitchen – Deck: 4.6 metres

First Floor: Master – Study/Nursery: 2.3 metres

First Floor: Retreat - Balcony (bulk wall length): 3.2 metres

West

Ground Floor: Kitchen – Deck: 1.2 metres

First Floor: Master – Study/Nursery: 1.7 metres

First Floor: Retreat - Balcony (bulk wall length): 1.7 metres

Lot Boundary Walls

Maximum wall height: 3.5 metres

Average wall height: 3.0 metres

Maximum length of boundary wall: 17.9 metres

East

Entry wall with maximum height of 5.2 metres and average height of 4.1 metres

West

Garage to Scullery wall with maximum height of 5.2 metres and average height of 4.1 metres

Total boundary wall length is 20.5 metres

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.6 of the Built Form Policy

2 storeys

Maximum concealed roof wall height of 7.0 metres

3 storeys as viewed from the rear boundary (2 storeys as viewed from Mabel Street)

Maximum concealed roof wall height of 9.6 metres

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.4.1 of the R Codes

7.5 metres cone of vision setback from lot boundaries of unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces

Ground Floor - Deck

3.0 metres cone of vision setback to western lot boundary

3.3 metres cone of vision setback to southern lot boundary

2.5 metres cone of vision setback to eastern lot boundary

First Floor – Balcony

5.0 metres cone of vision setback to western lot boundary

5.2 metres cone of vision setback to eastern lot boundary

Site Works and Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Clause 5.3.7 of the R Codes

All excavation or filling behind a street setback line and within 1 metre of a lot boundary, not more than 0.5 metres above the natural ground level at the lot boundary

Fill: 1.9 metres maximum fill to scullery and rear of entry hall

Excavation: 1.0 metres maximum excavation to drying court

Clause 5.3.8 of the R Codes

Retaining walls greater than 0.5 metres in height set back from lot boundary. Retaining walls 0.5 metre or less in height may be located up to the lot boundary

Retaining to eastern boundary – 0.3 to 1.0 metre in height

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 5 February 2020 and closing on 18 February 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications with 18 letters sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website.

At the conclusion of the community consultation period, three submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

· The street setback should be increased in accordance with all other adjoining properties and for streetscape consistency, otherwise an adverse precedent will be set;

· Reduced lot boundary setbacks result in overshadowing and visual intrusion to the adjoining properties;

· The garage covers the entire lot frontage with limited front landscaping and open space;

· The proposal will adversely impact the amenity of adjoining properties due to visual privacy, building height and lot boundary wall variations;

· The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site; and

· The proposal does not preserve or enhance the visual character of the surrounding homes, being oversized and out of scale.

A copy of the plans that were advertised are included as Attachment 2.

The applicant submitted amended plans to address the extent and number of departures sought to the deemed-to-comply standards and to address concerns raised during the community consultation period. These changes primarily related to reduced length of height of boundary walls, increased street setback and implementation of screening. The applicant also submitted written justification in support of the modified proposal which is included as Attachment 3.

The amended plans were re-advertised for a 14 day period from 20 March 2020 to 2 April 2020 to all neighbouring properties previously consulted. Two objections were received, with both submitters previously having objected to the proposal. The key issues raised in these submissions relate to the following:

· Building height and three storey scale of development;

· Visual privacy; and

· Incompatible development style.

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

The proposed development plans were subsequently revised in response to further design feedback from the DRP Chair, as detailed below.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The development plans as originally submitted to the City and as included in Attachment 2 were referred to the Chair of the City’s Design Review Panel for comments. The following comments were provided:

· The proposed deemed-to-comply departures to street setbacks, lot boundary setbacks and building height would have an adverse impact on the streetscape and the adjoining properties;

· The proposed double garage at the 4.7 metre setback facing Mabel Street would have an adverse impact on the streetscape, due to the narrow street frontage of the lot. The impact could be mitigated if the garage doors were perforated, providing at least 50 – 70 percent transparency or if the garage was reduced to being a single garage, enabling the front door and entry hall to visually link to the street; and

· Consideration should be given to utilising materials on the first level which reduce the predominately solid monotone walls. Consideration should be given to utilising a combination of timber, metal and masonry materials to reduce building bulk and scale.

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the abovementioned DRP comments and community consultation comments, incorporating the following key changes:

· Providing increased landscaping and deep soil zone area, particularly in to the side and front setback areas of the dwelling;

· Reconfiguring the internal floor plans to increase lot boundary setbacks and to reduce the scale of development as viewed from the adjoining properties;

· Reducing the height and length of lot boundary walls;

· Revising window design and configuration to ensure all street facing windows were given vertical emphasis;

· Redesigning the form and materials of the primary street facade, using red face brick at the ground level, contrasting light render and dark cladding materials at the first floor;

· Reducing the setback of the entry from the street, to improve the sense of arrival and approach to the dwelling, and for greater prominence of pedestrian access and visibility of the dwelling entrance;

· Increasing the setback of the ground and first floors of the dwelling; and

· Removing the fencing within the front setback area to increase visibility of the ground floor and entry of the dwelling.

The amended plans were referred back to the DRP Chair for review.

The DRP Chair advised that a number of the inefficiencies of the original design had been addressed and that the proposed dwelling reflected a comparable style and scale of development evident within the established streetscape. The DRP Chair also recommended further changes to the dwelling as follows:

· Increase the setback of the dwelling to demonstrate compliance with street setback deemed-to-comply requirement;

· Remove or relocate the staircase on the eastern elevation to the rear of the site to alleviate actual and perceived bulk and overlooking to the neighbouring dwelling;

· Increase canopy coverage within the front setback area;

· Reduce the depth of fascia framing to the entry; and

· Soften the treatment of the eastern boundary wall to porch.

The applicant submitted amended plans in response to the DRP Chair’s comments, some of which would further address concerns raised during community consultation. The changes made to the plans include:

· Replacing the solid garage door with a permeable garage door;

· Increasing the setback of the ground and first floors to demonstrate compliance with the deemed-to-comply street setback requirement;

· Revising landscape species to increase canopy coverage;

· Incorporating permeable paving to the driveway to reduce hardstand area and increase planting zones;

· Relocating and reconfiguring the stairs from the deck on the eastern boundary to incorporate additional landscaping to the boundary; and

· Revising the design of the entry/porch of the dwelling as it presents to the eastern elevation and to the street.

These final set of plans that the applicant is seeking approval for are included as Attachment 4.

The DRP Chair has reviewed these final set of plans and noted that the revised dwelling form, setback and materiality will soften the presentation of the development to the street and that the proposal as amended – site planning, materials, finishes and detailing - reflects a suitable built form outcome which is sensitive to the streetscape and neighbouring properties and is supportable. The DRP Chair has recommended further changes to improve the development outcome, as follows:

· Reduce height of timber batten portico to northern elevation (addressing Mabel Street) to 3.2 metres to align with the ground floor ceiling height; and

· Increase setback of the spiral staircase to 2.1 metres from the eastern lot boundary.

The applicant has agreed to make these recommended changes prior to issue of a building permit. This has been included as a condition of approval in the officer’s recommendation (refer Condition 1).

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

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

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes a height of three storeys or more, which does not meet the deemed-to-comply building height.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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:

Lot Boundary Setbacks

East

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards along the eastern boundary on the first floor.

The proposed eastern boundary setbacks to the first floor satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The affected property to the east is a two storey dwelling that steps down to the rear of the site. The first floor of the proposed dwelling is adjacent to the pitched roof of the neighbouring property to the east (No. 11 Mabel Street). This means that the first floor does not directly abut major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of the adjoining eastern property;

· The eastern elevation of the proposed dwelling is well articulated and incorporates a range of openings to mitigate building bulk. The façade incorporates contrasting materials including timber cladding and render which assist to break up the appearance of the first floor walls when viewed from the adjoining property;

· Given the orientation of the lots, the proposed lot boundary setbacks would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining eastern property’s access to direct sunlight;

· The building and first floor have been stepped back to allow for adequate ventilation for the adjoining property to the east; and

· The first floor of the eastern façade proposes minor openings and screened balconies. However, large fixed window openings are proposed to the stairs on the first floor. It is recommended that as a condition of approval, these windows be obscured no less than 1.6 metres as finished from the first floor level. The stairs are not a defined as a habitable room, although may create actual or perceived privacy issues if not treated with obscure glazing given the reduced lot boundary setback being sought. Subject to this modification, the reduced lot boundary setbacks to the first floor would not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property.

West

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards along the western boundary on the ground and first floors.

The proposed western boundary setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The western elevation incorporates contrasting materials including render, cladding, and colourbond, as well as window openings on the ground and first floors which would effectively ameliorate the building bulk and reduce the appearance of blank solid walls as viewed from the adjoining property to the west;

· Major openings to the western façade are appropriately screened to alleviate any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the rear boundaries of the adjoining properties to the west;

· Given the orientation of the lots, the proposed lot boundary setbacks would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining western properties’ access to direct sunlight;

· The building and upper floors have been stepped back to allow for adequate ventilation for the existing and future adjoining dwellings to the west;

· The reduced lot boundary setback does not impose bulk and scale on outdoor living areas or active spaces of the adjoining dwelling; and

· The western façade incorporates large openings and highlight windows to the meals/dining, retreat and master suite to reduce the perception of blank solid walls and reduce perceived bulk and scale impacts.

Lot Boundary Walls

The application proposes boundary walls to the western and eastern boundaries. The deemed-to-comply provisions permit a boundary wall length of 17.9 metres, with an average height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres. The initial proposal proposed boundary walls that were two storeys high and exceeded the maximum length permitted. Following community consultation and DRP comments, the applicant provided amended plans reducing the height and length of the boundary walls. The acceptability of the boundary walls proposed are detailed below.

East

The boundary wall proposed to the entry portion of the ground floor of the dwelling would have an average height of 4.1 metres and a maximum height of 5.2 metres. The eastern boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The proposed boundary wall is located behind the street setback line of the dwelling, and would be partially concealed by the dwelling at No. 11 Mabel Street. This would ensure that it is not prominently located as viewed from the street;

· The proposed boundary wall would appear as single storey in height due to the slope of the site and site works proposed;

· The boundary wall does not abut the adjoining property’s primary outdoor living area or major openings to habitable rooms. The boundary wall also does not incorporate major openings and would not result in overlooking to the adjoining site. As a result the proposed boundary wall does not impact the privacy or residential amenity of the neighbouring property;

· The proposed wall is located on the eastern boundary and does not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling, or adversely impact the adjoining property with respect to overshadowing; and

· The eastern elevation is well articulated and incorporates varying materials such as cladding, render, glazing and face brick to reduce the bulk of the development to the adjacent property.

West

The boundary wall proposed to the garage to scullery portion of the dwelling would have an average height of 4.1 metres and a maximum height of 5.2 metres. The total length of the western boundary walls would also be 20.5 metres. The western boundary wall satisfies the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

· The proposed boundary wall directly abuts existing boundary walls to west. The existing boundary walls on the adjoining western property are to a garage and ancillary dwelling/outbuilding. The proposed boundary wall is not located forward of the existing boundary walls, providing a consistent street setback presentation and view to the street. The wall being located so that it abuts an existing boundary wall would assist in mitigating perceived bulk associated with boundary walls;

· The remainder of the dwelling to the upper floors are articulated from the boundary and incorporates varying materials, render and cladding to reduce the bulk of the development to the adjacent property. The materials provided break up the appearance of the walls when viewed from the adjoining properties and the street. Openings to the living/dining, master suite and retreat on the upper floors reduce the portions of blank solid wall to the western elevation;

· The total boundary wall length is acceptable as this is separated into two portions on the lower ground and ground floor and would be largely concealed by the existing boundary wall of the neighbouring property. The total length of the boundary walls would not present a continuous bulk or massing along the boundary;

· The boundary wall is proposed to be constructed and finished with face brick, consistent with the existing boundary wall on the common boundary and with that found in the Mabel Street streetscape;

· The proposed wall is located on the western boundary and does not compromise access to direct sunlight for the subject dwelling, or adversely impact adjoining property with respect to overshadowing; and

· The boundary wall does not incorporate major openings and would not result in overlooking to the adjoining site.

Building Height

The dwelling proposes a height of three storeys and a maximum height of 9.6 metres to the top of the concealed roof in lieu of the two storey and maximum 7.0 metres deemed-to-comply standard in the City’s Built Form Policy.

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns with the building height of the proposed dwelling in regards to the interaction of the dwelling with the streetscape, and the impact of the building height on lot boundary setbacks and solar access.

The building height proposed satisfies the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy and is acceptable for the following reasons:

· The proposal presents as a two storey dwelling when viewed from Mabel Street. The three storey element of the proposal is located away from the street and responds to the site conditions. This is because the natural ground level of the site slopes down by approximately 4 metres from the street boundary to the rear of the property;

· The location of three storey building height away from the street would ensure that it does not dominate the established streetscape character. The proposed dwelling satisfies the building height deemed-to-comply standard as viewed from Mabel Street;

· The building height is consistent with the immediately surrounding context of the area. Two storey dwellings are prevalent along Mabel Street and three storey dwellings have previously been approved for construction directly to the rear at Nos. 12 and 12A Nova Lane. The three storey building height to the rear would be compatible with the immediately surrounding context and scale of development;

· The development considers and responds to the natural slope of the site, with limited fill and excavation to the street and front setback area. The entry and garage at the front of the proposed dwelling as it presents to the street would be lower than the natural ground level and would sit lower than the floor levels of neighbouring properties fronting Mabel Street. This would reduce the impact of building height as viewed from Mabel Street;

· The finished floor levels proposed have been stepped in line with the natural ground levels of the site to reduce the overall height of the building. The third storey element of the dwelling is incorporated into the natural slope and contours of the site. The application proposes site works which would result in a greater amount of excavation or ‘cutting’ of the site rather than filling;

· The development incorporates a range of materials including brickwork, render and cladding which are featured materials in the immediate streetscape. The development also incorporates concealed feature walls to the roof form and provides articulation through varying setbacks when viewed from the street and adjoining properties. The materials and finishes appropriately responds to the character of the site context. The provided articulation, design and materials provided to the façade relate to the surrounding context and provide design detail that address comments and suggestions made by the City’s DRP Chair;

· The first floor of the dwelling incorporates window openings to all frontages providing access to sunlight and ventilation for its future occupants; and

· The development would satisfy the deemed-to-comply solar access requirements to the adjoining southern property. 18.8 percent of the adjoining southern property would be overshadowed, being less than 35 percent permitted under the deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes. The extent of overshadowing is reduced with the three storey portion of the building being setback 8.0 metres from the rear southern lot boundary.

Visual Privacy

The application proposes departures to the deemed-to-comply cone of vision setbacks on the western, eastern and southern elevations of the site. The departures affect the ground and first floors of the dwelling.

West

The ground floor deck proposes a 3.0 metre cone of vision setback to the western lot boundary in lieu of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes, while the first floor balcony proposes a 5.0 metre cone of vision setback in place of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply standard. The application is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

· The cone of vision from the deck and balcony at the rear of the dwelling fall to the western boundary of No. 14 Nova Lane. The ground floor of No. 14 Nova Lane comprises of a 3.5 metre high boundary wall that is approximately 14 metres in length. Four openings are located along the western façade of No. 14 Nova Lane, to two bedrooms and bathrooms. All of these openings are obscure or have a sill height greater than 1.6 metres above natural ground level. The cone of vision from the deck and balcony do not provide a line of the sight into habitable rooms or outdoor spaces of the abutting property;

· Screening proposed to the western side of the balcony would ensure overlooking is restricted. The cone of vision does not fall to the outdoor living area and open space at the rear of No. 14 Nova Lane. The screening obscures the cone of vision from the balcony, to minimise the adverse impact on the privacy of adjoining dwellings and private open space;

· The cone of vision from the deck will be further obscured by the landscaping (canopy coverage) and dividing fence to further ameliorate the actual and perceived overlooking.

South

The ground floor deck proposes a 3.3 metre cone of vision setback to the southern lot boundary in lieu of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes. The application is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

· The cone of vision from the deck would fall to the rear area of the approved dwellings at No.12 and 12A Nova Lane. There are no major openings located to the rear of No. 12 Nova Lane which would be impacted by the cone of vision. Similarly, the 1.5 metre rear setback area of No. 12A Nova Lane affected by the cone of vision is not be capable of passive or active recreation for its occupants, with the main outdoor living area located to the front setback of the lot (addressing Nova Lane). The cone of vision does not fall to habitable rooms or active habitable spaces for the occupants of these adjoining dwellings. The cone of vision does not inhibit the residential amenity and privacy for the occupants on these neighbouring dwellings.

East

The ground floor deck proposes a 2.5 metre setback to the eastern boundary, in lieu of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply requirement of the R Codes. The application also proposes a 5.2 metre cone of vision setback from the first floor balcony in lieu of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes. The application is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

Ground Floor - Deck

· The cone of vision from the deck would fall to the side and rear setbacks of the approved single dwelling at No. 12 Nova Lane. The affected side boundary would be occupied by a 3.3 metre high boundary wall, while the rear of the dwelling would be setback 1.4 metres from the boundary with no major openings to habitable rooms. There are no major openings or areas of outdoor habitable spaces to No.12 Nova Lane that would be impacted by the cone of vision from the eastern elevation of the deck. The cone of vision to No. 11 Mabel Street is obscured by the 1.6 metre pool screening on the boundary;

· The provision of three trees, for canopy coverage at the rear of the lot which grow to 8 – 10 metres in height at maturity would provide additional landscaping screening to further obscure the cone of vision;

· To alleviate perceived visual privacy impacts on the eastern boundary, the Chair of the Design Review Panel has recommended an increased setback of the spiral staircase to 2.1 metres to align with the eastern boundary of the swimming pool. The applicant has agreed to relocate the spiral staircase, with this is to be demonstrated on amended plans prior to the issue of a building permit.

First Floor - Balcony

· Screening is proposed to the eastern side of the balcony to restrict the extent of overlooking. Portions of the cone of vision fall to the rear of dwellings located east of the site (No. 12 Nova Lane and No. 11 Mabel Street). These portions fall to the 2.0 metre rear setback of the sites which do not contain any major openings to habitable rooms. The cone of vision from the balcony does not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to these eastern adjoining properties;

Site Works and Retaining Walls

The application seeks departures to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes in regards to site works and retaining to the dwelling. The application proposes a maximum of 1.0 metre excavation to drying court and a maximum of 1.9 metres fill to scullery and rear of entry hallway. A 0.3 metre to 1.0 metre high retaining wall is proposed on the eastern boundary to manage the slope of the site. The retaining wall and site works satisfy the relevant design principles of the R Codes and are acceptable for the following reasons:

· The application proposes cut and fill of the site that respects the natural slope and contours, limits the amount of retaining otherwise required and accounts for the 4 metre natural slope from north to south (front to rear);

· The proposal respects the levels of the lot at the street alignment and would not impact the streetscape. There are no site works proposed within the front setback area of the lot which exceed 0.5 metres. The site works to the dwelling do not exacerbate bulk or scale of development to the street, rather the front of the dwelling is lower than the street level and buildings on neighbouring sides;

· The retaining walls take a stepped approach in line with the natural slope of the site. This reduces the extent of retaining walls on side boundaries, reducing the impact on neighbouring properties, whilst managing the site levels to facilitate a functional dwelling layout;

· Retaining walls together with a dividing fence and landscape screening would ensure privacy of the subject and neighbouring properties; and

· The proposed site works and retaining walls would not be visible from the street and would not pose an undue impact on the locality.

Landscaping

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

The Built Form Policy requires 15 percent of the site to be provided as deep soil zone and 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 18.6 percent deep soil zone and 32.2 percent canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes the installation of five trees on site to the front and rear boundaries of the lot, with additional planting and smaller shrubs proposed to the side boundaries. The placement and selection of tree species – Hibiscus, Frangipani, Olive Tree and Lemon Tree – are capable of providing 4 – 6 metres of canopy at maturity, which would soften the appearance of the development as viewed from the street and neighbouring properties, as well as provide canopy for the benefit of the occupiers.

Garage Setback and Width

The development proposes a double garage that is setback 6.4 metres from the street boundary and is located 1.0 metre behind the building line of the first floor. The garage occupies 79 percent (6.2 metres) of the lot frontage at the setback line as viewed from the street.

The proposed garage satisfies the setback deemed-to-comply standard of Clause 5.7 Setback of Garages and Carports of the R Codes as it is setback more than 0.5 metres behind the building line of the dwelling.

The deemed-to-comply provision of Clause 5.2.2 Garage Width of the R Codes states that “where a garage is located in front or within 1 metre of the building, a garage door and its supporting structures facing the primary street is not to occupy more than 50 per cent of the frontage at the setback line as viewed from the street”. The proposal is not subject to assessment against Clause 5.2.2 as it is not located within 1.0 metre of the building. Legal advice has previously been sought by the City that confirms this.

Notwithstanding this, Clause 67 of the Deemed Provisions in the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 sets out matters that must be given due regard when determining applications. This includes Clause 67 (m) and (n) that relates to the compatibility of the proposed single dwelling and garage having regard for the character of the area and streetscape setting.

Streetscape and Character

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 refer to the majority of the existing houses along Mabel Street being single dwellings of similar aesthetics and heritage quality. The City also received comments during community consultation raising concern with the garage width.

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 Mabel Street contains both single and two storey developments and a range of architectural styles including modern/contemporary, traditional and cottage. The applicant’s detailed justification is included in Attachment 3.

Administration has undertaken a streetscape analysis of Mabel Street and determined that the area consists of predominantly single and two storey dwellings of varying architectural design. This analysis depicting images of existing dwellings that form the character of the streetscape has been included as Attachment 7. Key elements of the streetscape as observed by Administration include:

· Variety of roof forms – pitched, concealed and skillion;

· Face brick, timber cladding and render finishes in earthy tones;

· Double garages, carports and uncovered car parking spaces within the front setback area to Mabel Street; and

· Dwellings of a single, two and three storey scale as viewed from Mabel Street.

The proposed single dwelling and garage design satisfies relevant matters in Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, and is compatible with its setting and would not prejudicially the character of the area for the following reasons:

· The streetscape consists of lots ranging in widths. This includes narrower lots created through subdivision such as Nos. 9A, 9B, 557 and the subject site;

· The materials, design elements and scale of the proposed dwelling would not be inconsistent with existing dwellings found in the streetscape, as demonstrated in the streetscape analysis included as Attachment 7:

o The dwellings immediately opposite the subject site at Nos. 12 and 12a Mabel Street have lot frontages 10 metres in width and double garages which occupy 61 percent (6.1 metres) of the lot frontages. These garages are setback 5.9 metres from Mabel Street, and project 3.2 metres forward of the building line;

o The dwelling to the west of the subject site at No. 15 Mabel Street has a garage with a nil setback to the street. Although this garage fronts the secondary street for this dwelling, the garage itself still forms part of, and contributes to, the Mabel Street streetscape. This existing garage would effectively screen the proposed garage and portions of the dwelling on the approach from the west.

o The applicant has revised the eastern elevation of the front portion of the dwelling to incorporate mixed materials (render, timber and face brick) as well as permeable details to the entry and porch to reduce the appearance of blank walls. The proposed setback also steps the buildings to the garage on the front boundary at No. 15 Mabel Street on the approach from the east;

o The proposed single dwelling and garage is appropriately setback from the street and serves to provide a transition between the neighbouring properties;

· The proposed garage at No. 13 Mabel Street is considered to provide a suitable built form outcome, scale and materiality which is sympathetic to the established character and context of Mabel Street;

· The 5.0 metre driveway width at the lot boundary is less than the 6 metre width permitted under the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes. A 1.0 metre wide portion of the driveway is proposed as permeable paving to reduce the impact of hardstand areas;

· The first floor is positioned to provide an overhang of the garage. Two major openings from the master suite, as well as an additional opening from the walk in robe, provides interaction with the streetscape and allows for passive surveillance of the public realm;

· The portion of the dwelling which overhangs the garage effectively reduces the appearance and dominance of the recessed garage door below;

· Landscaping within the front setback includes tree canopy and deep soil planting areas which border the garage, contributing to a softened building edge and façade, and increased greening to the streetscape;

· The entry is well defined and discernible for residents and guests, with a porch that protrudes forward of the garage. The porch would be clearly visible from the primary street, and would create depth and articulation to the front façade;

· The initial and revised proposals were referred to the DRP Chair for feedback on measures to ensure the proposed dwelling would contribute positively to, preserve and enhance the established built form character of Mabel Street. The applicant incorporated the following changes to the front façade of the dwelling to improve its contribution to the streetscape and to reduce the impact of the garage as viewed from the street:

o Revising the materiality of the garage door to be perforated in order to assist with reducing the bulk associated with solid garage doors;

o Revising the materiality of the front façade to include timber cladding and contrasting render, as well as additional red brick detailing to break down the massing of the development to the streetscape.

As per the final comments received from the DRP Chair, the proposal reflects a development scale, materiality and setback which is compatible within its setting and is sympathetic to the established and emerging streetscape.

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

6 Infrastucture & Environment

6.1 Tender 56/2020 Hire of Skid Steer Loader for Horticultural Operations - Appointment of Successful Tenderer

TRIM Ref: D20/73024

Authors: Sarah Hill, Project Officer - Parks & Environment

Jeremy van den Bok, Manager Parks & Urban Green

Authoriser: Andrew Murphy, Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment

Attachments: 1. Qualitative Evaluation Criteria - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Tom Lawton Bobcat Hire for Tender 56/2020 for the Hire of Skid Steer Loader for Horticultural Operations.

Purpose of Report:

To report to Council the outcome of Tender 56/2020 and to recommend the acceptance of a tenderer.

Background:

The City undertakes a number of projects and programs that require the casual hire of a skid steer loader and associated plant (truck).

Works within the City that require the hire of skid steer loader include (but are not limited to):

· Adopt a Verge Program

· General Landscaping

· Eco-zoning/Mulching

· Top dressing turfed areas

· Removal of waste

Due to the nature of the works and their proximity to a variety of the City’s assets including trees, footpaths and kerbing, it is imperative that a suitably qualified and experienced contractor be engaged to undertake the required works.

Details:

Tender Advertising

The estimated budget for the tender is $600,000 over three years. As the budget exceeds $250,000, Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing requires an open public tender process.

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

Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
a) b) 1. Demonstrated Relevant Experience c) d) Respondents must, as a minimum, address the following information: e) a) Experience and success in providing a similar service b) Provision and evidence of using laser levelling f)	40%
g) h) 2. Resources i) j) Respondents must demonstrate that it has the required plant, equipment, materials and appropriately skilled staff to undertake the service. k)	30%
l) m) 3. Examples of Previous Work n) o) Respondent to provide details of four (4) similar projects that: p) a) Show experience with horticultural related projects b) Indicate a high standard of finish c) Include photo examples (preferably before and after)	30%

Qualitative Criteria

Weighting

b) 1. Demonstrated Relevant Experience

d) Respondents must, as a minimum, address the following information:

a) Experience and success in providing a similar service

b) Provision and evidence of using laser levelling

40%

h) 2. Resources

j) Respondents must demonstrate that it has the required plant, equipment, materials and appropriately skilled staff to undertake the service.

30%

m) 3. Examples of Previous Work

o) Respondent to provide details of four (4) similar projects that:

a) Show experience with horticultural related projects

b) Indicate a high standard of finish

c) Include photo examples (preferably before and after)

30%

The Request for Tender 56/2020 was publicly advertised in the West Australian on Saturday 14 March 2020 and invited submissions until Monday 6 April 2020.

At the close of the advertising period, 4 tender responses were received from the following companies:

· Hinds Transport Services Pty Ltd

· J&V Earthmoving Contractors

· Tom Lawton Bobcat Hire

· TrackLink WA Pty Ltd

Tender Assessment

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

Title	Role
Procurement and Contacts Officer	Chair – non-voting
Manager Parks	Voting
Project Officer – Parks and Environment	Voting
Co-ordinator Parks Services	Voting

Evaluation

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

Company	Qualitative Score/100	Ranking
Tom Lawton Bobcat Hire	76	1
J&V Earthmoving Contractors	59	2
TrackLink WA Pty Ltd	33	3
Hinds Transport Service Pty Ltd	24	4

Based on the evaluation panel discussion, the submission from Tom Lawton Bobcat Hire was the highest ranked submission against the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria.

Once the tenders were ranked on the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria, the evaluation panel made a value judgement as to the cost affordability, qualitative ranking and risk of each Tender, in order to determine which Tender presented the best value for money to the City.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Request for Tender 56/2020 was advertised in the West Australian on 14 March 2020 and on both the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 14 March 2020 and 6 April 2020.

Legal/Policy:

The Request for Tender was prepared and advertised in accordance with the City’s Purchasing protocols: Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing.

Risk Management Implications:

Low Street tree loss or damage to infrastructure due to inexperienced operators, safety considerations

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

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

Connected Community

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

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The hire of skid steer loader is essential for key environmental programs including the Adopt a Verge and Eco-zoning Programs. Both of these programs increase habitat and biodiversity whilst reducing the use of ground and scheme water by both the City and the community.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Costs associated with hire of a skid steer loader for horticultural operations are charged against the various Parks operating and capital works project accounts as required.

Totals vary from year to year dependant on work requirements, however based on previous years works and the steady increase in the requirement for these operations, it is estimated that the total amount will be in the order of $180,000 - $200,000 per financial year.

Comments:

The submission form Tom Lawton Bobcat Hire complies with all the tender requirements. The submission was well presented and included all specified information. The Evaluation Panel deemed the response to be convincing and credible; demonstrating excellent capability, capacity and experience relevant to the Evaluation Criteria.

The Evaluation Panel recommends that Tom Lawton Bobcat Hire be accepted for Tender 56/2020 as they presented the best overall value for money to the City.

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

7 Community & Business Services

7.1 Petition - Friends of ANZAC Cottage

Attachments: 1. Petition - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the petition received at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 April 2020 (Attachment 1);

2. ADVISES the lead petitioner and the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. that the City has no legal basis to intervene as requested in the petition as:

2.1 the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia WA (VVAA WA) has exclusive possession of Anzac Cottage pursuant to a lease, which is secured by a caveat registered on the Certificate of Title to the land; and

2.2 the VVAA WA is currently occupying Anzac Cottage in accordance with the terms of the lease;

3. NOTES:

3.1 the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. initially advised that they had made a decision to withdraw from direct activities at ANZAC Cottage amid ongoing tensions with the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia WA;

3.2 the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer have offered support to both parties to resolve the dispute in the best interest of ANZAC Cottage and the community;

3.3 that, given recommendations 3.1 and 3.2, the status of the Memorandum of Understanding between the VVAA WA, Friends of Anzac Cottage and the City, dated May 2018, is uncertain.

4. ADVISES the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. and the VVAA WA that the City is willing to assist in the review of the Memorandum of Understanding to allow the Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. to resume community engagement at the Cottage, if the parties advise that they have reached an agreement as to its operation and terms.

Purpose of Report:

To provide Council with a response to the petition presented at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 7 April 2020 from the Friends of ANZAC Cottage (Friends).

Background:

ANZAC Cottage, Lot 15, 38 Kalgoorlie Street, Mt Hawthorn is owned by the City of Vincent. The cottage has a number of heritage listings:

· Register of Heritage Places (State Government listing);

· National Trust Classification (Non-Government listing);

· Town Planning Scheme (Local Government listing);

· Municipal Inventory (Local Government listing); and

· Register of the National Estate (National Government listing).

ANZAC Cottage has cultural heritage significance for the following reasons:

· the place was the first war memorial built in Australia to commemorate the participation of Australian troops in World War I;

· the place is representative of the effect that Australia's role in World War I, and the role of the Anzacs in particular, had on the Western Australian community in the immediate aftermath of the Gallipoli campaign;

· the place is a rare example of an architect designed workers' cottage. While the internal arrangement is a conventional configuration, the combination of materials and detailing is unusual for workers' cottage from the era;

· the place is a good example of a modest residential building constructed in suburban Perth in the 1910s, which is made exceptional by virtue of the circumstances of its construction by the Mount Hawthorn community as a war memorial and as a result has come to represent the values that are associated with the Anzac tradition in Australia; and

· the technical innovation and achievement of constructing a brick and tile cottage with the trades and skills of over 200 people from the Mount Hawthorn community in a single day in 1916 is a significant accomplishment.

Prior to 2006, the Cottage was owned by the Vietnam Veterans Association Australia WA Branch (VVAAWA). On 19 April 2005, the City (then Town of Vincent) received a letter from Kott Gunning Lawyers acting on behalf of the VVAAWA. The letter outlined the proposal relating to the future of the cottage.

Subsequently, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 17 January 2006, Council endorsed the following:

“That the Council;

(i) NOTES the outcome of the lease negotiations between the Town and the Vietnam Veterans Association relating to Anzac Cottage as detailed in this report;

(ii) APROVES the transfer of ownership of Anzac Cottage 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mt Hawthorn from the Vietnam Veterans Association to the Town subject to a pre-purchase

(iii) APPROVES of a lease between the Town and the Vietnam Veterans Association for the subject property for a period of twenty-one (21) years with three, five year options; and

(iv) AUTHORISES the Mayor and the Chief Executive Officer to sign the lease and affix the Council Common Seal.”

Pursuant to the above decision, a lease between the City of Vincent as lessor and VVAAWA as lessee was entered into on 24 January 2006, and currently remains in place. The VVAAWA registered a caveat over the Certificate of Title to the property to secure the terms of the lease. This prevents the property being sold without the VVAAWA’s consent, as the VVAAWA would be required to withdraw the caveat.

The Friends of ANZAC Cottage Inc. (Friends) were formed in 2008 to assist with the accessibility and interpretation of ANZAC Cottage, and in particular, to promote and facilitate public access to and awareness of ANZAC Cottage.

Until 2020, the Friends ran events and open days at ANZAC Cottage including monthly open days, school excursions and tours, commemorations and other events. Both the Friends and the VVAAWA curated displays at the Cottage highlighting the history of the cottage and the history of military conflict in Australia.

The Friends use of ANZAC Cottage was subject to the permission of the VVAAWA as the legal tenant.

In 2015, the City was made aware that there were ongoing tensions between the VVAAWA and the Friends growing and after consultation with both groups, it was determined that a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) should be drafted to clearly outline each group’s roles, rights and responsibilities. The draft was amended to include the City as a third party in order to assist with any mediation should this fail between the groups. The Memorandum of Understanding - Operation & Management of ANZAC Cottage, No 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn (May 2018) (MOU) was executed on 7 June 2018.

Details:

In October 2019, the City was advised by Friends that ‘since the inception of the MOU significant issues which have had a negative impact on the Friends of ANZAC Cottage and the implementation of its community engagement role as mandated by the MOU and the City of Vincent have been revealed.’

The City commenced investigations into the situation, reviewed the MOU, and met with relevant stakeholders.

As the dispute was unable to be resolved through negotiation, the dispute was referred to the City’s Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor, in accordance with clause 9 of the MOU, which was unsuccessful. The City received confirmation from the Friends on 17 February 2020 that they had ceased all community engagement programs at ANZAC Cottage and returned their keys to the property.

The Friends petition requests the City to facilitate the Friends return to the Cottage ‘unencumbered’ by other groups. As the VVAAWA has exclusive possession of the property pursuant to a lease, which is secured by a caveat over the title of the land, and the VVAAWA is in compliance with the terms of this lease, the City has no legal means to meet this request.

The VVAAWA gifted the Cottage to the City on the condition that the City enter into a lease with the VVAAWA. The lease does not allow for termination by the City other than if the VVAAWA is in breach of the terms of the lease. The VVAAWA have complied with the terms of the lease.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City has been liaising extensively with both VVAWA and Friends to determine the most effective method for the management of ANZAC Cottage as outlined in the details section of this report.

Legal/Policy:

· Lease of ANZAC Cottage, No 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, between the Vietnam Veterans Association of Australia WA Branch Incorporated and the Town of Vincent, dated 24 January 2006

· Memorandum of Understanding - Operation & Management of ANZAC Cottage, No 38 (Lot 15) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn (May 2018)

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for the City to abide by the terms of the lease for ANZAC Cottage and the spirit and intent of the MOU.

Strategic Implications:

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

Connected Community

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

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

Innovative and Accountable

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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

The Friends have a unique relationship to ANZAC Cottage and their community engagement programs have significantly contributed to preserving and sharing the history of the Cottage.

The City commends the dedication and commitment the Friends has demonstrated over many years to promote the City’s local history and heritage.

It is not possible for the City to meet the request of this petition due to the legal obligations that the City has under the lease entered into with VVAAWA.

The City is willing to facilitate an amended Memorandum of Understanding if fully supported by both sides in a spirit of harmony and cooperation in the best interests of the Cottage and the community.

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

7.2 National Redress Scheme – Participation of WA Local Governments – Key Decisions and Actions

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the consultation undertaken and information provided by the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries in respect to the National Redress Scheme and the participation of WA local governments in this scheme;

2. NOTES that the City will not be included in the WA Government’s amended participation declaration (and afforded the associated financial and administrative coverage), unless the Local Government makes a specific and formal decision to be included;

3. ENDORSES the City’s participation in the National Redress Scheme as a State Government institution and inclusion as part of the WA Government’s National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Declaration, in accordance with the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2018 (WA);

4. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to execute a service level agreement with a government agency or department to manage a Redress Scheme application in accordance with the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 and the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2018 (WA); and

5. NOTES that a confidential report will be provided to Council if a Redress Scheme application is received by the City.

Purpose of Report:

To seek Council’s approval to participate the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse as a State Government Institution, as detailed in the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries information paper – National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse.

Background:

The Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse (Royal Commission) was established in 2013 to investigate failures of public and private institutions to protect children from sexual abuse. The Royal Commission released three reports throughout the inquiry:

· Working with Children Checks (August 2015);

· Redress and Civil Litigation (September 2015); and

· Criminal Justice (August 2017).

The Royal Commission’s Final Report (15 December 2017) incorporated findings and recommendations of the three previous reports and contained a total of 409 recommendations, of which 310 are applicable to the Western Australian Government and the broader WA community.

The implications of the Royal Commission’s recommendations are twofold: the first is accountability for historical breaches in the duty of care that occurred before 1 July 2018 within any institution; the second is future-facing, ensuring better child safe approaches are implemented holistically moving forward.

The scope of this report addresses only the historical element of institutional child sexual abuse through the National Redress Scheme.

All levels of Australian society (including the WA local government sector and the City) will be required to consider high quality and evidence-based approaches to child safeguarding in the future.

About the National Redress Scheme

The Royal Commission’s Redress and Civil Litigation (September 2015) Report recommended the establishment of a single National Redress Scheme (the Scheme) to recognise the harm suffered by survivors of institutional child sexual abuse.

The Scheme acknowledges that children were sexually abused, recognises the suffering endured, holds institutions accountable and helps those who have been abused to access counselling, psychological services, an apology and a redress payment.

The Scheme commenced on 1 July 2018 and will run for 10 years. It offers eligible applicants three elements of Redress:

· A direct personal response (apology) from the responsible institution, if requested;

· Funds to access counselling and psychological care; and

· A monetary payment of up to $150,000.

All State and Territory Governments and many major non-government organisations and church groups have joined the Scheme.

The WA Parliament has passed the legislation for the Government and WA based non-government organisations to participate in the National Redress Scheme. The Western Australian Government (the State) started participating in the Scheme from 1 January 2019.

Under section 111(1)(b) of the National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth), local governments may be considered a State Government institution.

A decision was made at the time of joining the Scheme to exclude WA local governments from the State Government’s participation declaration. This allowed consultation to occur with the sector, and for fuller consideration of how the WA local government sector could best participate.

Details:

State Government Consultation with the Local Government Sector

Following extensive consultation, in December 2019 the State Government:

· Noted the consultations undertaken to date with the WA local government sector about the National Redress Scheme;

· Noted the options for WA local government participation in the Scheme;

· Agreed to local governments participating in the Scheme as State Government institutions, with the State Government covering payments to the survivor; and

· Agreed to the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) leading further negotiations with the WA local government sector regarding local government funding costs, other than payments to the survivor including counselling, legal and administrative costs.

With Local Government participating in the Redress Scheme, the State Government will be responsible for:

· Redress monetary payment provided to the survivor;

· Costs in relation to counselling, legal and administration (including the coordination of requests for information and record keeping in accordance with the State Records Act 2000); and

· Trained staff to coordinate and facilitate a Direct Personal Response (DPR – Apology) to the survivor if requested (on a fee for service basis with costs to be covered by the individual local government – see below for further explanation).

State Government financial support for local government participation in the Scheme, as set out, will ensure that Redress is available to as many WA survivors of institutional child sexual abuse as possible.

Individual local governments participating in the Scheme will be responsible for:

· Providing the State with the necessary information of the Local Government’s activities and services relevant to the Scheme;

· Resources and costs associated with gathering their own internal information, and providing that information to the State, in response to receiving a Redress application; and

· Costs associated with the delivery of an apology, if requested. This may include a standard service fee, plus travel and accommodation, depending on the survivor’s circumstance. The State’s advice requests that all requested DPR’s will be coordinated and facilitated by the Redress Coordination Unit – Department of Justice, on every occasion.

In response, the WALGA State Council meeting of 4 March 2020:

1. Acknowledged the State Government’s decision to include the participation of Local Governments in the National Redress Scheme as part of the State’s declaration;

2. Endorsed the negotiation of a Memorandum of Understanding and Template Service Agreement with the State Government.

The Local Government Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will reflect the principles of WA local governments participating in the Scheme as State Government institutions and being included in the State’s declaration.

State agencies (led by DLGSC), WALGA and Local Government Professionals WA will support all local governments to prepare to participate in the Scheme from 1 July 2020.

City of Vincent Participation in the Redress Scheme via the Local Government MOU

This report requests Council’s approval for the City of Vincent to be considered a State Government institution for the purposes on the National Redress Scheme, and for the City to be included in the WA Government’s amended declaration.

The financial and administrative support offered by the State will only be afforded to the City of Vincent if it formally agrees on this basis.

Detailed below is a list of considerations if participating in the Scheme:

1. Executing a Service Agreement

If the City of Vincent is a recipient of a Redress application, the City execute a service agreement with the State. The City must respond within 3 weeks for priority applications and 7 weeks for non-priority applications.

The priority application response time of 3 weeks will be outside most Council meeting cycles and therefore Council will need to authorise the CEO to execute an agreement.

2. Reporting to Council if / when an application is received

Council will receive a confidential report, notifying when a Redress application has been received.

All information in the report will be de-identified but Council will be provided with relevant information on the nature of the application.

3. Application Processing / Staffing and Confidentiality

The CEO will determine:

· Which position(s) will be responsible for receiving applications and responding to Requests for Information. The appointed person(s) will have a level of seniority in order to understand the magnitude of the undertaking and to manage the potential conflicts of interest and confidentiality requirements; and

· Support mechanisms for staff members, including counselling support, while processing Requests for Information.

4. Record Keeping

In April 2019, the State Records Office advised all relevant agencies, including Local Governments, of a ‘disposal freeze’ initiated under the State Records Act 2000 (the Act) to protect past and current records that may be relevant to actual and alleged incidents of child sexual abuse. The City’s record keeping practices as a result, have been modified to ensure the secure protection and retention of relevant records.

The Redress Coordination Unit (Department of Justice) is the state record holder for Redress and will keep copies of all documentation and RFI responses. Local Governments will be required to keep their own records regarding a Redress application in a confidential and secure manner, and in line with all requirements in the Act.

5. Redress Decisions

Decisions regarding Redress applications are made by Independent Decision Makers. The State Government and the City do not have any influence on the decision made and there is no right of appeal.

Alternatives to Participating in the Redress Scheme via the Local Government MOU

The option also exists for the City to decide not to participate in the Scheme, either individually, or as part of the State’s declaration.

Considerations for the City include:

· Divergence from the Commonwealth, State, WALGA and the broader local government sector’s position on the Scheme, noting the Commonwealth’s preparedness to name non-participating organisations.

· Potential reputational damage at a State, sector and community level.

· Loss of support from the State, resulting in the City bearing all financial responsibility and liability for any potential claim.

· Acknowledgement that the only remaining method of redress for a victim and survivor would be through civil litigation, with no upper limit, posing a significant financial risk to the City.

· LGIS has advised that the City has no insurance coverage for payments arising from Redress and the City would need directly finance any costs arising.

If Council decided not to participate in the Redress Scheme via the Local Government MOU this should be recorded as a formal decision of Council, by resolution.

Consultation/Advertising:

The State Government and WALGA have consulted with the Local Government sector, as detailed in this report.

Legal/Policy:

· National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse Act 2018 (Cth)

· National Redress Scheme for Institutional Child Sexual Abuse (Commonwealth Powers) Act 2018 (WA)

Risk Management Implications:

Consequence

Likelihood

Residual Risk

Reduces exposure to civil litigation and other associated expenses. Reduces risk of reputational damage. Reduces exposure to further legal claims against the City or its officials.

Unlikely

Low

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:

The State’s decision will cover the following financial costs arising from a Redress application:

· Monetary payment provided to the survivor;

· Costs in relation to counselling, legal and administration (including the coordination or requests for information and record keeping); and

In the event of a Direct Personal Response (Apology), the City may be required to pay a standard service fee of $3,000 plus travel and accommodation depending on the survivor’s circumstances.

COMMENT:

By participating in the State Government’s Redress Scheme, the City will be demonstrating a commitment to appropriately responding to the victims of institutional child sexual abuse.

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

7.3 Investment Report as at 31 March 2020

TRIM Ref: D20/73408

Author: Nirav Shah, Coordinator Financial Services

Authoriser: David MacLennan, Chief Executive Officer

Attachments: 1. Investment report as at 31 March 2020 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Report for the month ended 31 March 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 March 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 March 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $33,969,162 compared to $39,157,958 for the period ending 31 March 2019.

The total term deposit investments for the period ending 31 March 2020 is $28,466,025 compared to $32,739,750 for the period ending 31 March 2019. The total term deposit and fund amounts have reduced compared to last year for cash flow management purposes to cover operating and capital expenditure requirements.

In addition, the City foresees that investments in the short term will decline to ensure the City’s short to medium term liquidity position is sustainable to overcome any events resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic.

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	$35,377,640	$33,681,961
March	$39,157,958	$32,739,750	$33,969,162	$28,466,025
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 March 2020 is:

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment	Budget Adopted	Budget YTD	Actual YTD	% of FY Budget
Municipal	$370,000	$277,497	$176,810	63.72%
Reserve	$278,688	$209,016	$143,974	68.88%
Subtotal	$648,688	$486,513	$320,784	65.94%
Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$9,457	0.00%
Total	$648,688	$486,513	$330,241	67.88%

*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 1.67% for current investments including the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for March 2020 is 0.53%.

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 March 2020, $12,050,016 (35.50%) 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 8.74% 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
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	17.6%	30%	Nil	90%	45.16%
A1	25%	2.3%	30%	Nil	80%	9.96%
A2	20%	20.3%	n/a	Nil	60%	44.88%

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

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

“6.14. Power to invest

(1) Money held in the municipal fund or the trust fund of a local government that is not, for the time being, required by the local government for any other purpose may be invested as trust funds under the Trustees Act 1962 Part III.

(2A) A local government is to comply with the regulations when investing money referred to in subsection (1).

(2) Regulations in relation to investments by local governments may —

(a) make provision in respect of the investment of money referred to in subsection (1); and

[(b) deleted]

(c) prescribe circumstances in which a local government is required to invest money held by it; and

(d) provide for the application of investment earnings; and

(e) generally provide for the management of those investments.

Further controls are established through the following provisions in the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996:

19. Investments, control procedures for

(1) A local government is to establish and document internal control procedures to be followed by employees to ensure control over investments.

(2) The control procedures are to enable the identification of —

(a) the nature and location of all investments; and

(b) the transactions related to each investment.

19C. Investment of money, restrictions on (Act s. 6.14(2)(a))

(1) In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

(a) an authorised deposit‑taking institution as defined in the Banking Act 1959 (Commonwealth) section 5; or

(b) the Western Australian Treasury Corporation established by the Western Australian Treasury Corporation Act 1986;

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

(2) When investing money under section 6.14(1), a local government may not do any of the following —

(a) deposit with an institution except an authorised institution;

(b) deposit for a fixed term of more than 3 years;

(c) invest in bonds that are not guaranteed by the Commonwealth Government, or a State or Territory government;

(d) invest in bonds with a term to maturity of more than 3 years;

(e) invest in a foreign currency.”

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

7.4 Financial Statements as at 31 March 2020

Attachments: 1. Financial Statements as at 31 March 2020 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the financial statements for the month ended 31 March 2020 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 March 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 March 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	6-53
5.	Capital Expenditure and Funding and Capital Works Schedule	54-59
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	60
7.	Rating Information and Graph	61-62
8.	Debtors Report	63
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	64

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’.

The City’s operations have been impacted by the measures imposed by the State and Federal Government to contain COVID-19. This has had an impact on revenue and the ability to deliver services and projects. The May budget review will accommodate for these changes and update the budget for this unforeseen event.

Revenue by Program is tracking under budget compared to the YTD budget by an amount by $509,646 (2.9%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An unfavourable variance of $131,740 due to a reduction in revenue generated from Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and Culture);

· An unfavourable variance of $294,112 materially contributed by a reduction in revenue generated from parking infringements and parking fees (Transport).

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking under budget by $454,829 (0.9%) compared to the budgeted revenue. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An unfavourable variance of $456,436 due to a significant reduction in revenue generated from fees and charges for services provided by the City. Both Beatty Park and parking revenue have contributed to this downward trend.

Expenditure by Program reflects an under spend of $3,316,482 (7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· An under-spend of $1,313,831 mainly contributed by the timing of payment relating to waste collection and the delivery of operating projects within Policy and Place (Community Amenities);

· An under-spend of $790,720 mainly contributed by a timing variance of delivery of events and operating and maintenance works relating to Beatty Park Leisure Centre (Recreation and culture);

· An under-spend of $258,225, mainly contributed by a timing variance of works relating to infrastructure maintenance and costs relating to street lighting (Transport); and

· An under-spend of $508,267 mainly contributed by timing variance in the delivery of works within multiple service areas (Other Property and Services).

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under-spend of $3,190,381 (6.7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· Materials and contracts reflects an under-spend of $2,383,877. This variance is mainly contributed by a timing variance of works within the following areas:

o Waste collection Service - $720,966;

o Events - $206,456; and

o Operating projects within multiple areas - $480,742.

The balance of the variance is a result of a cumulative underspend in multiple areas across the City.

· Other expenditure reflects an under-spend of $692,059 largely contributed by a timing variance in the delivery of works within different 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 $15,707,357 reflecting a favourable position of $5,551,645 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 – 53)

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 54 - 59)

Below is a summary of the year to date expenditure of each asset category and the funding source associated to the delivery of capital works

CATEGORY	Revised Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Land and Buildings	2,714,730	1,785,230	1,405,507	48.2%
Infrastructure Assets	6,589,378	5,298,029	3,519,019	46.6%
Plant and Equipment	3,049,456	3,034,456	1,702,492	44.2%
Furniture and Equipment	864,277	689,057	238,837	72.4%
Total	13,217,841	10,806,772	6,865,856	48.1%

FUNDING	Revised Budget	YTD Budget	YTD Actual	Remaining Budget
	$	$	$	%
Own Source Funding - Municipal	9,428,042	7,631,283	5,379,041	42.9%
Cash Backed Reserves	1,344,821	1,019,821	402,279	70.1%
Capital Grant and Contribution	1,889,978	1,745,668	796,547	57.9%
Other (Disposals/Trade In)	555,000	410,000	287,989	48.1%
Total	13,217,841	10,806,772	6,865,856	48.1%

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

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 60)

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 March 2020 is $9,425,805.

7. Rating Information (Note 7 Page 61 - 62)

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 March 2020 is $2,110,719 including deferred rates ($103,602) and excluding ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 63)

Total trade and other receivables outstanding as at 31 March 2020 are $2,529,945, of which $1,953,745 relates to outstanding debtors. 90% 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:

· $1,736,928 (89%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.

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

· $160,715 (9%) relates to cash-in-lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay over a fixed term of five years.

In light of the expected impact of COVID-19, Administration will calculate a provision amount to reflect the probability of not collecting outstanding monies owed to the City. All debtor categories will be reviewed on a case by case basis.

9. Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 64)

As at 31 March 2020, the operating surplus for the centre is $272,556 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $226,313. This favourable position is expected to change as a result of the impact of COVID-19.

10. Explanation of Material Variances (Note 4 Page 6 - 53)

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 March 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.

Council Briefing Agenda 12 May 2020

8.5 Update on the City's Advisory Groups - seeking nominations for community representatives

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES that membership of the City’s advisory groups expired at the last ordinary local government election, which was held on 19 October 2019;

2. APPROVES the consolidation of the Environmental Advisory Group and Urban Mobility Advisory Group, to form a Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group, with the name and updated Terms of Reference to be endorsed at the group’s first meeting;

3. APPROVES the Chief Executive Officer inviting nominations from community members for membership of the following advisory groups, for the period 28 July 2020 to the next ordinary local government election, scheduled for 16 October 2021;

3.1 Arts Advisory Group (up to 10 community representatives);

3.2 Children and Young People Advisory Group (up to 6 community representatives);

3.3 Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group (up to 10 community representatives);

4. NOTES that the City is in close contact with WA Police and other key stakeholders on community safety issues during the COVID-19 pandemic and the Chief Executive Officer will provide regular updates to Council and the COVID-19 Relief & Recovery Committee on these issues and progress on the implementation of the the Safer Vincent Plan.

5. NOTES that Administration will provide further advice to Council on the Safer Vincent Crime Prevention Partnership following the pandemic emergency response which is the current focus of WA Police;

6. NOTES that Elected Members and City staff are meeting fortnightly with local business owners to discuss economic issues for the City’s town centres, including the City’s COVID-19 response and recovery being overseen by weekly meetings of the COVID-19 Relief & Recovery Committee; and

7. APPROVES the deactivation of the Business Advisory Group effective immediately.

Purpose of Report:

To provide an update on the status of the City’s Advisory Groups and seek nominations from community members for membership of a number of these groups.

Background:

The City’s current Advisory Groups are:

· Arts Advisory Group

· Business Advisory Group

· Children and Young People Advisory Group

· Environmental Advisory Group

· Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group

· Safer Vincent Crime Prevention Partnership

· Urban Mobility Advisory Group

The role of the Advisory Groups is set out in Policy 4.2.12 – ‘Advisory Groups’, with the key provisions as follows:

· Advisory groups are to facilitate community input and involvement and provide advice and support on strategic, special interest and operational activities;

· Advisory groups will act in an advisory capacity only and can only consider matters referred to it by the Council;

· The meetings will be conducted in an informal matter and will occur as required;

· Council is to appoint a Chairperson for each advisory group, who will preside at the meetings;

· The minutes of the advisory groups meetings are to be reported to Council, and any recommendations should be consistent with the City’s operational and strategic planning and within the City’s staff resourcing;

· Any items dealt with by the advisory group will not be implemented until Council has made a decision on the item;

· The City’s Code of Conduct applies to all advisory group members;

· Members need to be aware of financial, proximity and impartiality conflicts of interest and declare these and remove themselves from the discussion as appropriate;

· The term of membership is usually for two years, aligning with the local government ordinary election cycle;

· If a member of an advisory group fails to attend three consecutive meetings, without an approved leave of absence, their appointment is automatically terminated; and

· The operations of each advisory group are to be reviewed every two years, or sooner as required.

Membership of the Advisory Groups expired at the 19 October 2019 local government election.

Community representatives and Elected Members were reappointed to the Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group at the 7 April Council Meeting. Membership of the remaining Advisory Groups is yet to be formally appointed.

Details:

Administration is considering the role and purpose of Advisory Groups as part of its community engagement review. Community feedback from community groups – including advisory groups - has been an important aspect of the City’s community engagement approach.

Technological and societal changes have introduced a range of new and innovative ways to engage the community – providing avenues to reach sections of the community that have not traditionally used formal local government engagement and consultation processes.

In the interim to the completion of this review it is proposed to appoint Elected Members and community representatives to the following Advisory Groups to provide guidance and feedback on the development and implementation of the City’s plans and strategies:

· Arts Advisory Group - required for the selection, decommission and management of art in accordance with the City’s Policies 5.13 – ‘Percent for Public Art’, 10.7 – ‘Art Collection’, 10.8 – ‘Public Art’ and 10.9 – ‘Public Murals’

· Children and Young People Advisory Group - to provide input in respect to the development of the Youth Action Plan;

· Environmental Advisory Group and Urban Mobility Advisory Group - merged to provide input on transport and environmental issues, including the implementation of the Sustainable Environment Strategy, Bike Network Plan and the development of the Integrated Transport Strategy.

Due to the synergies between the Environmental and Urban Mobility Advisory Groups it is proposed that these groups are merged to form a group focused on sustainability and transport. The name and updated Terms of Reference for this group will be endorsed at the group’s first meeting.

Administration continues to engage regularly with relevant stakeholders, including WA Police representatives (WAPOL), to address safety and crime prevention issues. WAPOL reports a significant reduction in crime levels excluding domestic violence since the introduction of the COVID-19 restrictions. It is recommended that Administration continue to provide regular updates on community safety issues during the coronavirus pandemic to Council via the weekly meetings of the COVID-19 Relief & Recovery Committee including progress on implementation of the Safer Vincent Plan. Reforming the Safer Vincent Crime Prevention Partnership can be considered following the emergency response.

Elected Members and City staff have established a fortnightly electronic roundtable meeting with local Town Team members. This electronic roundtable meeting provides an opportunity for local businesses to discuss with Elected Members and staff the key issues, opportunities or questions for primarily around small business support particularly related to the COVID-19 restrictions.

From these Town Team roundtables, Administration has established an electronic newsletter, run health checks with local businesses, set up a webpage with support information, and created a business directory on the City's website showcasing businesses.

The City is also calling for good news stories on how businesses have adapted and diversified during the COVID-19 pandemic. Administration recommends that the City continues with the Town Team roundtables as a key local business engagement initiative and that Council formally de-activates the Business Advisory Group.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration would invite nominations from community members for the Arts; Children and Young People; and Sustainability and Transport Advisory Groups from 25 May 2020 to 29 June 2020. Notice of the nomination period will be provided in the following ways:

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

· in the local newspapers (late May and early June editions);

· in the City’s e-newsletter; and

· direct correspondence to previous members and members of relevant community groups.

Nominees will be requested to provide a cover letter or resume, and briefly explain their reason for applying to be a member of the Advisory Group including professional skills, experience and expertise in the areas covered by the group. Administration would review the nominations and make recommendations to Council on appointment at the 28 July 2020 Council Meeting. The Advisory Groups would commence meeting from August 2020.

Administration will continue to hold working group meetings with former advisory group members on key issues as required in the interim.

Legal/Policy:

The membership requirements for the Advisory Groups is set out in clause 10 of the City’s Policy 4.2.12 – ‘Advisory Groups’.

The Terms of Reference for each of the City’s Advisory Groups is available on the City’s website and below:

· Arts Advisory Group

· Business Advisory Group

· Children and Young People Advisory Group

· Environmental Advisory Group

· Safer Vincent Crime Prevention Partnership

· Urban Mobility Advisory Group

Risk Management Implications:

Low: There is low risk in Council approving the Chief Executive Officer seeking nominations for community representatives for the City’s Advisory Groups.

Strategic Implications:

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

Connected Community

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

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The proposed Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group’s role would be to provide guidance and advice on sustainability initiatives and relevant plans and strategies including the Strategic Community Plan, Sustainable Environment Strategy and Integrated Transport Strategy.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ BATCH NUMBER	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
EFT and BPAY Payments	2521 - 2529	$4,411,387.05
Payroll by Direct Credit	March 2020	$1,279,357.93
Sub Total		$5,690,744.98

Cheques
Cheques	82599 - 82600	$577.90
Sub Total		$577.90

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)
Lease Fees		$780.84
Loan Repayments		$100,782.60
Bank Charges – CBA		$46,360.83
Credit Cards		$6,668.32
Sub Total		$154,592.59

Total Payments		$5,845,915.47