Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 19 May 2020

MINUTES OF City of Vincent
Ordinary Council Meeting
E-MEETING, ACCESS AVAILABLE ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE

HTTP://WEBCAST.VINCENT.WA.GOV.AU/
ON Tuesday, 19 May 2020 AT 6pm

PRESENT: Mayor Emma Cole Presiding Member

Cr Susan Gontaszewski South Ward

Cr Alex Castle North Ward

Cr Joanne Fotakis North Ward

Cr Jonathan Hallett South Ward

Cr Dan Loden North Ward

Cr Joshua Topelberg South Ward

Cr Sally Smith North Ward

Cr Ashley Wallace South Ward

IN ATTENDANCE: David MacLennan Chief Executive Officer

Andrew Murphy Executive Director Infrastructure & Environment

Virginia Miltrup Executive Director Community & Business Services

John Corbellini Executive Director Strategy & Development

Jay Naidoo Manager Development & Design

Meluka Bancroft Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance

Media: Nil

Public: Four members of the public.

1 Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole declared the meeting open at 6.02pm and read the following Acknowledgement of Country statement:

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

2 Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

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

The following questions and statements were submitted prior to the Meeting and were read out by the Executive Manager Corporate Strategy and Governance. Administrations’ responses will be provided in the Agenda for the 16 June 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting.

3.1 John Gartner, Forrest Park Croquet Club, of Mount Lawley

Question 1

Please advise the cost of Maintenance of Forrest Park Reserve, i.e. the reserve bounded by Walcott St, Curtis St and Harold St Highgate, and excluding Forrest Park Croquet Club by the City of Vincent for each of the financial years, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19.

In addition, the budget amount and year to date expenditure for the same reserve for 2019-20 financial year.

Question 2

Please advise the income from the hiring of Forrest Park Reserve, i.e. the reserve bounded by Walcott St, Curtis St and Harold St Highgate, and excluding Forrest Park Croquet Club by the City of Vincent for each of the financial years, 2016-17, 2017-18, 2018-19.

In addition, the income to date for the same reserve for 2019-20 financial year.

3.2 James Boyle of North Perth – Item 9.2 James Boyle of North Perth – Item 9.2 No. 13 (Lot: 1; S/P: 787266) Mabel Street, North Perth - Proposed Single Dwelling

With regards to Order of Business 9.2 and specifically comments on Visual Privacy, page 51. Noting in the comments the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply R Codes are not met. In addition I wish to make a clarification to the first bullet point at the bottom of page 51. The windows at 1.6 metres high in the two bedrooms are clear glass and in no way obscure - one (as mentioned) along the western facade of the proposed residence and an additional window (not mentioned) at the rear of my property, facing north.

Given the positioning of the proposed residence and the building height, specifically the outdoor living areas - these spaces will have direct viewing access to these rear bedrooms. Whilst I acknowledge the updated plans (received by Council 1 May 2020) include additional screening, there remains line-of-sight visibility to habitable rooms.

I request the Council's careful consideration on the element of Visual Privacy which is at your discretion on this evenings Order of Business.

3.3 Andrew Main of North Perth

My submission relates to an online survey I created and distributed for comment in late 2019/early 2020. The survey sought views on a range of topics relating to the current and future use of the Beatty Park Reserve in North Perth.

To my knowledge, there is no masterplan to guide any future development or activities that could occur at the park. Without a plan, decisions about the use and development of the park, are made without guiding principles and may not be aligned with the needs of all current and future users of the park.

As such, the purpose of the survey was to gain an understanding of how people currently use the park, and what changes they would like so it was more desirable for them.

The results of the survey provide the City with some reliable information about resident and user views, and could assist the City with the preparation of a comprehensive masterplan to guide future decision making.

I was very pleased that approximately 50 households representing over 80 people completed the survey. There were nine questions and I provide you with some of the key findings:

The most popular activities that are currently undertaken by users:

1. Walking, running, riding

2. Using playground

3. Walking dog

4. Playing with a ball

5. Exercise equipment

Additional features, facilities or activities requested by respondents:

1. Shade trees

2. Drinking fountains

3. Larger playground

4. Table benches

5. Gravel path around perimeter

6. Basketball/Netball ring

7. Bench seats

8. Off lead dog exercise area

Support for community events and/or organised sporting activities being held at the park.

* 30 out of the 44 respondents to this question supported community events being held.

* 18 out of 44 supported organised sport.

* 9 out of 44 did not support either type of activity.

Earlier today I emailed all elected members and the CEO a complete analysis of the survey results.

I am hoping that the City will use this information as a starting point to develop a masterplan for Beatty Park Reserve, and possibly one that also incorporates the nearby Smiths Lake and Charles Veryard reserves.

3.4 Dudley Maier of Highgate

1. In Item 11.6 (Budget Review) why is the administration proposing that Interest Earnings be reduced to $748,100 “due to low interest rates offered” when the Financial Statement for the end of March (Item 11.4), with a quarter of the year still to go, already shows interest earnings of $729,175?

2. At the meeting of 7 April I asked if the city considered asking the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries to defer the payment of the $558,000 rental incentive for 246 Vincent Street. I also asked if not, why not? The response given does not answer my question and simply states the incentive was mutually agreed.

In fact, the response indicates that the lease has not been finalised and this is backed up by the inclusion of a report on tonight’s agenda (Item 12.4) which seeks to correct the mistake/oversight in the previously approved conditions of the lease.

Given that there is no indication that the initial incentives will actually be spent on the fitout of the building and will simply go to consolidated revenue, and given that all local governments may potentially have significantly reduced incomes from non-rate sources next year, it would seem that the City may have grounds to request a deferral of all or part of the incentive.

Given that the lease has not been finalised will the city approach the Department about deferring some or all of the initial incentive?

3. At the meeting of 7 April I asked who prepared the report for Item 12.3 (Sale of Land). The answer provided did not say who wrote the report - simply saying that all reports are authorised by the CEO.

Nearby local authorities such as Perth, Subiaco, Cambridge, Stirling and Victoria Park identify the report authors, with most giving the author’s name as well as position.

I am of the opinion that the former practice of identifying a report’s author was an important part of encouraging accountability and pride in one’s work by removing the cloak of anonymity. The former inclusion of a specific ‘authoriser’ also gave an indication that reports had been checked by a manager with technical knowledge and responsibility.

So I ask: who wrote the report for Item 12.3 (Sale of Land) of the meeting of 7 April; and who wrote the report concerning the lease of 246 Vincent Street for the meeting of 11 February 2020 (Item 12.4).

4. The answer to question 4 that I asked at the 5 May Covid Committee meeting, relating to details of how the Leederville Gardens Trust Fund will be spent, states:

“The Trust includes a requirement that:

[the PBIs in question] ‘exist for the acquisition, provision, maintenance, management or extension of any existing housing, villages, flats apartments or similar accommodation operated by the Association, or the purchase or construction of a similar type of facility for senior citizens within the Town’s boundaries.”

Does the administration stand by that statement, or was I given the wrong answer?

5. What items were discussed or presented at the council workshop of 28 April?

There being no further speakers, Public Question Time closed at approximately 6.12pm.

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

3.1 Colin Scott of North Perth

1. What sort of “rate relief” will ratepayers get in July/August (only 3 months away)?

The City is proposing a zero increase to rates in the 2020-2021 Budget. We have also suspended interest accrual on outstanding amounts, through to 30 September, and we are revising our financial hardship provisions to assist rate payers in financial stress.

2. What is council doing about (temporarily) relieving some full time staff from their payroll and will these staff use up any accrued leave (including long service leave) while temporarily being off the payroll.

The State Government has requested Local Governments to maintain their employment of staff. This is designed to minimise further hardship arising from COVID-19 and will keep money flowing within local economies. This is one reason that Local Governments have been excluded from the Federal Government’s Job Keeper allowance.

The City is creating downward pressure on employment costs by freezing recruitment, redeploying employees and encouraging some employees to take accrued leave (including long service leave). We note that many City services are fully functional at this time.

3.2 Marie Slyth of West Perth

Please let us know when action is going to be taken to deal with the speeding traffic in Colvin Lane. Although there aren’t quite as many vehicles using the lane due to the corona virus, those which continue to use the lane still continue to speed.

A motion was put to Council at the Electors AGM on January 28, 2020 which was then brought up as Item 12.2 at Council Meeting on March 17, 2020, the outcome of which in the Due Date/timeframe for completion section, was simply recorded as TBC (to be confirmed).

As already described, there is only a small section of Colvin Lane which needs to be attended to – i.e. the section from the junction of the unnamed lane running at the rear

of the houses at the Eastern end of Strathcona Street, to the entry/exit at Strathcona Street.

Our neighbours and I do not want to have our cars smashed into when exiting our garages on Colvin Lane, coupled with the fact that should this happen we have no legal recourse.

To finish, I am asking Council to PLEASE be responsible and do your best to protect your ratepayers from unnecessary INJURY, especially when you have been alerted to need in Colvin Lane.

The City has already committed to collecting speed and traffic volume data in Colvin Lane. This will be done when the traffic count program resumes as any data collected at this time is not indicative of typical traffic patterns. This data will allow the City to gauge the extent of the issue and consider if further intervention is required or appropriate.

The City has, over the years, introduced a number of measures at the request of Ms Slyth to ensure that the traffic using Colvin Lane travels at an appropriate speed for the environment. These include speed humps and associated ‘8kph speed hump signs’, plus ‘8khp speed limit’ markings painted on the road surface at two locations. It should be noted that the 8kph speed limit signs and pavement marking have no legal standing and are un-enforceable. Main Roads WA can at any time require a local government to remove them.

3.3 Lisa Coyle of Mount Lawley – Item 12.3

I was only informed that Council was preparing to sell the land currently used for public recreation by telephone and follow up email on Friday 3.4.20.

My Heritage Listed home abuts this public recreation area. I understand that the Officers Recommendation to Council is that it approves that this 500 square metre lot be sold to allow 2 residences to be built, each up to three stories high.

I want to formally register my strong opposition to this recommendation.

Available land for public recreation within walkable distances from homes is in short supply in the City and with the proliferation of high density dwellings in nearby streets, this small plot provides an essential and safe space. I have lived next door for twenty years and over the decades, have watched as the small place constantly evolves with the diversity of the residents.

This park has been used by local families - some living in nearby high rise buildings - for celebrations (even a bridal shower), picnics, children learning to ride bicycles, bocce, cricket games and of course, a multitude of dog owners on a daily basis.

While the Council does maintain the property, I would hasten to add that local residents also contribute to ensuring that the property remains free of litter and graffiti. It has been an ‘oasis’ for our local community, bordered as it is by major City streets which require adults to accompany children to cross. It would be a travesty if its future use as a public recreation space by many existing residents and ratepayers is traded for the one-off benefit of just two future residents.

The City of Vincent prides itself on putting People before Profit and for protecting local amenity and sustainable, green land use options. The destruction of this public space does not achieve this lofty ideal. Nor would permitting two, three storey developments overlooking the back yards of nearby residents, meet accepted Department of Planning Design Principles in terms of maintaining the ‘context and character’ of this quiet wedge of residential development bounded, as it is, by major roads.

As you would be aware, Design Principle 9 expounds on the need for development applications to respond to local community needs, including the facilitation of social interaction. This mere 500 square metre lot is the only area within this residential wedge which does, in fact, permit social interaction.

I urge Councillors not to take this public recreation space from our existing community for what really amounts to minimal short term, financial gain. There is no reversing such a short-sighted decision.

I would also like to express my disappointment at the lack of community consultation and adequate notice given for our small but united community to respond.

Thank you for your comments in respect to the current use of 10 Monmouth Street, and also comments on the sale process. The recommendation to Council was not adopted at this Meeting, and an alternative motion unanimously carried, which requires the City to consult with the community prior to the potential sale of 10 Monmouth Street. The comments from the community will inform whether the proposed sale proceeds, and if it does, the method and timing of the sale.

3.4 Norelle O’Neill of Mt Hawthorn – item 12.3

I wish to lodge my, and my family's, strong objection to the City even contemplating selling off parts of Brentham St Reserve, let alone actually allowing it to happen.

You have all been granted the privilege of being the custodians, not owners, of the City’s much loved open spaces, so you can protect and nurture them for future generations.

What gives you, or the person/s who proposed their sale, the right to sell what doesn’t belong to you? Open spaces belong to the community for healing, not profiteering developers.

Now more than ever people need the comfort and solace of space and nature and these regularly used precious green areas are the quiet home of massive mature native trees and their wild inhabitants.

To sell them for development is environmental vandalism.

Please vote against such an outrageous proposal to help restore faith in the City's decision-making processes.

Thank you for your comments in respect to the current use of the Brentham Street Reserve, and also comments on the sale process. The recommendation to Council was not adopted at this Meeting, and an alternative motion unanimously carried, which requires the City to consult with the community prior to the potential sale of two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve, being Lot 37 and the northern portion of Lot 75. The comments from the community will inform whether the proposed sale proceeds, and if it does, the method and timing of the sale.

3.5 Joyce Wolfe of - item 12.3

I suggest that those councillors inclined to approve the proposal to sell off 5760 sqm of land in Brentham Street (which is zoned for passive recreation and dotted with mature trees) take a long hard look at the following two documents:

1) City of Vincent Greening Plan 2018–2023

2) Public Open Space Strategy Dec 2018 (Don’t skim over Table 6)

Thank you for your comments in respect to the proposed sale of portions of the Brentham Street Reserve. The recommendation to Council was not adopted at this Meeting, and an alternative motion unanimously carried, which requires the City to consult with the community prior to the potential sale of two portions of the Brentham Street Reserve, being Lot 37 and the northern portion of Lot 75. The comments from the community, along with the City’s relevant plans and strategies, will inform whether the proposed sale proceeds, and if it does, the method and timing of the sale.

3.6 Peter Le of Highgate – Item 12.3

Why is the City selling off land?

I believe that the recommendations to sell blocks of land because they have no current strategic value does not make business sense, and does not make financial sense. Why is the City selling public open spaces, when the City goes to great lengths to close residents’ streets to create open spaces?

I ask councillors to reject or defer the decision in order to get a better understanding of the city’s financial future before making any rash decisions.

Thank you for your comments. The recommendation to Council was not adopted at this Meeting, and an alternative motion unanimously carried which requires further consideration of the appropriate timing, price and method of sale of these lots, and for community consultation to occur prior to the sale of a number of these lots. Administration will also consider the City’s financial position and alternative options for generating funds prior to proceeding with any sale.

3.7 Sally Lake of Highgate – Item 12.3

I am concerned that the land, proposed for sale, on Beaufort and Brentham Streets is described as having “no current strategic use”.

The Brentham St land is parkland, which once lost, can never be restored. Parks are coming under increasing use, both during the current pandemic, but also as the city’s residential population increases.

Until recent times, the carpark on Beaufort St was heavily used. Choosing to remove it at this unusual time of low demand, calls into question the Council’s longer-term support for the re-establishment of a healthy business precinct. It is possible that in the very long-term, reliance on carparks may be able to be reduced. But this seems like a very inappropriate time to make that decision.

And for both proposed land sales, I consider that consulting with the residential and business community is necessary to establish the community’s views.

Thank you for your comments in respect to the proposed sale of the Brentham Street Reserve lots and Beaufort Street car park lot. The recommendation to Council was not adopted at this Meeting, and an alternative motion unanimously carried, which requires the City to consult with the community prior to the potential sale of these lots. This will include on site signage and communication with residents and businesses. The community consultation, along with the City’s relevant plans and strategies, will inform whether the proposed sale proceeds, and if it does, the method and timing of the sale.

3.8 Andrew Main of North Perth

Issue 1

I spoke at the council meeting in March about the continual vandalism of the property at 54 Cowle St West Perth, and my frequent requests to the City over the past 4 years to ask that the owner of this heritage listed property, one of the oldest dwellings in the City with connections to the pioneering Gallop family, protect it from vandalism and damage.

I specifically mentioned that part of the roof was missing and that damage from rain entering the building would further damage the building.

I would like to report that the roof remains open, and ask the City whether it has or will demand that the owner repair the roof?

Furthermore, if a request has been made to the owner to repair, when was this request made, and what commitment has the owner made to City particularly in terms of when the repairs will be made?

An Emergency Building Order was issued under the Building Act 2011 on 27 February 2020, same day the City inspected the building and confirmed that roof sheeting was missing from the building. The order included a requirement for the owner to immediately replace the missing roof sheets.

The majority of the roof sheets were replaced by 12 March 2020. The owner has advised that issues caused by the COVID-19 State of Emergency have delayed the installation of these final roof sheets. Administration is working with the owner to ensure the final sheets are replaced as soon as possible. Failure to comply will result in further enforcement proceedings being undertaken for non-compliance with the Building Order.

Issue 2

In November 2019, I wrote to the CEO about various concerns I have with the decision making process and outcome of works and activities carried out at Beatty Park Reserve over the past few years. Almost 5 months later, I have yet to receive a written response to this correspondence. Could you please advise when I am likely to receive a response to my correspondence.

In response to the correspondence referred to in the question, Mr Main was offered and accepted a meeting with the Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment to allow a detailed discussion of the issues raised by Mr Main. The meeting was held on the 11th February and ran for 90 minutes. A follow up written response will now be prepared and sent to Mr Main no later than the 22 May 2020.

Issue 3

In June 2018, the City commenced development of an integrated transport plan. Can the City please advise when it anticipates this plan will be finalised? Is it intended that the plan will be made available for public consideration and feedback prior to its finalisation? If so when does the City anticipate that this consultation process will take place?

The City is currently preparing the draft Integrated Transport Plan. It is anticipated that the draft Plan will be presented to Council mid-2020. It will be recommended that the draft Plan be advertised for public comment which, if the draft Plan is approved, would occur in the second half of 2020.

Issue 4

I refer to the ‘North Perth traffic calming’ project that has been underway since May 2018, when the City received a petition from local residents. The last time that the Council considered this matter was in June 2019, when the item was deferred so that further engagement of the community could take place prior to a final approach being adopted.

Can the City advise when this consultation is likely to take place? In December 2019, the ED Infrastructure and Environment advised that ‘the whole process should be completed this financial year’. Is this still the case?

The consultation was deferred due to the current COVID-19 situation as it was considered not a good time to carry out a consultation with residents. As the emergency situation is now easing the consultation will be carried out this financial year.

I note that since this issue was first raised by local residents, a roundabout has been installed on Wright/Lincoln Sts Highgate.

This Wright/Lincoln St roundabout was a 2018/19 Black Spot project based upon an accident history that met the criteria for funding. The submission was made in 2017 well before the above was raised. In addition the location is some 1.8 km from this area.

Funding is also being sought, through the black spot program, for seagull islands at the west and east side intersections of Chelmsford Rd and Fitzgerald St North Perth. This latter project will have impacts on the North Perth traffic calming project and I ask whether these have, or will be considered?

This submission was lodged in 2018 and as a Black Spot project and based upon the accident history for the intersection. It is therefore assessed independently of that of North Perth Traffic Calming Project and the safety of the intersection is a priority.

Are the two projects going to be combined as one, or remain separate? What is the likely timing of installation of the Chelmsford road seagull island? Will they be installed prior to further works undertaken as part of the North Perth project?

The Black Spot Improvement is a ‘standalone’ Commonwealth funded project subject to specific criteria and will be installed this financial year prior to further works that may be undertaken as part of a North Perth project.

3.9 Dudley Maier of Highgate - item 12.3

1. Has the Beaufort Street Network been informed of the intention to sell part of the Barlee Street Carpark, and if so, on what date and at what time was this done?

No, community consultation, which will include discussions with the Beaufort Street Network, will occur prior to Council making a decision on the sale of this lot.

2. On what date and time was the chair of the Leederville Gardens Retirement Village Board informed of the intention to use $1 million from the Trust?

At a joint meeting on 17 March 2020, the CEO advised the Board Chairperson of an intention to present a report to Council on options for the distribution of the trust funds. Due to the Covid-19 crisis, an urgent report was prepared and a courtesy email sent to the Board Chairperson at 12.43 on the day of the meeting, with a link to the Council report.

3. Has the city considered asking the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries to defer the payment of the $558,000 rental incentive for 246 Vincent Street? If not, why not? If so, when?

The City has not yet finalised the lease extension and variation with the Department of Works. The proposed rental incentive does form part of the new long term lease terms and was mutually agreed. It results in a rental income of approximately $6.6 million for the City over the 10 year lease term. The cash portion of the proposed rental incentive is to be paid by the City over three years, with $558,000 in the 2020/21.

4. Has the City stood down any employees, or have any employees been forced to use up accrued leave?

Due to the closure of the Library and Beatty Park, we have had to make the difficult decision to stand down a total of 166 employees.

To support the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Plan for the City of Vincent and provide additional resources to essential services and operations where required, the City has implemented a redeployment program. This will provide a number of employees who were stood down with the opportunity for meaningful work and financial stability.

For permanent staff who are yet to be redeployed, they have the ability to take accrued leave (i.e. personal leave, annual leave, special leave and Long Service Leave).

5. What items were discussed or presented at the council workshop of 24 March?

· COVID-19 Response and Recovery Strategy

· Options for the emergency use of funds from the Leederville Gardens Trust Fund

· Community and social impacts on sporting clubs and associations

· Brisbane Street Car Park ticketless parking trial

· Activity Centre plans for Leederville – outcomes of Part 2: where do we want to be?

· Parks playground / exercise equipment upgrade and renewal program

6. Given that section 3.58 of the Act does not require public notice to be given if assets are disposed of by auction or public tender, can you confirm that the disposal of 590 Beaufort Street will not be the subject of any public notice?

In accordance with Council’s decision at the 7 April 2020 Meeting, community consultation, which include on-site signage, will occur prior to Council determining whether to progress with the sale.

Who prepared the report for Item 12.3 – Sale of Land?

All reports are authorised by the CEO.

4 Applications for Leave of Absence

Nil

5 The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

Nil

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Hallett, Seconded: Cr Loden

That the Minutes of the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on7 April 2020 be confirmed.

carried Unanimously (9-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

7 Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

The Presiding Member Emma Cole made the following announcements:

7.1 REOPENING OF CITY FACILITIES

The City is implementing stage 2 of the Governments Roadmap to Recovery. The City library and local history centre reopened yesterday, sporting groups have returned to non contact training, with support from the City. Beatty Park Leisure Centre is reopening on Thursday, 21 May 2020, with a number of protocol changes to satisfy the COVID-19 requirements. The change rooms are not able to be opened yet.

7.2 LOCAL BUSINESS CHANGES

There has been a lot of support for our dine in food and beverage services. Leederville Village Square is now closed to vehicles and local businesses are encouraged to trade in this area.

7.3 VOLUNTEERS WEEK

Thank you to local volunteers for their efforts, they bring so much to the community. The supply of volunteers outstrips demand, and that is testament to our community and their willingness to support one another. This is one of the silver linings of the current situation.

8 Declarations of Interest

8.1 Cr Joanne Fotakis declared an impartiality interest in Item 17.1 - Minor Amendment to Design Review Panel Terms of Reference and Appointment of Design Review Panel. The extent of her interest is that she served on the City of Vincent’s Art Advisory Group with one of the applicants.

8.2 Cr Sally Smith declared an impartiality interest in Item 17.1 - Minor Amendment to Design Review

Panel Terms of Reference and Appointment of Design Review Panel. The extent of her interest is

that she knows one of the applicants for the Design Review Panel from the Mt Hawthorn Hub.

8.3 Cr Susan Gontaszewski declared an impartiality interest in Item 17.1 - Minor Amendment to Design

Review Panel Terms of Reference and Appointment of Design Review Panel. The extent of her

interest is that she is friends with one of the applicants for the Design Review Panel.

8.4 Cr Joshua Topelberg declared a financial interest in Item 12.4 - Lease of 246 Vincent Street,

Leederville to the Minister for Works – Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural

Industries – Amendment to Incentive Condition. The extent of his interest is that representatives of

his company have engaged with the City in relation to potential upgrade works for the property at

246 Vincent Street, Leederville.

REPORTS

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, advised the meeting of:

(a) Items which are the subject of a question, comment or deputation from Members of the Public, being:

Items 9.2, 11.6, 12.4.

(b) Items which require an Absolute Majority decision which have not already been the subject of a public question/comment, being:

Items 11.6.

Items 12.4.

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, requested Council Members to indicate:

(d) Items which Council Members wish to discuss which have not already been the subject of a public question/comment or require an absolute majority decision and the following was advised:

COUNCIL MEMBER	ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
Cr Gontaszewski	9.1
Cr Hallett	12.5
Cr Loden	10.2
Cr Topelberg	9.2, 17.1, 12.2

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole therefore requested the Chief Executive Officer, David MacLennan, to advise the meeting of:

(e) Unopposed items which will be moved “En Bloc”, being:

Items 10.1, 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 12.1, 12.3 and 12.7

(f) Confidential Reports which will be considered behind closed doors, being:

Items 17.1.

Items Approved "En Bloc":

The following Items were adopted unopposed and without discussion “En Bloc”, as recommended:

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the following unopposed items be adopted “En Bloc”, as recommended:

Items 10.1, 10.3, 11.2, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 12.1, 12.3 and 12.7

carried Unanimously (9-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

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

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.

Council Decision Item 10.1

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

10.3 Tender 568/19 - Hire of Trucks and Miscellaneous Plant - Appointment of Successful Tenderer

Attachments: 1. Qualitative Evaluation Criteria - Confidential

Recommendation:

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Universal Diggers (Giant WA Pty Ltd) for Tender 568/19 for the Hire of Trucks and Miscellaneous Plant and Equipment.

Council Decision Item 10.3

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

11.2 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.

Council Decision Item 11.2

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

11.3 Investment Report as at 31 March 2020

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.

Council Decision Item 11.3

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

11.4 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.

Council Decision Item 11.4

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

11.5 Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 March 2020 to 31 March 2020

Attachments: 1. Payments by EFT, BPAY and Payroll March 20

2. Payments by Cheque March 20

3. Payments by Direct Debit March 20

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 March 2020 to 31 March 2020 as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

EFT and BPAY payments, including payroll		$5,690,744.98
Cheques		$577.90
Direct debits, including credit cards		$154,592.59

Total payments for March 2020		$5,845,915.47

Council Decision Item 11.5

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

12.1 Variation of Local Government House Trust

Attachments: 1. Local Government House Trust update - January 2020

2. Deed of Variation of the Local Government House Trust

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES that the City of Vincent is a beneficiary of, and holds two units in, the Local Government House Trust (Trust);

2. APPROVES the variation of the Trust by the Western Australian Local Government Association as follows:

2.1 remove the existing trustee’s power to retire and appoint a new trustee without the consent of a minimum of 75 per cent of the beneficiaries;

2.2 provide that the beneficiaries may by special resolution, remove a trustee from office as trustee of the Trust and appoint a new or additional trustee; and

2.3 unless the beneficiaries otherwise direct, provide that the Board of Management is the ‘governing body’ of the Trust by specifying that the trustee delegates all powers, authorities and discretions to the Board of Management; and

3. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to notify the Western Australian Local Government Association of its decision.

Council Decision Item 12.1

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

12.3 Grant of access easement over the City's Right of Way (Lot 303) for the benefit of Lot 49 (No.33) Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth and transfer of Lots 303 and 304 on Deposited Plan 28000 to State of Western Australia

Attachments: 1. Deposited Plan - easement over Lot 303 on Deposited Plan 28000

2. Plan of City's Private Right of Way - Lot 303 on Deposited Plan 28000

3. Deposited Plan 28000 - depicting lots 303 and 304

4. Plan of development at 33 Scarborough Beach Road

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. GRANTS an easement for access over the portion of the City’s private right of way known as Lot 303 on Deposited Plan 28000, from Pennant to Howlett Street, for the benefit of Lot 49 (No. 33) Scarborough Beach Road, North Perth, as shown marked “A” on Deposited Plan 417328, at Attachment 1, and in the aerial plan at Attachment 2;

2. Subject to final satisfactory negotiations being carried out by the Chief Executive Officer, AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor to affix the common seal and execute the easement document in Recommendation 1. above;

3. APPROVES the transfer of the City’s private rights of way between Anzac Road, Scarborough Beach Road, Howlett Street and Chamberlain Street, known as Lots 303 and 304 on Deposited Plan 28000, and being Certificate of Title Volume 2217 Folio 818 and 819, as shown in Attachment 3, to the State of Western Australia pursuant to section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, SUBJECT TO the Chief Executive Officer providing a statutory declaration in respect to any contamination, unpaid rates to utility providers, leases, licences or any other interests in Lots 303 and 304;

4. NOTES that Lots 303 and 304 will become Crown land pursuant to section 82 of the Land Administration Act 1997, and REQUESTS that the Minister for Lands either:

4.1 reserve Lots 303 and 304 for the purpose of a public right of way and place care, control and management with the City pursuant to section 41 and 46(1) of the Land Administration Act 1997; or

4.2 dedicate Lots 303 and 304 as a road pursuant to section 56 of the Land Administration Act 1997,

as determined appropriate by the Minister for Lands, in consultation with the Chief Executive Officer.

Council Decision Item 12.3

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

12.7 Information Bulletin

Attachments: 1. Confirmed Minutes of the Design Review Panel Meeting held on 8 April 2020

2. Confirmed Minutes of the Design Review Panel Meeting held on 22 April 2020

3. Confirmed Minutes of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee 7 April 2020

4. Confirmed Minutes of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee 14 April 2020

5. Confirmed Minutes of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee 21 April 2020

6. Confirmed Minutes of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee 28 April 2020

7. Unconfirmed minutes of the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee Meeting 5 May 2020

8. Minutes of Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting held on 16 April 2020

9. Statistics for Development Applications as at end of April 2020

10. Register of Legal Action and Prosecutions Monthly - Confidential

11. Register of State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals - Progress Report as at 30 April 2020

12. Register of Applications Referred to the MetroWest Development Assessment Panel - Current

13. Register of Applications Referred to the Design Review Panel - Current

14. Register of Petitions - Progress Report - April 2020

15. Register of Notices of Motion - Progress Report - April 2020

16. Register of Reports to be Actioned - Progress Report - April 2020

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Information Bulletin dated May 2020.

Council Decision Item 12.7

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (9-0)

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 19 May 2020

11.1 Petition - Friends of ANZAC Cottage – WITHDRAWN BY ADMINISTRATION

This report was withdrawn by Administration and will be presented to the 16 June 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting.

Items With Discussion

9.2 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 to the deck shall be setback at least 2.1 metres from the eastern lot boundary, and re-oriented to address the southern lot boundary. 1.6 metre high privacy screening as measured from the finished floor level of the deck shall be installed to the remainder of the eastern edge of the deck in place of the staircase;

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

4.1 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; and

4.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 4.1 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

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

7.2 Major openings to the upper floor of the dwelling facing Mabel Street shall be clear glass so as to provide surveillance of and interaction with the street. Darkened, obscured, mirrored or tinted glass or other similar materials as considered by the City are not permitted;

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.

Council Decision Item 9.2

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Topelberg

That the recommendation be adopted.

carried (8-1)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Cr Topelberg

11.6 May Budget Review 2019/2020 (COVID-19)

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

2. Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program

3. Rate Setting Statement by Program

4. Capital Expenditure Budget Report

5. Cash Backed Reserves

Recommendation:

That Council ADOPTS BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the May budget review for the 2019/20 financial year as detailed in this report and Attachments 1 – 4, in accordance with Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

Council Decision Item 11.6

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

carried by Absolute Majority (9-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

12.4 Lease of 246 Vincent Street, Leederville to the Minister for Works - Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries - Amendment to Incentive condition

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

That Council APPROVES the following amendment to the incentive condition for the proposed variation and extension of the lease of 246 Vincent Street, Leederville by the City to the Minister for Works approved by the Council at its 10 December 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council (Item 12.1) and its 11 February 2020 Ordinary Meeting of Council (Item 12.4):

1.13 Incentive 40 percent, equates to $3,019,840 over the 10 year lease term plus a one-off payment of $25,000. The incentive is applied against the rent, with $1.625 million (including the $25,000 one-off payment) to be paid to the lessee via three instalments as follows:

July 2020 - $558,333

July 2021 - $533,333

July 2022 - $533,333

The balance of the incentive is to be applied against the rent and amortised evenly over the lease term;

At 6.45pm , Cr Joshua Topelberg left the meeting.

Council Decision Item 12.4

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

carried (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Topelberg was absent from the Council Chamber and did not vote.)

At 6.47pm, Cr Joshua Topelberg returned to the meeting.

9.1 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;

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.

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Topelberg

That the recommendation be adopted.

Amendment 1

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

It is proposed that the following amendment is made to recommendation 3:

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, subject to modifying proposed section 2, clause 3(a) to remove the words “or a maximum of 2 guests (or one family) where no host is present” and

Amendment carried (9-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

Council Decision Item 9.1

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;

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;

carried Unanimously (9-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

10.2 Outcome of Public Consultation for Scarborough Beach Road / Main / Green / Brady Streets Proposed Intersection Modifications

Attachments: 1. 5% Design and Fact Sheet

2. EHQ Report

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the outcome of the public consultation on the Main Roads Western Australia concept plan for the proposed upgrade of the intersection of Scarborough Beach Road, Green, Main and Brady Streets, Mt Hawthorn;

2. PROVIDES the community responses received to Main Roads, and

3. SUPPORTS Main Roads Western Australia progressing with the roundabout design taking into consideration the community’s comments and concerns.

Council Decision Item 10.2

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Loden

That the recommendation be adopted.

carried Unanimously (9-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil