AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

20 October 2020

 

Time:

 

Location:

E-Meeting and Administration and Civic Centre

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

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

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

Copyright

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

RECORDING AND WEBSTREAMING OF COUNCIL MEETINGS
•	All Council proceedings are recorded and livestreamed in accordance with the Council Proceedings – Recording and Web Streaming Policy. 
•	All recordings are retained as part of the City's records in accordance with the State Records Act 2000.
•	All livestreams can be accessed at https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/livestream
•	All live stream recordings can be accessed on demand at https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council-meetings
•	Images of the public gallery are not included in the webcast, however the voices of people in attendance may be captured and streamed.
•	If you have any issues or concerns with the live streaming of meetings, please contact the City’s Governance Team on 08 9273 6500.
PROCEDURE FOR PUBLIC QUESTION TIME 
The City’s Council Briefings, Ordinary Council Meetings, Special Council Meetings and COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee Meetings are held in the Council Chamber located upstairs in the City of Vincent Administration and Civic Centre. Physical distancing measures are in place. Meetings are also held electronically (as eMeetings), and live streamed so you can continue to watch our meetings and briefings online at  https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council-meetings/livestream
Questions or statements made at an Ordinary Council Meeting can relate to any matters that affect the City.  
Questions or statements made at a Council Briefing, Special Meeting of the Council or a Committee Meeting can only relate to the items on the agenda or the purpose for which the meeting has been called. 
Public Questions will be strictly limited to three (3) minutes per person.
The following conditions apply to public questions and statements: 
1.	Questions and statements can be made in person or by emailing governance@vincent.wa.gov.au with the questions prior to 3pm on the day of a Council Briefing or Meeting or prior to 10am on the day of a Committee Meeting. Please include your full name and suburb in your email. 
2.	Questions emailed will be read out by the CEO or his delegate during public question time if they relate to an item on the agenda.  If they do not relate to an item on the agenda they will answered outside of the meeting.  Statements will not be read out. 
3.	Shortly after the commencement of the meeting, the Presiding Member will ask members of the public to come forward to address the Council and to give their name and the suburb in which they reside or, where a member of the public is representing the interests of a business, the suburb in which that business is located and Agenda Item number (if known).
4.	Questions/statements are to be made politely in good faith and are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely or be defamatory on an Elected Member or City Employee.
5.	Where practicable, responses to questions will be provided at the meeting.  Where the information is not available or the question cannot be answered, it will be “taken on notice” and a written response will be sent by the Chief Executive Officer to the person asking the question.  A copy of the reply will be included in the Agenda of the next Ordinary meeting of the Council.
6.	It is not intended that public speaking time should be used as a means to obtain information that would not be made available if it was sought from the City’s records under Section 5.94 of the Local Government Act 1995 or the Freedom of Information Act 1992 (FOI Act). The CEO will advise the member of the public that the information may be sought in accordance with the FOI Act.


 

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 6

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 6

3          (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements. 6

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice. 6

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 11

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 11

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 11

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 11

8          Declarations of Interest 11

9          Strategy & Development 12

9.1             No. 382 (Lot: 1; STR: 23150) Bulwer Street, West Perth - Proposed Grouped Dwelling. 12

9.2             No. 58 (Lot: 301 & 302; D/P: 34680) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn - Single House (Amendment to Approved) 114

9.3             No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth - Two Grouped Dwellings. 157

9.4             Public Health Plan 2020 - 2025 - Outcome of Public Consultation. 196

9.5             Adoption of Amendments to Mobile Food Vendor Policy and Consideration of a Commercial Kiosk Proposal at Hyde Park. 283

9.6             Draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan. 311

9.7             Accessible City Strategy. 338

10        Infrastructure & Environment 412

10.1           Update on Manna Inc Meal Service at Weld Square. 412

11        Community & Business Services. 413

11.1           Beatty Park Leisure Centre Renewals Business Case. 413

11.2           Final endorsement of Youth Action Plan. 433

11.3           Adoption of amendments to Community Funding Policy - Emergency Relief Donations. 458

11.4           Investment Report as at 31 August 2020. 483

11.5           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 August 2020 to 31 August 2020. 491

11.6           Financial Statements as at 31 August 2020. 508

12        Chief Executive Officer 578

12.1           Annual review of updated Project Plans for the 26 Strategic Projects in the Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24. 578

12.2           Request to the Minister for Lands to Acquire Six Rights of Way as Crown Land and Reserve as Public Rights of Way - Perth Precinct 607

12.3           Sale of 150 (Lot 12) Charles Street, West Perth. 612

12.3           Sale of 150 (Lot 12) Charles Street, West Perth [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 612

12.4           Licence to locate a permanent alfresco structure in the Grosvenor Road road reserve adjacent to 639-643 (Lot 1) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley. 617

12.5           Transfer of ANZAC Cottage, 38 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, to the National Trust of Western Australia. 629

12.6           Extension of Lease - Barlee Street Car Park, 596 (Lots 49 & 50) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley  642

12.6           Extension of Lease - Barlee Street Car Park, 596 (Lots 49 & 50) Beaufort Street, Mount Lawley [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 642

12.7           Approval of Policy Document Register and Review Plan and repeal of policies. 654

12.8           Appointment of community member to the City of Vincent Audit Committee. 706

12.9           Appointment of Tamala Park Regional Council representative. 708

12.10        Information Bulletin. 710

13        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 778

13.1           Notice of Motion - Cr Susan Gontaszewski - review of policy 2.1.7 Parks, Reserves and Hall Facilities – Conditions of Hire and Use. 778

13.2           Notice of Motion - Mayor Emma Cole - Review of Graffiti Removal Service in City Owned Rights of Way. 780

13.3           Notice of Motion - Cr Joshua Topelberg - Review of Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.2 - Signs and Advertising. 781

14        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 797

Nil

15        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 797

16        Urgent Business. 797

Nil

17        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 797

Nil

18        Closure. 797

 

 

 


 

1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

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

  (B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

3.1       Dudley Maier of Highgate – Item 10.1 Waste Strategy Project

 

Questions

 

1.         How much has the city spent on consultants in developing the Integrated Transport Plan? What is the estimated cost of staff time in developing this plan?  What is its current status?

 

The total cost of consultants for the Integrated Transport Plan (now referred to as the Accessible City Strategy) is $280,000 as per the original scope and contract. Of this amount, $95,000 has been allocated to City-wide parking surveys and $20,000 has been allocated to the Leederville Transport Impact Assessment which also informs the preparation of the Leederville Activity Centre Plan.

 

The development of this Strategy was forecasted and approved, and staff resourcing attributed to this project is accounted for within existing staff budget allocation. Staff time attributable to this project is estimated at 0.5 of a full time employee.

 

The draft Accessible City Strategy has been developed and is due to be presented to Council for approval to advertise for public comment this calendar year.

 

2.         At the 30 March and 18 August meetings the Council agreed to exemptions under Schedule 2, Part 7, Clause 61(2)(d) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. That clause refers to temporary uses in existence for 48 hours, or a longer period agreed by the local government.  Both council decisions neglected to explicitly specify a longer period as required by the regulations.

 

Was it an oversight, and does the failure to nominate a period mean that temporary uses are restricted to 48 hours?

 

Periods of time were specified in both Council resolutions that have been referred to.

 

The temporary period for exemption in the 30 March 2020 Special Council Meeting resolution was specified as the end of the State of emergency or until 15 September 2020.

 

Council at its meeting on 18 August 2020 extended the exemption period until 90 days after the State of emergency is lifted in line with the Minister’s exemptions.

 

What (temporary) uses would be allowed under Vincent’s approach which would not be allowed under the Minister’s Notice of Exemption of 30 April?

 

A greater range of land uses are temporarily exempt from the need to obtain planning approval under the City’s temporary planning exemptions in comparison to the Minister’s Notice of Exemption.

 

Under the Minister’s Notice of Exemption dated 30 April 2020, the following land uses are temporarily exempt from needing planning approval in non-residential zones in the City (subject to conditions):

 

·                Shop;

·                Restaurant/Café;

·                Convenience Store (excluding those selling petroleum products);

·                Consulting Rooms;

·                Office; and

·                Home Business in the Residential zone.

 

The COVID-19 planning exemptions approved by Council at its 30 March 2020 Special Council Meeting sets out that all uses that are permissible (being ‘P’, ‘D’ and ‘A’ uses in the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2) in non-residential zones in the City are temporarily exempt from the need to obtain approval (subject to conditions).

 

3.       In December 2016 the city completed a Bike Boulevard which extended along Shakespeare Street from Scarborough Beach Road to Green Street and which cost $757,000. In March this year, prior to any Covid restrictions, the Bicycle Network conducted the annual Super Tuesday Bike Count. This counts all bicycle usage at strategic intersections during the morning peak period.

 

Can the administration confirm that the results of this year’s count showed that not a single cyclist used the bike boulevard between Scarborough Beach Road and Green Street?

 

Yes, no cyclists appeared to use the route from 7am to 9am on 3 March 2020. 

 

What confidence does the administration have that there will be any more cyclists using the proposed bike route along Strathcona Street, or will this be more wasted money providing bike routes that cyclists don’t use?

 

The count undertaken 3rd March 2020, from 7 to 9am, showed 7 south bound cyclists and 1 north bound cyclist using Strathcona St.  Any implementation should show an increase in users, and this will only increase in subsequent years as cycling is taken up by the community.  Council has made a strategic decision to begin implementation of cycle routes throughout the city, which will take years to reach full connectivity, hopefully matching the buildup of users.  This is a strategic process that slowly changes community transport mode – it cannot be viewed or tested as an instanteous transformation of mode.

 

4.       The answers to previous questions about the elements of the Built Form Policy requiring applicants to provide Urban Design Studies and to meet specified ‘sustainability performance standards’, plus the monthly application statistics, indicates that not all development applications are required to provide these.

 

What criteria do the staff use to determine when these are required, and how do applicants know, prior to submitting an application, that they are required to provide them? Why aren’t these criteria included in the policy?

 

The City’s Built Form Policy sets out deemed-to-comply standards and local housing objectives for developments. This includes the requirement to provide an Urban Design Study and to demonstrate that the Environmentally Sustainable Design (ESD) standards have been met.

 

Information sheets and checklists have been prepared by Administration to set out information needed to accompany applications based on specific development types and to support the implementation of the Built form Policy. These information sheets and checklists are available on the City’s website to assist customers in lodging applications and to streamline the approvals process.

 

Alterations and additions to a dwelling are deemed to be development proposals that are minor in nature. This includes sheds, patios, carports, garages, retaining walls and extensions to dwellings. For developments of this type, a streetscape analysis would be required only where it is significant development proposed to be located at the front of the site and that may have a visual impact on the streetscape. The submission of information to demonstrate ESD standards have been met would not be required for such proposals, as it is of a low scale and the site planning considerations to inform ESD considerations would be limited by the existing built form on the site. Information sheets relating to submission requirements for alterations and additions to dwellings are available on the City’s website.

 

5.       The minutes of the Reconciliation Working Group indicate the group recently considered the co-naming of Hyde Park.  Given that the council requested that the co-naming of Weld Square be progressed over 10 years ago, and the response from the administration on 8 March 2016, in response to a motion at the AGM, was that it would be referred to the Reconcilaition Working Group, has the co-naming of Weld Square been referred to the working group and what is the status of the initiative?

 

The Reconciliation Working Group was recently re-constituted and members of the group requested the City consider the co-naming of Hyde Park.  This is one of a number high profile locations that are being considered for co-naming or renaming to reflect indigenous heritage, including Weld Square and Banks Reserve.

 

Co-naming of Weld Square was referred to the Reconciliation Working Group in 2018 and the Whadjuk Working Party suggested two names, including ‘Coolbardie Park’ and ‘Noongar Park’.

 

Co-naming and renaming of City locations, including Weld Square, remains on the agenda of the Reconciliation Working Group and will next be considered on 30 November 2020.

 

6.       There are currently plans out for public comment for a single dwelling at 67 Mary Street, Highgate.  Two of the areas which do not meet the deemed to comply provisions are the garage          setback and garage width. The problem is that the plans clearly show that the garage faces the laneway and not the street.

 

Who checks assessments before they are put out for comment and who takes responsibility for this incorrect assessment?

 

The site is subject to assessment against Volume 1 Section 5 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

 

In relation to garage width, the deemed-to-comply provisions (C5.5.1) of the Built Form Policy clause 5.5 (Garage Width) references the ‘width of the lot’. This provision does not exclude proposed developments fronting a right-of-way, and which applies to the subject application. On this basis, garage width has been identified as being a departure to the deemed-to-comply provisions of the Built Form Policy.

 

The proposed setback of the garage has been incorrectly identified and advertised as a departure to the deemed-to-comply standard of the Built Form Policy. The deemed-to-comply provisions (C5.4.2) of the Built Form Policy clause 5.4 (Garages and Carports) stipulates that garages are to be setback a minimum 500mm behind the dwelling alignment. In the case where a dwelling abuts or has an interface to a right-of-way, the Built Form Policy clause 5.13 (Development on Rights of Way) would prevail, requiring development to be setback 1 metre from the right-of-way. The proposed setback of the garage as part of the subject application would meet this standard.

 

Administration collectively is responsible for the accuracy of assessments prior to advertising applications. Where there has been an error identified in advertising material, Administration would advise the applicant and clarify this in responding to any submissions. Administration has notified the applicant of the error made in this instance, and this will be accounted for in dealing with submissions and in the subsequent determination of the application.

 

3.2          Andrew Main of North Perth

 

1.         Parking across footpath

 

I have submitted numerous online and verbal requests for rangers to deal with the regular parking of vehicles across the footpath at two properties on Wasley Street Mt Lawley. Will the City be taking any action to prevent this from occurring in future.

 

The Rangers will continue to respond to all requests from residents relating to parking as well as being proactive whilst on general patrols to identify any parking issues and to deal with them in the appropriate manner.

 

2.         Beatty park reserve

 

There are two water fountains at the reserve. One was turned off in 2019, the other earlier this year. Is there a plan to turn these back on?

 

The fountain adjacent the playground is currently being reinstated.

 

Do the works that took place on the demolished Pavillon site comply with safety and disability regulations? In particular the gradient of the ramp leading from the reserve to the car park, and the drop of approximately 1m from the garden to the carpark.

 

The existing ACROD parking bay was installed in accordance with standards of the time but if it were to be installed today the current standards would apply and the ACROD bay would likely be installed elsewhere, i.e. well away from the landscaped area and tree coverage.  Therefore in order to provide an amenity/access for parks users with limited mobility the ramp was installed despite the gradient not being fully compliant.  The retaining wall meets the BCA and doesn’t require a balustrade.

 

3.         William/Brisbane St ‘two way project’

 

When did council approve this project?

 

Please refer to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 June 2014.

 

Were members of the community given the opportunity to make comment on detailed plans for this project before the City finalised its plans and carried out the works?

 

Yes, refer to the Ordinary Meeting of Council 10 June 2014.

 

Is Council aware that there are no kerb ramps or median islands on William Street between Brisbane and Newcastle Streets?

 

Kerb ramps exist, created from a low mountable kerb and paving.  Due to width constraints no medians were considered along Williams Street. 

 

Does Council consider the lack of safe pedestrian crossing points acceptable? I

 

Pram ramps exist at intersections along William St.  Mid-block pedestrian crossings were not considered at this time, to maximise embayed parking provision.

 

In addition, is this situation in compliance with relevant disability laws and regulations?

 

When installed, current pram ramps met current standards.  When the pram ramps are upgraded in the future they will be upgraded to the current standard.

 

4.         William/Walcott St intersection

 

Is Council aware that the kerb ramps and median island cut outs on Walcott Street on the southern side of this intersection, have recently been removed?

 

Yes, this issue involved 18 months of prior liaison with Main Roads WA, regarding changes to the existing signals.

 

Why were these works considered necessary?

 

The particular crossing does not align correctly with road verges.  Rather than relocate the traffic signals ($100k+) the crossing was removed ($5k).

 

A significant accident history had been noted with Walcott St east vehicles turning right into William St.  The City agree to remove the pedestrian conflict with this movement.  Further, the particular crossing does not align correctly with road verges, and the crossing did not meet current standards.

 

Who approved these works?

 

City of Vincent / City of Stirling / Main Roads WA.

 

The works were undertaken by City of Stirling.

 

No, Main Roads WA.

 

Prior to these works being approved, was public feedback sought? If so, when and how did this occur?

 

We cannot comment about the Main Roads WA processes.

 

5.         Driveways and crossovers

 

I refer to the City’s policy on driveways and crossovers. I note that this policy states that the maximum driveway width is to be 6m. As such, if the street frontage of a property is 6m or less, could a crossover covering the entire verge be constructed?

 

No, as the crossover width would need to be consistent with the planning approval issued for the development. In assessing the application for the development, the deemed-to-comply garage width is limited to a maximum of 4m for lots less than 10m wide under the City’s amended Built Form Policy.

 

If so, is Council concerned about this outcome and taking any steps to change the laws relating to this issue?

 

If the community expresses concern, the City will address the issue via its development policies.  Currently, please note that completely paved verges already exist along many of the commercial zoned areas.

 

In addition, I am aware of a property where a recently constructed driveway and associated crossover is 8m in width. Given the City’s policy, are these works illegal?

 

In reference to residential development vehicular access is assessed in accordance with Clause 5.3.5 of the R Codes, Clause 5.3.5 (C5.2) specifies a deemed to comply requirement of no driveway wider than 6m at the street boundary and driveways in aggregate no greater than 9m for any one property. A driveway is defined under the R Codes as the portion of the paved vehicle access way between a car parking area and the property boundary excluding any associated landscaping or pedestrian path on either side. Where a development proposes a driveway exceeding 6m then this would require development approval, departures to the deemed-to-comply requirements are assessed against the design principles and may be capable of support.

 

6.         Verge paving

 

I note the City’s policy that governs the paving of verges. This policy indicates that verges can be paved to a maximum width of 7.5m. If this is the case, and the street frontage of a property is 7.5m or less, does this mean the entire verge can be paved? If so, is the Council concerned with this potential outcome?

 

Yes, the entire verge may become paved, as currently exists on many commercial zoned areas within the City. 

 

If the community expresses concern, the City will address the issue via its development policies.  As with local distributer roads, if sealed verge start to become extensive they can be broken up with intermittent plantings and other street furniture. 

 

3.3 Response to Sally Lake’s question taken at 18 August 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting

 

The Mayor requested that further details be provided on the response to this question, particularly the Street Tree Selection Tool. 

 

The Street Tree Selection Tool is a very complex spreasdsheet made up of over 30 different attributes that may affect the selection outcome. It is not a simple tool to use without training and knowledge of the very basic general specifications and was therefore never developed for public use.

 

Staff are always willing to sit down with anyone particularly interested in tree selection to provide advice and go through the process of selection with them.

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

Nil

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

Fiona Keating submitted a petition regarding the City of Vincent’s proposed introduction of electronic permits and changes to the existing parking system. 

 

Every petition complying with sub-clause (1) shall be presented to the Council by the CEO.

 

(3) The presentation of a petition shall be confined to the reading of the petition.

(4) The only motions that are in order are:

(a) that the petition be received; or

(b) that the petition be received and a report be prepared; or

(c) that the petition be received and be referred to a committee for consideration and report; or

(d) that the petition be received and be dealt with by the Council.

(5) Once Council has resolved that a petition be received pursuant to clause (4)(a) or (4)(b), the CEO shall nominate an officer who will be responsible for dealing with the petition.

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 15 September 2020

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest

8.1     Cr  Alex Castle declared a financial interest in item 12.5 Transfer of ANZAC Cottage to National Trust. The extent of her interest is that  Friends of ANZAC Cottage are a client of her business.  She is not seeking to remain in the Chamber or vote in the matter.

8.2     Cr Joshua Topelberg declared a financial interest in Item 9.2, No. 58 (Lot: 301 & 302; D/P: 34680) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn - Single House (Amendment to Approved) .  The extent of  his interest is that he has an existing financial relationship with the project architect who is a party to the application.  He is not seeking to remain in the Chamber or vote in the matter.

8.3     Cr Ashley Wallace declared a  proximity interest in item 12.2  Request To The Minister For Lands To Acquire Six Rights Of Way As Crown Land And Reserve As Public Rights Of Way - Perth Precinct.  The extent of his interest is that he and his partner are the owners of 4 Grant Street, Perth, which adjoins the ROW between Grant, Lincoln, Beaufort and Bulwer Streets.  He is not seeking to remain in the chamber or vote in the matter.

                


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9            Strategy & Development

9.1          No. 382 (Lot: 1; STR: 23150) Bulwer Street, West Perth - Proposed Grouped Dwelling

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Applicant's Supporting Documents

4.       Advertised Plans (Superseded)

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration Response

6.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response

7.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No.2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Grouped Dwelling at No. 382 (Lot: 1; STR: 23150) Bulwer Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 7:

1.       Development Plans

This approval is for a Grouped Dwelling as shown on the approved plans dated 10 September 2020. No other development forms part of this approval;

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.       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;

4.       External Fixtures

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

5.       Landscaping

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

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and

·       The provision of a minimum of 12 percent deep soil area, 3 percent planting areas and 22.5 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

5.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 5.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

6.       Visual Privacy

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

7.       Colours and Materials

The colours, materials and finishes of the development shall be in accordance with the details and annotations as indicated on the approved plans which forms part of this approval or as otherwise agreed, to the satisfaction of the City;

8.       Fencing

8.1     The breezeblocks shall provide a minimum of 50 percent of the total surface area as unobstructed when viewed directly from the street, to the satisfaction of the City; and

8.2     The pedestrian access gate is required to open wholly within the subject lot, to the satisfaction of the City;

9.       Sight Lines

No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height to be constructed within 1.0 metre of where the driveway meets the right of way, unless the further approval of the City is obtained; and

10.     Car Parking and Access

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

10.2   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

10.3   No goods or materials being stored, either temporarily or permanently, in the parking or landscape areas or within access driveways. All goods and materials are to be stored within the buildings or storage yards, where provided.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a two storey Grouped Dwelling at No. 382 Bulwer Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the construction of a new two storey Grouped Dwelling fronting Bulwer Street.

 

The Grouped Dwelling consists of two portions, with the main dwelling located at the middle of the site and containing the living areas and three bedrooms. The second portion at the rear contains the garage with an office above and is separated from the main dwelling by an open courtyard. Vehicle access is provided from the rear right-of-way (ROW) and the primary pedestrian access to the dwelling is provided from Bulwer Street.

 

A location plan is included as Attachment 1. The proposed development plans have been included as Attachment 2. The applicants supporting documents including an Urban Design Study and an Environmentally Sustainable Design report are included in Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

Jonathan McIntosh and Peter Casserly

Applicant:

Residential Building WA Pty Ltd

Date of Application:

17 March 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Grouped Dwelling

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

204m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 3.0m wide, drained and sealed.

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Bulwer Street to the south-west, single storey dwellings to the north-west and south-east and a ROW to the north-east. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and all surrounding properties are zoned Residential R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site along with the neighbouring dwelling at No. 384 Bulwer Street are part of a built strata located on the same parent lot.

 

The subject site and all surrounding properties are within the Residential Built Form Area and have a permitted building height of three storeys as prescribed under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent LPS2, the City’s Built Form Policy and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

Setback of Garages and Carports

ü

 

Garage Width

 

ü

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Street Walls and Fences

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

Landscaping (R Codes Volume 1)

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Visual Privacy

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

ü

Urban Design Study

 

ü

Development on Rights of Way

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.2

 

Street setback required: 6.0m

 

Balconies on upper floors setback 1.0m behind the ground floor predominant building line

 

 

First floor street setback proposed: 5.3m

 

First floor balcony proposed to sit 0.9m forward of the ground floor predominant building line

Lot Boundary Setbacks / Boundary Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.1.3

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

North-West boundary:

First floor (balcony to bed 3): 2.2m

 

South-East boundary:

First floor (balcony to bed 3): 2.3m

Ground floor (ensuite to bed 2): 1.5m

 

 

 

 

First floor (balcony to bed 3): 1.2m

 

 

First floor (balcony to bed 3): 1.0m

Ground floor (ensuite to bed 2): 1.2m

 

Boundary Walls

Average wall height permitted: 3.0m

 

Ground floor walk-in robe wall (south-east) average height proposed: 3.2m

Garage Width

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.5

 

For lots less than 10m wide

Garage width permitted 4.0m

 

 

 

Garage width proposed: 5.4m

Street Walls and Fences

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.7

 

Maximum height of solid wall permitted: 1.8m

 

 

Maximum height of solid wall proposed: 2.0m

Development on Rights of Way

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.13

 

ROW setback required following ROW widening: 1.0m

 

 

Setbacks proposed following ROW widening:

Garage: 0.3m

First Floor Office: Nil

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days from 26 June 2020 to 9 July 2020. The method of consultation included notice on the City’s website and 23 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

 

At the conclusion of the consultation period a total of seven submissions were received, all of which objected to the proposal. The submissions raised the following concerns:

 

·       Design and street setbacks are not consistent with the established streetscape and surrounding locality;

·       Adverse impacts of bulk and overshadowing to neighbouring outdoor areas;

·       Not taking advantage of the three storey height limit at the detriment of adjoining properties, natural light access and landscaping;

·       High number of walls built up to boundaries;

·       Lack of canopy coverage would be detrimental to neighbouring properties and the surrounding area. Existing mature trees on-site should be retained;

·       Overlooking to adjoining properties; and

·       Inadequate space for safe vehicle manoeuvring.

 

A copy of the plans that were advertised to adjoining properties are included in Attachment 4.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans to address the deemed-to-comply variations proposed; comments from the Design Review Panel (DRP) Chair; and the concerns raised during the community consultation period. These changes related to increased landscaping; the addition of a front fence; the relocation of the first floor office; and design changes to the first floor elevations.

 

The amended plans were re-advertised to previous submitters for a period of seven days from 1 September 2020 to 7 September 2020. Two submissions were received, one in support and one in objection to the amended plans. Both submitters previously objected to the proposal. The submissions raised the following concerns:

 

·       Overlooking from the relocated office and through the balcony louvres;

·       Inadequate space for safe vehicle manoeuvring;

·       Adverse impacts of bulk and overshadowing to neighbouring properties; and

·       Lack of canopy coverage would be detrimental to the character of the surrounding area.

 

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

 

Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH)

 

In accordance with the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) delegations under the MRS, the application was referred to DPLH as the subject site abuts Bulwer Street, which is an Other Regional Road. DPLH provided a letter of no objection to the proposed development on regional transport grounds, subject to all vehicle access to the site being obtained from the ROW.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The proposal was referred to the Chair of the City’s Design Review Panel for comments. The plans initially referred are included in Attachment 2. The following key comments were provided:

 

·       The first floor overhang to Bulwer Street is acceptable in this context. Suggested to reduce the overhang to allow additional light to the ground floor;

·       The overall street setback reflects the adjoining dwellings and is supported;

·       The first floor width is the minimum to achieve a functional space and the lot boundary setback variations are expected with a 6 metre wide block;

·       Increased uncovered usable space would improve natural light access to the rear of the dwelling. Look at opportunities to improve natural light access to the balcony and rear courtyard;

·       The lack of canopy coverage indicates a lack of outdoor space and over-developed proposal;

·       The skillion roof effectively minimises building bulk on the adjoining properties. Suggest reducing the size of the solid panel above the balcony opening to decrease impacts of bulk on the street;

·       The contemporary cladding and white first floor colour palette ties in with the verandah detailing on many character houses. Suggest removing the recess and change in colour of the first floor elevations to enable a more refined and contextual design;

·       The architectural language doesn’t link to the surrounding context in terms of fine grain detailing, materiality, textures and colours. The front ground floor elevation and front fence are opportunities to improve this while maintaining a contemporary style. Suggest including a front fence and integrating breezeblocks and red face brick into the design;

·       Suggest reducing the number of rooms or length of the first floor to improve resident amenity and decrease bulk impacts on adjoining properties; and

·       Suggest updating the plans and perspectives to show the adjoining dwellings and context.

 

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

 

·       Relocation of the office to provide increased uncovered usable space and improve natural light access to the rear rooms of the dwelling;

·       Revision of the balcony design to introduce openings on both sides of the balcony. The size of the solid panel above the balcony was also decreased;

·       Increased landscaping and canopy coverage in the front setback area and the rear courtyard;

·       Provision of a red face brick front fence that includes breezeblock design features to respond to the streetscape. The front fence recycles the bricks from the existing house and fence; and

·       Revision of the first floor elevations to remove the change in colour and recess.

 

The final set of plans that the applicant is seeking approval for are included as Attachment 2.

 

The DRP Chair reviewed the amended plans and advised that the changes significantly improve the level of internal amenity for residents and have improved the developments relationship with the surrounding context and streetscape in terms of colours and materials.

 

The DRP Chair advised that the impact of bulk and scale on adjoining properties has improved through the relocation of the office and skillion roof design. Concerns were maintained in relation to the dwellings size in relation to the site. The acceptability of bulk and scale is discussed in the Comments section below.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

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

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the delegation does not extend to applications for development approval that received more than five objections during the City’s community consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   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:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Sustainable Energy Use

Water Use Reduction

Waste Reduction

Urban Greening and Biodiversity

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

 

The Built Form Policy requires a minimum setback of 6.0 metres from Bulwer Street. It also requires upper floor balconies to be setback a minimum of 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line.

 

The development proposes the first floor to be setback 5.3 metres from Bulwer Street and the first floor balcony to sit 0.9 metres forward of the ground floor predominant building line.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the design, upper floor overhang and street setback are not consistent with the existing streetscape.

 

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

 

·       The street setback of the adjoining properties is highly varied, with the setbacks of the five properties on either side ranging from 3.3 metres to 9.1 metres. The majority of the streetscape is currently single storey but this is expected to change as this section of Bulwer Street is zoned R80 and has a three storey building height permissibility;

·       The setback of the first floor to Bulwer Street is largely in line with the setbacks of the immediate neighbours. The first floor setback is sufficient in this context and would set an appropriate standard for future development which would not compromise the existing or future streetscape;

·       The development incorporates predominant features of the streetscape through its colours and materials. The face brick finish of the ground floor references many existing dwellings on Bulwer Street and the white colour palette of the first floor reflects the verandah and gable roof detailing of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed front fence incorporates face brick and breezeblocks that are also features of the streetscape;

·       The development clearly distinguishes the ground and first floors, and is well articulated and minimises visual bulk through the following:

o   A compliant ground floor setback is provided and the setback across both floors is varied, providing depth and reducing the mass and scale of the development;

o   The windows provided on the ground and first floors and the provision of an open balcony reduce impacts of solid blank walls and subsequent bulk as viewed across and along the street;

o   Contrasting materials and colours between the ground and floors break up the impact of bulk;

·      The proposal incorporates deep soil zones, planting areas and canopy coverage within the front setback area, including five mature trees. The provision of landscaping assists in ameliorating the bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the street. The landscaping would soften the appearance of the dwelling and contribute to the landscape amenity of the street; and

·      The DRP Chair supports the first floor overhang and overall street setback of the development in relation to the neighbouring dwellings. The DRP also support the colours and materials of the street elevation and front fence in terms of how the development integrates into the surrounding context.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

North-West

 

The R Codes Volume 1 require a minimum setback of 2.2 metres of the first floor (balcony to bed 3) from the north-west boundary. The development proposes a setback of 1.2 metres.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns in relation to excessive bulk and overshadowing impacts to adjoining properties as a result of the lot boundary setback variations.

 

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

 

·       The affected property to the north-west is a single storey dwelling that is built up to the shared boundary for its full length. The first floor does not directly abut major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas of the north-west adjoining dwelling;

·       The north-western elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple openings of different styles to break up the impact of solid blank walls when viewed from the adjoining property and the street;

·       Due to the favourable orientation of the lots, the development would not adversely impact the adjoining north-western properties access to direct sunlight. The stepping back of the first floor and the open courtyard at the rear ensures adequate ventilation is provided to the adjoining north-western property;

·       The openings from the north-western elevation meet the R Codes Volume 1 Visual Privacy deemed-to-comply standards. The reduced lot boundary setbacks would not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property; and

·       The DRP Chair supports the colours and materials of the first floor elevation. They acknowledged that the variation is expected with a 6 metre wide block and the first floor at its minimum functional width.

 

South-East

 

The R Codes Volume 1 requires a minimum setback of 2.3 metres of the first floor (balcony to bed 3) and 1.5 metres of the ground floor (ensuite to bed 2) from the south-east boundary. The development proposes a setback of 1.0 metre and 1.2 metres respectively.

 

The R Codes Volume 1 requires boundary walls to have a maximum average wall height of 3.0 metres. The development proposes the ground floor walk-in robe south-east boundary wall to have an average height of 3.2 metres.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the reduced lot boundary setbacks would result in excessive bulk and overshadowing impacts on adjoining properties.

 

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

 

·       The south-east adjoining property contains a single storey dwelling. The first floor and ground floor would partially abut the south-east adjoining properties outdoor living area and would directly abut a major opening to a habitable room at the centre of the neighbouring dwelling;

·       The south-east elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple openings to break up the impact of building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property and the street. The elevation incorporates contrasting colours and materials including face brick, dark render and white cladding that assists in breaking up the ground and first floor walls when viewed from the adjoining property;

·       The areas affected by the reduced setback of the ground floor and the over height boundary wall would already be shadowed by the first floor. The subject site has a three storey height limit and the development is only two storeys, with the first floor skillion roof designed to fall away to the rear to reduce shadowing impacts on the major opening and outdoor living area of the adjoining dwelling. The overshadowing generated by the proposal meets the deemed-to-comply requirements;

·       The stepping back of the ground and first floors and the open courtyard at the rear ensures adequate ventilation is provided to the adjoining south-eastern property;

·       The openings from the south-east elevation meet the R Codes Volume 1 Visual Privacy deemed-to-comply standards. The reduced lot boundary setbacks would not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property;

·       The boundary wall is located behind the street setback line and would be partially concealed by the adjoining dwelling. This would not be prominently located as viewed from the street. The boundary wall is also finished with face brick consistent with the adjoining dwelling and streetscape; and

·       The DRP Chair supported the colours and materials of the elevation. They acknowledged that the variations are expected with a 6 metre wide block and a first floor at its minimum functional width.

 

Garage Width

 

The Built Form Policy requires garages to have a maximum width of 4 metres where lots are less than 10 metres wide. The development proposes a garage with a width of 5.4 metres to the ROW.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the garage width in relation to it being built up to both side lot boundaries.

 

The proposed garage width meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The location of the garage from the ROW is preferable to reduce impacts of building bulk to Bulwer Street;

·       The existing ROW contains a number of single and double garages, vehicle access points and outbuildings that face the ROW. It is expected that as the adjoining properties are redeveloped that further garages and vehicle access points would be proposed from the ROW;

·       The ROW has limited visual character and the proposed garage is consistent with the current and expected future use of the ROW. The visual impact to the ROW is positive as a result of the contrasting materials and the provision of a major opening from the Office, facing the ROW;

·       Visual connectivity between the ROW and the dwelling is maintained by the major opening to the first floor office that would provide surveillance to the ROW; and

·       The additional width is required to provide compliant vehicle parking and manoeuvring space for one vehicle with the additional area providing space for a workbench, bicycle storage and access to the courtyard.

 

Street Walls and Fences

 

The Built Form Policy requires solid walls to have a maximum height of 1.8 metres where two significant design features are provided. The development proposes a solid wall with a maximum height of 2.0 metres.

 

The proposed fence to Bulwer Street meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       The fence is solid to a height of 1.8 metres on the north-west side of the lot and to height of 2.0 metres on the south-east side of the lot. This results from the slope of the site along the street. The additional height allows the top of the fence to remain level and the bin store to be screened from the street;

·       A section of the fence is proposed as visually permeable breezeblocks to provide views between dwelling and the street. This section of the fence ensures street surveillance is maintained;

·       The fence is compatible with the proposed development and existing streetscape in terms of style and materials. The high solid wall and face brick finish is consistent with a number of fences in the existing streetscape. The fence uses both new face brick and recycled brick from the existing dwelling to tie into contemporary style of the development and reference the existing face brick in dwellings and fences along the street. The breezeblocks are a feature of other fences in the existing streetscape and tie into the contemporary style of the development;

·       Bulwer Street is a ‘District Distributor B’ road and the solid portion of wall would provide privacy and noise screening to the front yard and ground floor; and

·       The DRP Chair supports the front fence materials and style, advising that the fence appropriately references and integrates with the surrounding context.

 

Development on Rights of Way

 

ROW widening

 

The redevelopment of this property is subject to ROW widening in accordance with the Built Form Policy and the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Planning Bulletin 33: Rights of Way or Laneways in Established Areas - Guidelines (PB33)The current ROW that borders the site to the north-east is 3.0 metres in width. The recommended 6.0 metre ROW width standard included in PB33 would require future widening of 1.5 metres to be provided for this site to ensure appropriate space is available to manoeuvre a vehicle in and out of a garage, carport or parking space at right angles to the ROW.

 

Car parking on the subject lot is proposed to be accessed from the ROW and the 1.5 metre widening on the north-eastern side of the lot is necessary to provide adequate manoeuvring for vehicles to and from this car parking area. The garage and first floor office have been set back outside of the future ROW widening area, with no permanent structures or active open space proposed within this area. The ROW widening area cannot be ceded to the City until subdivision stage but this area is required to be set aside for future widening at the earliest opportunity being the development application stage.

 

 

 

 

ROW setback

 

The Built Form Policy requires a 1.0 metre setback from the ROW after 1.5 metres of road widening has been applied. The development proposes a 0.3 metre setback from the garage and a nil setback of the first floor office from the current ROW boundary.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with vehicle manoeuvring and safety from the garage.

 

The proposed setback meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The 1.8 metre set back of the garage from the ROW ensures that compliant sightlines are provided and compliant vehicle manoeuvring space is provided in accordance with the Australian Standards (AS2890.1);

·       The major opening from the first floor office breaks up the bulk of the wall and provides passive surveillance to the ROW. The change in materials of the garage and first floor office along with the overhang and reduced width (3.0 metres) of the first floor to the ROW further reduces and breaks up the impact of bulk on the ROW;

·       The development is setback a minimum of 1.5 metres from the current ROW, allowing for future ROW widening if required; and

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

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes Volume 1, 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 a minimum of 30 percent of the site to be provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 22.5 percent of the site as canopy coverage at maturity. Compliant planting areas and deep soil zones are provided.

 

Administration received comments during community consultation that raised concerns with the lack of landscaping and canopy coverage proposed.

 

The proposed landscaping meets the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The provided deep soil zones and planting areas accommodate a number of mature trees. The landscaping includes portions of canopy cover which extend outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the reduction of the impact of the urban heat island effect and increasing urban air quality of the locality. It would also provide additional shade to the Bulwer Street pedestrian path and verge;

·       The location of five mature trees in the front setback area would soften the appearance of the dwelling from the street and adjoining properties. The landscaping provided positively contributes to the overall landscape amenity of the development site as well as the development when viewed from the street and adjoining properties;

·       The consolidated area of canopy coverage in the rear courtyard is consistent with that of adjoining properties. This ensures that a sense of open space between buildings is maintained;

·       The proposal has incorporated a variety of species that create interest and soften the building edge when viewed from the street and adjoining residential properties. The landscaping locations also provide an increased amenity for residents and future occupants;

·       The proposal provides compliant deep soil zones and planting areas, allowing for future mature planting opportunities. The applicant has stated in Attachment 6 that the owner intends on engaging a landscape architect to progress the concept of a micro-orchard in the front setback area and herb wall gardens to the courtyard. This would provide additional canopy coverage and landscaping and further reduce the impact of the development on the street and adjoining properties; and

·       While existing mature trees on-site are proposed to be removed, the development proposes to increase the canopy coverage on-site from the existing 11.9 percent to 22.5 percent through the provision of ten new trees. This ensures that overall amount of landscaping is increasing and an effective contribution would be made to the City’s green canopy.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

Clause 5.11 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives for environmentally sustainable design. The applicant has provided justification and a Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) to demonstrate how the development has incorporated features of environmentally sustainable design and satisfied these local housing objectives. These are provided as Attachment 3 and include the following:

 

·       Maximising the number of openings on the north-west elevation of the first floor;

·       Provision of space for a future rainwater tank;

·       Water efficient taps, toilets and heat pump hot water systems to be installed;

·       Adaptive reuse of the bricks and Metters stove from the existing dwelling;

·       Solar panels with a battery storage system to be installed;

·       Inclusion of a central courtyard to maximise access to northern light;

·       Roof solar absorptance rate of 0.43; and

·       A 50 percent reduction in global warming potential and net fresh water use against the Perth statistical average for residences.

 

Administration has reviewed the attached justification and LCA and is satisfied that the development has incorporated sufficient environmentally sustainable design features to meet the local housing objectives.

 

Urban Design Study

 

Clause 5.12 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives which applications are to consider as part of an urban design study. The applicant’s Urban Design Study is included as Attachment 3 and details the key built form references and details of the streetscape and surrounding area considered within the proposal, including the following:

 

·       Face brick as a predominant feature of the streetscape seen in the facades of dwellings and front fences;

·       Light colours in the rendered finish of dwelling facades and in the architectural detailing on verandahs, gables roofs and the like of character dwellings along Bulwer Street;

·       Breezeblock features in front fences along Bulwer Street; and

·       Landscaping and canopy coverage provided in the front setback area.

 

As per the Street Setback and Street Walls and Fences comments above and the final comments received from the DRP Chair, the development has incorporated design features that ensure the development appropriately references and integrates with the surrounding built form context and streetscape.

 

Dilapidation and Engineering Report

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that requested that an independent dilapidation report be completed to ensure any damage to No. 384 Bulwer Street during construction can be rectified. An independent engineering report was also requested to ascertain potential undermining of No. 384 Bulwer Street’s foundations and walls and the extent of permanent grout injection required.

 

The applicant has agreed to provide these reports and advice notes are recommended to encourage these reports to be provided prior to demolition of the existing dwelling.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 


 


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9.2          No. 58 (Lot: 301 & 302; D/P: 34680) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn - Single House (Amendment to Approved)

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Proposed Development Plans

3.       Minutes of the 5 March 2019 and 2 April 2019 Ordinary Meetings of Council

4.       State Administrative Tribunal Decision Notice and Approved Plans

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration Response

6.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response  

 

 

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 proposed Single House (Amendment to Approved) at No. 58 (Lot: 301 & 302; D/P: 34680) Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions:

1.       All conditions, requirements and advice notes detailed on State Administrative Tribunal decision DR 55/2019 dated 27 June 2020 continue to apply to this approval.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an amendment to a previous approval for a Single House at No. 58 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The subject site is located at No. 58 Kalgoorlie Street, Mount Hawthorn, as shown in the location plan as included in Attachment 1.

 

A Single House was approved at the subject site by the State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) on 27 June 2019 and is currently under construction.

 

The proposed development application seeks amendments to the previously approved development.

 

These amendments include the introduction of a spiral staircase located to the rear of the development site. The staircase would provide pedestrian access from the rear backyard to the first floor internal terrace. The first floor terrace is currently only accessible from the internal staircase.

 

All other aspects of the development remain as per the previous approval. It is not within the scope of this application to re-consider the acceptability of the overall design of the development and its impact on the streetscape or locality. This application may only consider the amendments proposed.

 

The proposed development plans are included in Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:

Caitlin Kyron

Applicant:

Urbanista Town Planning

Date of Application:

24 July 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R30

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

Lot 301: 374 square metres

Lot 302: 250 square metres

Total Lot Area: 624 square metres

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Kalgoorlie Street to the west and residential properties to the north, east and south. The surrounding residential developments are single-storey and two-storey single houses. On the opposite side of Kalgoorlie Street are single-storey and two-storey single houses and grouped dwelling developments (refer to the location plan included in Attachment 1).

 

The subject site and adjoining properties are zoned Residential R30 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are within the Residential Built Form Area as prescribed under the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

Previous Approval

 

An application for a Single House was lodged with the City on 3 October 2018. The development application was presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 5 March 2019. The application was deferred by Council to enable the applicant time to address Council’s reasons for deferral relating to the front façade, engagement to the streetscape and the overall bulk of the development.

 

The applicant submitted an application for review to the State Administrative Tribunal for a deemed refusal on 7 March 2019. On 22 March 2019 the applicant provided the City and the SAT with written consent to proceed with the determination of the application at the 2 April 2019 Ordinary Meeting of Council based on a set of amended plans that sought to address Council’s reasons for deferral.

 

The amended development plans were presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 April 2019 and the application was refused. The Minutes of the 5 March 2019 and 2 April 2019 Ordinary Meetings of Council are included in Attachment 3.

 

The application proceeded to a final hearing at the SAT on 14 June 2019. The SAT resolved to set aside Council’s decision made on 2 April 2019 and approved the development subject to conditions on 27 June 2019. A copy of the SAT Decision Notice and the approved plans are included as Attachment 4.

 

A Building Permit was issued in April 2020 the Single House is currently under construction.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the amended proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes – Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Previously approved

Requires further Discretion

Street Setback

ü

 

 

Front Fence

 

ü

 

Building Setbacks/Boundary Wall

 

 

ü

Building Height/Storeys

ü

 

 

Open Space

ü

 

 

Outdoor Living Areas

ü

 

 

Landscaping

ü

 

 

Privacy

 

 

ü

Parking & Access

ü

 

 

Solar Access

 

 

ü

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

 

Essential Facilities

ü

 

 

External Fixtures

ü

 

 

Surveillance

ü

 

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 5.2

 

The spiral staircase requires a 1.1m setback to the southern lot boundary.

 

 

The spiral staircase provides a 0.7m setback to the southern lot boundary.

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.1

 

Screening devices are to be 1.6m in height, at least 75% obscure and permanently fixed to restrict view in the direction of overlooking to any adjoining property.

 

 

The proposal has provided 1.6m screens around the perimeter of the first floor internal terrace. All of these screens are at least 75% obscure.

 

All screens are permanently fixed with the exception of the gate, which is openable to provide access to the spiral staircase.

Solar Access

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.2

 

Shadow projection permitted to southern adjoining properties: 35%.

 

 

Shadow projection to Lot 303: 71.8%.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 19 August 2020 and concluding on 1 September 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notification being sent to five surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1, and a notice on the City’s website.

 

The City received 10 submissions, all objecting to the proposal. The concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       Adverse impacts of building bulk to adjoining properties;

·       Adverse amenity impacts to adjoining properties;

·       Overlooking to adjoining properties;

·       Overshadowing to adjoining properties; and

·       Lack of deep soil zones and the impact this would have on local amenity.

 

Following the consultation period, the applicant responded to the objections through the submission of amended plans, which involved the following modifications:

 

·       Increased deep soil areas to the rear of the site. This increased the deep soil zones provided on-site from 13.2 percent to 18 percent; and

·       Provision of additional 1.6 metre high privacy screens located on the sides of the spiral staircase landing; and

·       Provision of a 1.6 metre high self-closing privacy screen gate to external perimeter of the first floor internal terrace.

 

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

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Not required

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.

 

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The application is being referred to Council for determination in accordance with the City’s Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments.

 

The application proposes to amend a development approval previously determined by Council that proposes further departures to deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes Volume 1 and the Built Form Policy. The proposal also received more than five objections during the consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   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

 

The spiral staircase is proposed to be setback 0.7 metres from the southern lot boundary in lieu of the 1.1 metre deemed-to-comply standard set in the R Codes Volume 1.

 

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns with the aesthetic impact and building bulk of the staircase, and impacts relating to amenity, overlooking and overshadowing. The southern adjoining property did not provide comments in relation to the reduced setback and subsequent impacts to their property.

 

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

 

·       The staircase is only 2.2 metres in length and due to curve of the structure, only a small portion of the structure is setback 0.7 metres from the southern boundary. The setback provided increases from the southern boundary as the stairs curve; The curved design of the staircase creates visual interest when viewed from the southern adjoining property and the open nature of the structure reduces impacts of building bulk;

·       All other walls to the southern lot boundary meet the deemed-to-comply setbacks provided under the R Codes Volume 1.

·       The shadow from the spiral staircase falls onto an outbuilding located on the southern property. The reduced setback from the spiral staircase does not restrict sunlight to major openings or the rear outdoor living area of the southern adjoining property;

·       Staircases are not subject to cone of vision setback requirements of the R Codes Clause 5.4.1 Visual Privacy as they do not fall within the R Code definitions of habitable rooms or active habitable spaces. This is because staircases are occupied infrequently, without noise, and by relatively few people, therefore being more easily tolerated than overlooking from active areas. The provision of privacy screens along the southern edge of the first floor terrace and landing of the staircase ensure there is no overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the southern adjoining property.

 

Solar Access

 

The R Codes Volume 1 permit 35 percent shadowing to the site area of adjoining properties coded R30.

 

The previously approved shadow was 70.8 percent of the site area of Lot 303 Kalgoorlie Street. The shadow has since increased by 2.5 square metres as a result of proposed spiral staircase, resulting in a total shadow of 71.8 percent to Lot 303 Kalgoorlie Street.

 

The City received objections during community consultation with concerns relating to the amount of shadowing proposed to adjoining properties and subsequent loss of direct sunlight. The southern adjoining property affected by the shadow did not provide comments in relation to overshadowing impacts to their property.

 

The proposal meets the Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       While the shadow projection falls across two lots to the south of the subject site, there is only one single house (No. 56 Kalgoorlie Street Mount Hawthorn) constructed across the two lots affected. The two lots have not been recently subdivided, and have existed in their current form for a number of decades. The immediately affected lot (Lot: 303) is 248 square metres and does not meet current site area requirements for a R30 coded site. It is also likely that this lot would be largely overshadowed from a compliant development due to its unfavourable location, dimensions and orientation;

·       If Lot 303 and Lot 23 were to be amalgamated to a total site area of 751 square metres, the proposed development would shadow 28.2 percent of the site and would meet the deemed-to-comply requirements for Clause 5.4.2 Solar Access of the R Codes. The development provides a sufficient shadow projection to the adjoining southern site.

 

Visual Privacy

 

The R Codes Volume 1 require screening devices to be 1.6m in height, at least 75 percent obscure and permanently fixed to restrict view in the direction of overlooking to any adjoining property.

 

The proposal has provided 1.6m screens around the perimeter of the first floor internal terrace. All of these screens including the gate are at least 75 percent obscure. All screens are permanently fixed with the exception of the gate, which is openable to provide access to the spiral staircase.

 

As the gate is not permanently fixed, overlooking from the first floor terrace to the adjoining property at No. 55 The Boulevard, Mount Hawthorn is possible when the gate is open. This results in a variation to the R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.1 - C1.2.

 

The proposed overlooking meets the Design Principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

 

·       As shown in the below perspective, the development provides 1.6 metre privacy screens to all sides of the first floor terrace. 1.6 metre high privacy screens are also provided on the sides of the spiral staircase landing in effort to further reduce any overlooking to adjoining properties;

·       As a result of the privacy screens provided to the first floor internal terrace, only 2.5 square metres of the adjoining eastern property at No. 55 The Boulevard is overlooked when the gate is open. This overlooking falls over an outbuilding roof and open space area that is well separated from the dwelling and the primary outdoor living area of No. 55 The Boulevard Street, Mount Hawthorn;

·       The plans indicate the gate is self-closing to ensure the gate would only be open when someone is accessing the terrace or stairs. The privacy screens and self-closing gate provided ensures no direct overlooking to habitable rooms or outdoor living areas of adjoining properties that are considered to be sensitive areas; and

·       Staircases are not subject to cone of vision setback requirements of the R Codes Clause 5.4.1 Visual Privacy as they do not fall within the R Code definitions of habitable rooms or active habitable spaces. This is because staircases are occupied infrequently, without noise, and by relatively few people, therefore being more easily tolerated than overlooking from active areas. The provision of privacy screens along the southern edge of the first floor terrace and landing of the staircase ensure there is no overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the southern adjoining property.

 

Location of privacy screens to first floor internal terrace and spiral staircase

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator




 


 


 


 


 


 


 

PDF Creator


 


 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9.3          No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth - Two Grouped Dwellings

Ward:                        North

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Urban Design Study

4.       Environmentally Sustainable Design Study

5.       Administration Streetscape Analysis

6.       Applicant Justification

7.       Summary of Submissions - Administration Response

8.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, REFUSES the application for Two Grouped Dwellings at No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2 for the following reasons:

1.       The proposed street setback of proposed Lot 1 and Lot 2 does not meet the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.1 of the City’s Built Form Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and Design Principles of Clause P5.1.2 (P2.1 and P2.2) of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The reduced setback and street interface of the dwellings does not preserve or enhance the visual character of the existing streetscape;

2.       The proposed open space does not meet the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.4 (P4) of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The reduced open space contributes to the reduced street setback, resulting in a development that would not incorporate suitable open space to reflect the existing and/or desired streetscape character or reduce the impacts of building bulk on Deague Court;

3.       The proposed setback of the garages of Lot 1 and Lot 2 do not meet the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.4 of the City’s Built Form Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and Design Principles of Clause P5.2.1 (P1) of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The setback of the garages in line with the predominant building line of the dwellings does not preserve or enhances the visual character of the existing streetscape and does not reduce vehicle access points to the street; and

4.       As a consequence of the departures sought in relation to street setback, open space and setback of garages, the proposed development is not consistent with the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 as it:

4.1     Is not compatible with its setting Clause 67(m);

4.2     Would have an adverse amenity impact and detrimental impact on the character of the locality Clause 67(n); and

4.3     Would not enhance the amenity and character of the existing neighbourhood and is not compatible with the established area in accordance with the objectives of the Scheme.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for two grouped dwellings at No. 2 Deague Court, North Perth.

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes two grouped dwellings in a side by side configuration, with vehicle and pedestrian access achieved from Deague Court. The dwellings are proposed to a building height of two storeys. The proposed development plans have been included as Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:

Quentin Chester

Applicant:

Quentin Chester

Date of Application:

3 June 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Residential         R Code: R60

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Single House

Proposed Use Class:

Grouped Dwelling

Lot Area:

397m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Not applicable

Heritage List:

Not applicable

 

The subject site is bound by Deague Court to the south, single and two storey dwellings to the east and north. An unconstructed dedicated road is located to the west of the site, and is currently used in conjunction with Charles Veryard Reserve as an additional portion of public open space. The City does not have plans to construct and formalise this road connection. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and the adjoining properties to the north, east and south are zoned Residential R60 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). Charles Veryard Reserve to the west is reserved Public Open Space under LPS2. The subject site and the adjoining properties to the north, east and south are within the Residential Built Form Area and have a building height limit of three storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form and the State Planning Policy 7.3 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 Setback

 

ü

Building Height

ü

 

Open Space

 

ü

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Setback of Garages and Carports

 

ü

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Visual Privacy

ü

 

Car Parking & Vehicle Access

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

Site Works and Retaining Walls

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

 

The primary street setback is to be the average of the five properties adjoining the proposed development: 6.3 metre average setback.

 

 

 

Walls on upper floors setback a minimum of 2 metres behind the ground floor predominant building line (excluding any porch or verandah), as determined by the City.

 

Balconies on upper floors setback a minimum of 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line (excluding any porch or verandah), as determined by the City.

 

A porch, balcony, verandah, chimney or the equivalent may project not more than 1m into the street setback area.

 

Ground Floor

Studio/Garage: 3.0 metres

Upper Floor

Balcony: 2.5 metres

Living: 5.1 metres

 

Upper floor projects 0.5 metres forward of ground floor alignment

 

 

 

Nil (0 metre) setback of balcony behind ground floor

 

 

 

 

Balcony projects more than 1 metre into front setback

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

 

Unit 1 West

Balcony – Bath: 3.2 metres

Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 5.7 metres

 

Unit 2 West

Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 2.8 metres

 

Lot Boundary Walls

Boundary walls to two (2) sides

 

Maximum height: 3.5 metres

Average height: 3.0 metres

 

Unit 1 West

Balcony – Bath: 1.5 metre

Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 2.6 metres

 

Unit 2 East

Bed 1 – Ensuite (bulk): 2.6 metres

 

Lot boundary Walls

Lot boundary walls to three (3) sides

 

Unit 1 (Entry)

Maximum height : 3.9 metres

Average height : 3.85 metres

 

Unit 2 (Entry)

Maximum height : 3.2 metres

Average height : 3.1 metres

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

40% open space

Unit 1

38.4% open space

 

Unit 2

37.8% open space

Setback of Garages & Carports

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Garages are to be setback a minimum of 500mm behind the dwelling alignment (excluding any porch, portico, verandah, balcony or the like)

 

Unit 1 and Unit 2

Garages project forward of dwelling alignment

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Minimum length and width dimension of 4m

Unit 1 and Unit 2

3.4 metre minimum dimension

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 31 August 2020 and closing on 14 September 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by means of written notifications with 10 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, 25 submissions were received, 23 were received in support of the proposal from surrounding properties and 2 were received in objection. The key concerns raised in objection to the proposal are summarised as follows:

 

·       Concerns regarding Unit 2 rear facing windows in ensuite overlooking neighbouring dwelling;

·       Concerns regarding Unit 2 rear facing master bedroom partially overlooks neighbouring dwelling;

·       Oppose ground and upper floor setbacks proposed;

·       Concerns regarding privacy to habitable rooms from balconies;

·       Consistency of dwellings with original constructions in Deague Court;

·       Strongly oppose garage not setback behind dwelling; and

·       Issues with parking in the street and how this will be managed with new dwellings and during construction.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 7. The applicant’s written justification for the proposal, as well as written response to the submissions received are provided as Attachment 6 and Attachment 8 respectively. Concerns regarding the Unit 2 rear facing windows were addressed by the applicant in the final plans submitted to the City, as per Attachment 2.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The application was referred to a member of the City’s Design Review Panel (DRP) for comments on the initial plans which proposed two dwellings addressing Deague Court as the primary street. The City arranged an onsite meeting with the City officers, the applicant and the DRP member to resolve fundamental built form and site planning issues associated with the proposed garage width, street setback and upper floor overhang. During the onsite meeting, the City and DRP member raised queries with the applicant as to whether alternative site configurations had been contemplated, to alleviate the dominance of the double garages addressing Deague Court and to allow for a northern aspect to outdoor living areas for both dwellings.

 

Following this meeting the DRP member drafted a preliminary design for a battle axe configuration which was provided to the applicant for review and consideration, which demonstrated opportunities to utilise the northern aspect and locate vehicle access via a shared driveway, screened from the street. The applicant reviewed the battleaxe concept but ultimately decided to maintain a side by side lot configuration with the dwellings addressing Deague Court.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans following the DRP members initial review, these plans are included in Attachment 2 and were referred back to the DRP, with the following comments being provided:

 

·       Street setback is not consistent with established setbacks in the streetscape, and the reduced setback has potential to reduce privacy and open space;

·       Landscape planning and the space provided requires further review to provide increased canopy coverage;

·       The location of the dwelling entry behind the garage and upper floor does not reduce impact of upper storey massing to street frontages, this is inconsistent with the established streetscape, where front setbacks play a major part;

·       While some articulation, stepping and shift in material and colour has been provided, it is minimal and does not offset the departures proposed;

·       Based on the current design proposed, the location of the garage and front balcony does appear to present a high level of bulk to the street and neighbouring dwellings. The garage placement along with general massing does not appear to be consistent with adjoining setbacks and is set forward of the adjoining properties further contributing to the bulk of the dwelling. While improved passive surveillance is provided with the studio at the ground level this portion of the building is in line with the garage and does not provide any articulation at the ground level and is effectively viewed as part of the garage form. Further refinement of materials, colours and size of glazing should be considered to define form;

·       Due to the placement of stores and bathrooms on the northern end of the dwellings, access to north light has been limited impacts future occupant amenity.

 

The applicant was provided a copy of the DRP Chair’s comments which also included some suggested design modifications, however did not seek to make any modifications to the proposal.

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:

This matter is being presented to Council at the written request of the applicant.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   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:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Sustainable Energy Use

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

 

The Built Form Policy requires walls on upper floors to be setback 2 metres behind, and balconies to be setback 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line. The development proposes a street setback of 3 metres to the garage and studio on the ground floor, and 2.5 metres to the balcony on the upper floor, projecting forward of the ground floor predominant building line in lieu of the deemed-to-comply 6.3 metre setback.

 

The applicant’s written justification for the proposed street setback is summarised as follows:

 

·       Work has been done to create a dwelling with an exceedance of interaction between the private domain and the adjacent public open space;

·       Deague Court is a streetscape that is undergoing transition as intended under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to provide infill development. Consideration of the intended higher density and future use of the site and surrounding area should be considered;

·       The proposed 3 metre setback is considerate and pragmatic of the intended future R60 use and desired requirements. Development and siting of garage is driven by both infrastructure easements and the previous determinations of Council to minimise visual impact of garages under Clause 5.2.2 of the Residential Design Codes;

·       The R Codes Table 1 requires a 2 metre setback, and the application is seeking 3 metres. The required setback does however call for a sound and logical planning outcome where the setbacks are ‘stepped’ down the street towards the eventual 1 metre.

 

The applicant has also provided justification with respect to the built form outcome of the dwellings in the form of an urban design study which is included as Attachment 4. The study details the built form justification and references provided by the applicant are summarised:

 

·       There is no streetscape to consider as the target radium is under transition. The dominant streetscape is already ‘modern contemporary’;

·       Proximity to Transit Corridor and character of recent adjacent development to Kayle Street means a fair argument is to be made future development will be of a multiple rather than grouped dwelling nature;

·       There is a clear development trend that has resulted in two storey side by side development with garages;

·       Against a three storey height limit, the height proposed is highly considerable;

·       The design is very responsive to an active streetscape offering significant open frontage to the adjacent park, and between public and private spaces; and

·       The most significant surrounding context relates to the public open space and established trees. Both have been incorporated by sympathetic timber materials.

 

The proposed street setback is not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy, and is not acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The ground floor setback of both dwellings would be 3 metres from the street boundary, forward of the 6.3 metre average street setback. The first floor balconies of both dwellings would be setback 2.5 metres from the street boundary, being 0.5 metres forward of the ground floor setback. The dwellings with cantilevering upper floor balconies would sit well forward of, and would not be consistent with, the existing dwellings in the streetscape;

·       The proposed dwellings do not interpret or demonstrate a connection with the character and identity of existing dwellings within Deague Court. The concealed roof form and appearance of Unit 1 is in contrast to the physical scale and appearance of the established Deague Court streetscape and does not compliment the established streetscape character and identity;

·       The upper floor projection results in lack of articulation of the dwelling which does not provide depth to the front and side elevation of the dwelling. Limited articulation to the front façade contributes to actual and perceived bulk and massing of the dwellings as viewed from neighbouring properties and the street;

·       The front façades of the dwellings do not introduce varying materials, finishes and colours which provide visual breaks and articulation of the walls. Expanses of grey render and timber accents do not effectively distinguish one part of the dwelling from another. The minimal colours and materials incorporated in the design are also impacted by the incongruous window forms and sizes. These design approaches detract from positive and consistent built form outcomes and do not create visual interest to reduce the impact of building bulk of the development on the streetscape;

·       The upper floor balconies cantilever 0.5 metres forward of the ground floor results in vertical and horizontal massing of the development within the street setback area forward of neighbouring dwellings, detracting from the established setbacks and built form of neighbouring dwellings and Deague Court;

·       Although only a single garage is proposed to each dwelling, the massing of development from the garage and studio creates the appearance of blank facades which project forward of the average street setback accounting for 79 percent of the overall lot frontage, imposing bulk on the street and public realm;

·       The location and projection of the garage partially obscures the entry and porch of the dwelling and as a result the garage presents as the main arrival point and dominant component of the dwelling as viewed from the street;

·       Administration has undertaken a streetscape analysis of Deague Court and determined that the area consists of predominantly single and two storey dwellings of a similar built form character, materiality and architectural design. This analysis depicting images of existing dwellings that form the character of the streetscape has been included as Attachment 5. Key elements of the streetscape as observed by Administration include:

o   Pitched roof forms;

o   Facebrick of varying colours and earthy tones;

o   Single car garages and carports located behind the predominant building line; and

o   Balcony details projecting forward of the ground floor dwelling alignment;

 

The development does not incorporate design features such as contrasting colours and materials, articulations of walls and stepping of the upper floor behind the predominant ground floor building line to reduce the bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street. As per the final comments received from the DRP Chair, the proposal does not reflect a development scale, materiality and setback which is compatible within its setting and is unsympathetic to the established and emerging streetscape.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

 

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards along the western boundary on the ground and first floors to Unit 1. 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 reduced setbacks to the western boundary are to the unconstructed dedicated road and public open space (Charles Veryard Reserve). The reduced setback does not have detrimental to the visual privacy and residential amenity of the neighbouring site, as the western elevation does not abut development of a residential nature;

·       The upper floor of the dwelling is stepped back to a 2.6 metre setback from the western boundary, 0.8 metres behind the ground floor. A stepped setback provides articulation and separation between the ground and upper floors. The façade also features major openings and highlight windows to the dining room, kitchen and bedrooms break up the western façade, and mitigate impacts of building bulk as viewed from the public realm; and

·       The orientation of the dwelling ensures the reduced setback does not exacerbate overshadowing to neighbouring dwellings. The reduced setback does not compromise access to sunlight and ventilation for the occupants of the dwelling or neighbouring dwellings.

 

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards of bed 1 to ensuite along the eastern boundary on the first floor of Unit 2. 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 lot boundary setback is to the overall wall length of the dwelling. The eastern elevation of Unit 2 is stepped at a 1.5 metre to 3.8 metre setback. The eastern elevation is well articulated and incorporates mixed materials such as cladding, render and louvre window treatments to the ground and upper floors to provide visual interest and reduce the appearance of solid, blank walls;

·       The reduced eastern setback abuts the bedroom, bathroom and laundries of the neighbouring dwellings. Two openings are existing, these are to the bathroom and laundry which are not habitable rooms. As no major openings to habitable rooms are proposed, there are no implications on visual and privacy amenity for the occupants of the neighbouring dwelling;

·       The reduced lot boundary setback does not exacerbate impacts of overlooking on the adjacent property as no major openings from habitable rooms are proposed which fall outside of the lot boundaries. The proposed setback does not result in an adverse impact on the neighbouring property in terms of visual privacy; and

·       The development meets the deemed-to-comply requirements in regards to solar access, and the reduced lot boundary setback does not result in unacceptable overshadowing to the adjoining eastern property.

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks - Lot Boundary Walls

 

The application proposes boundary walls to the northern, western and eastern boundaries. The deemed-to-comply provisions permit a boundary wall length of 14 metres, with an average height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres up to two lot boundaries. The acceptability of the boundary walls proposed are detailed below.

 

West – Unit 1

 

The boundary wall proposed to the entry portion of the dwelling is proposed with an average height of 3.85 metres and a maximum height of 3.9 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 abuts the unconstructed dedicated road and Charles Veryard Reserve to the west. The wall is located behind the street setback and is not considered to impact the amenity of the adjoining reserve;

·       The remainder of the western elevation is setback from the boundary and incorporates varying contrasting render to reduce the bulk of the development to the adjacent property. Openings to the living/dining and activity rooms reduce the portions of blank solid wall to the western elevation;

·       The boundary wall is proposed to be constructed and finished with face brick and render, consistent with the finish found in the Deague Court streetscape;

·       The property to the rear, No. 7 Hanover Place has a boundary wall with a length of 3.7 metres to the western lot boundary abutting the unconstructed dedicated road. The existing wall is of a finish and scale that is reflective of the wall proposed to Unit 1 which ensures the location and height of the boundary wall is consistent with neighbouring dwellings;

·       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.

 

East – Unit 2

 

The boundary wall proposed to the entry portion of the ground floor of the dwelling would have an average height of 3.2 metres and a maximum height of 3.1 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. 4 Deague Court. This would ensure the wall is not prominently located as viewed from the street;

·       The proposed boundary wall is of a single storey scale, and varies in height due to the natural contours and slope of the site;

·       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 incorporates contrasting render and glazing to the living/dining and activity rooms to reduce the portions of blank solid wall and perceived bulk of the development to the adjacent property.

 

Building on the boundary to three Lot Boundaries

 

The application proposes boundary walls of varying heights and lengths to the northern, western and eastern (side and rear) boundaries. Development to three boundaries would satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The total boundary wall length and locations are acceptable as they are separated into small portions on the ground floor and would be largely concealed by the existing walls of the neighbouring properties;

·       The aggregate length of the boundary walls would be below the 14 metres that is permitted and would not present a continuous bulk or mass along the boundaries and from neighbouring dwellings; and

·       The boundary wall to the rear of the site is to the stores of Units 1 and 2 and has a height of 2.8 metres which is compliant with the 3 metre average height and 3.5 metre maximum height permitted.

 

 

Setback of Garages & Carports

 

The Built Form Policy requires garages to be setback a minimum of 0.5 metres behind the dwelling alignment (excluding any porch portico verandah or balcony or the like). The proposed garages would have a 3 metre setback from Deague Court and are not stepped behind the dwelling alignment. The setback of the garages to Unit 1 and Unit 2 are not considered to satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy, and are not acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The reduced setback of the garages is exacerbated by the reduced primary street setback of the dwelling, which results in the overall dwelling projecting forward of the average street setback and adjoining properties. The garage projection is considered incongruent and inconsistent with the established streetscape;

·       The garages are proposed to be located in line with the studio of each dwelling, and are not stepped behind the building line so as to reduce actual and perceived appearance of vehicle parking spaces and access to the site;

·       The proposed garages are stepped 0.5 metres behind the balcony of the dwellings which is inconsistent with the Built Form Policy which seeks to reduce the impact of the upper floor balconies on the streetscape by setting them back 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line.  When the dwellings are viewed from the street on approach to the dwelling on the east and west, the reduced setback of the garages in conjunction with the cantilevered balconies exacerbate the vertical massing of the dwellings and does not provide sufficient articulation of the front façade to mitigate the impact of the development on the streetscape;

·       The development has not incorporated design features to reduce bulk and scale of the development when viewed from the street. The solid nature of the garage doors to match the colour and or finish of the ground floor façade does not provide articulation and distinction of the garage structures which creates a flat and monotonous ground floor façade in line with the dwelling alignment and contributes to the actual and perceived horizontal building bulk of the front façade at the ground floor level;

·       The location and projection of the garages partially obscures the entry and porch of the dwelling and as a result the garage presents as the main arrival point and dominant component of the dwelling as viewed from the street.

 

Open Space

 

The R Codes requires developments on lots coded R60 to provide 40 percent open space. The proposed development provides 38.4 percent open space for Unit 1 and 37.8 percent open space for Unit 2. The departures to open space are not considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The development seeks departures to the street setback standards of the Built Form Policy, resulting in excessive building bulk to the street and neighbouring properties which is exacerbated by reduced open space provision for the site. Reduced open space to the lots, particularly within the street setback area does not provide sufficient building separation from the public realm resulting in development which is not reflective of the existing and desired streetscape character;

·       As a consequence of the site planning, the units would not receive adequate access to natural sunlight as:

o   The boundary walls and minor openings provided to the north limits the dwellings capacity to access northern light and provide circulation around the site;

o   The parapet wall that runs along the length of the shared boundary results in the open space and major opening to habitable rooms of each unit having east or west orientation only. To Unit 1, the useability of these areas would be reduced as a result of the afternoon sun and absence of any shading. To Unit 2, the major openings are screened to prevent overlooking and are shaded due to the orientation;

o   The siting of open space will limit comprehensive passive and active use of the open space and outdoor living areas in the afternoon when the area will largely be shaded by the dwelling;

·       The dwellings have been designed with the garage/studio forward of the front door with a pedestrian path alongside, this has provided limited opportunity for future location of external fixtures such as power boards to be provided in an accessible location and will likely result in this being located on the approach to the dwelling within the front setback. Location of external fixtures has not been shown on the development plans as such assessment against clause 5.4.4 External fixtures, utilities and facilities has not been undertaken;

·       The site is within a three storey dwelling height area, designing a dwelling to the permitted height could provide greater opportunity for optimising dwelling orientation to the northern aspect and reducing the dwelling footprint to provide increased useable open space areas around the dwelling.

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

The R Codes requires dwellings to be provided with an outdoor living area with a minimum length and width dimension of 4 metres. The application proposes a 3.4 metre width for the outdoor living areas of Unit 1 and Unit 2. The outdoor living areas satisfy the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The overall size of the outdoor living areas for the dwellings exceed the 16 square metre deemed to comply requirement, providing 45 square metres of accessible and useable outdoor living spaces;

·       The outdoor living areas provided are accessible from a habitable room, the living and dining rooms of the dwelling, meeting the deemed-to-comply requirement and ensuring the space provided is accessible and usable for the occupants of the dwellings;

·       The outdoor living areas to each dwelling are uncovered spaces which are shaded by the tree planting proposed (Crepe Myrtle – Lagerstroemia Indica). The open nature of the alfresco spaces for adequate ventilation to the dwelling;

·       Although the outdoor living area of Unit 1 is located to address Charles Veryard Reserve, the outdoor living area provided is appropriately screened for privacy and acoustics by the proposed street wall;

·       The location of the outdoor living areas allows the clothes drying areas to be contained to the rear of the dwellings (screened from public view). The location and scale of the outdoor living are considered to be a better outcome for the dwelling and broader locale than clothes drying and services areas which may appear obtrusive;

·       The proposed dwelling does not compromise the amenity and use of the adjacent properties. The proposed outdoor living area provided meets the visual privacy deemed-to-comply requirements.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

Clause 5.11 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives relating to environmentally sustainable design. The applicant was advised of the City’s environmentally sustainable design objectives however, elected to not provide a lifecycle assessment report or recognised equivalent to satisfy local housing objective 1.8.6 of the Built Form Policy.

 

The applicant has provided written justification addressing the remaining environmentally sustainable design local housing objectives (1.8.1 - 1.8.5) which is included in Attachment 4, to demonstrate how the development has incorporated features of environmentally sustainable design and satisfied these local housing objectives. The applicant’s written justification is summarised as follows:

 

·       The dwelling is to be constructed of high thermal performance double brick and concrete materials with high solar mass. West and South exterior cavity walls will be insulated;

·       Dwellings have oversize 800mm eaves upper, and an additional 800mm lower overhang eave;

·       In response to overshadowing from the north to 25 percent of the block, the site is oriented around open space light wells open to the north and shaded to the south;

·       The south/south western orientation is utilised to take advantage of predominant south western wind direction to allow natural ventilation to the dwellings;

·       The side by side construction limits the potential for light and ventilation to unit 2 which has east facing openings only;

·       Openable windows and ceiling fans to all living areas and bedrooms in lieu of air-conditioning use;

·       Southern aspect oriented around large deep covered balconies that provide a high level of shading to any south glazing into living spaces; and

·       No flat roof structures, all roofs have a 26.5 percent pitch.

 

The development has not provided a Lifecycle Assessment and does not address the relevant local housing objective of the Built Form Policy.

 

Administration has considered the constraints of the site and the site planning and is satisfied that the initiatives outlined in the applicant’s written justification included in Attachment 4 would meet the objectives of LPS2 specifically, to promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020


 


 



 



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9.4          Public Health Plan 2020 - 2025 - Outcome of Public Consultation

Attachments:             1.       Community and Stakeholder Consultation - 19 August - 11 September 2020 - Draft Public Health

2.       City of Vincent Public Health Plan - 2020 - 2025

3.       Health Services Policy Review

4.       Governance Framework (amendment)  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the public comment submissions received in relation to the Draft Public Health Plan in Attachment 1;

2.       ADOPTS the Public Health Plan with minor amendments included as Attachment 2;

3.       NOTES that following adoption, the Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025 will be modified to improve formatting, styling and graphic design, as determined by the Chief Executive Officer;

4.       APPROVES the repeal of the following health policies at Attachment 3;

4.1     Policy No. 3.8.4 – Safe Needle Syringe Collection and Disposal Strategy;

4.2     Policy No. 3.8.6 – Public Buildings - Use of Open Fires;

4.3     Policy No. 3.8.8 – Rodent and Vermin Control - Assistance to Ratepayers;

4.4     Policy No. 3.8.9 – Healthy Vincent; and

4.5     Policy No. 3.8.10 – Food Act 2008; and

5.       APPROVES the amendment to the City’s Governance Framework to provide that the implications of a decision on the Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025 priority health outcomes must be considered in Council reports, as at Attachment 4.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider submissions received during the recent public consultation period (Attachment 1) on the City’s Draft Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025. To seek Council adoption of the Plan (Attachment 2) and to approve the repeal of five health policies (Attachment 3).

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting on 18 August 2020, it was resolved that Council:

 

1.       APPROVES the draft Public Health Plan 2020-2025 at Attachment 1 for public comment for a period of 21 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation in Attachment 1; subject to

 

1.1     Amending the target to read “smoke free town centres by 2025’; and

 

1.2     the term ‘lifestyle choices’ being replaced with either ‘health behaviours’ or ‘behavioural determinants’, where applicable dependent on context.

 

2.       NOTES:

 

2.1     a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council in October 2020 detailing any submissions received during the public comments period; and

2.2     the draft Public Health Plan 2020–2025 will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution on 18 August 2020, the Draft Public Health Plan (the Plan) was advertised for public comment for a period of 23 days between 19 August and 11 September 2020.  The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness during the public comment period:

 

·       Project page and online survey on the City’s Imagine Vincent portal;

·       Notices on the City’s website, social media channels and the City’s August e-Newsletter;

·       Public Notice in Stirling-Vincent Reporter and Perth Voice local newspapers;

·       Direct emails to previous survey respondents and stakeholders consulted during preparation of the Plan;

·       Direct e-mails to City of Vincent town teams;

·       Direct phone calls to licenced business owners; and

·       In person engagement with customers at Beatty Park Leisure Centre and Vincent Library & Local History Centre.

 

Community and stakeholder consultation

 

The comments received during the community consultation period have been collated along with Administration responses within Attachment 1. A total of 56 comments were received during the consultation period, including:

 

·       33 community responses via Imagine Vincent survey and direct e-mails;

·       8 submissions by health-based organisations – North Metropolitan Public Health Unit, Mental Health Commission, Cancer Council WA, Heart Foundation, Australian Medical Association, Australian Council on Smoking and Health, Communicable Disease Control Directorate (Department of Health), and Injury Matters; and

·       15 liquor licenced business owners were contacted by telephone as a preliminary survey to gauge their response to the target of Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025.

 

The level of community support for the Public Health Plan was 93 percent, with 85 percent of people supporting the smoke-free target, as demonstrated in the following table. As expected, health-based organisations support both the Plan and the target, and are willing to support the City to achieve the deliverables of the Plan.

 

Overall, do you support the City’s Draft Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025?

Total

Percentage

Yes

28

93%

No

1

3%

Unsure

1

3%

Do you support the target of ‘Smoke-Free Town Centres by 2025’?

Total

Percentage

Yes

29

85%

No

3

9%

Unsure

2

6%

 

Sixty percent of licensed business owners who participated in a preliminary survey either supported or would consider the smoke-free target, as demonstrated in the following table. This industry sector would be engaged further during the development of the framework to support the target. It appears most businesses do not have a designated smoking area, and of those who do, more than half are located on private land.

 

Licensed business owners support the target of ‘Smoke-Free Town Centres by 2025’

Total

Percentage

Yes

7

47%

No

6

40%

Consider – Would require further information

2

13%

Changes to the Plan

 

Minor changes to the Plan are recommended in response to the comments received within Attachment 1. The following table details the changes to the Plan and the reasons why. Please note the bold text is the new text for the Plan from the original wording.

 

Health Pillar

Proposed changes

Reason

Public Health Leadership

·   Page 19

·   Priority area 4

‘Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025’ has now been included as a priority area in the action plan with three deliverables including:

·   4.1 - Design and implement a smoke-free Town Centre project which considers policy and regulatory options with involvement from health partners and local businesses.

·   4.2 - Deliver a public awareness campaign to focus on the benefits of smoke-free environments.

·   4.3 - Review proposals to introduce new smoke-free environments on City owned land.

·   The deliverables will support the target of Smoke-free Town Centres by 2025.

·   The deliverables were recommended by stakeholders.

Social Environment

·   Page 20

·   Priority area 5

The deliverable has been updated to

·   5.1 - Increase healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.

·   Public open spaces has been included within the deliverable to capture all environments within the City.

Built Environment

·   Page 21

·   Priority area 13

The deliverable has been updated to

·   Support and partner with external stakeholders to deliver programs to seniors including reducing injuries associated with falls.

·   The original deliverable appeared to limit programs for seniors to only addressing falls (comments from an external stakeholder).

·   Administration intends to partner with external stakeholders to achieve this deliverable.

Natural Environment

·   Page 21

·   Priority area 15

The deliverable has been updated to

·   15.1 - Deliver active and passive parks, playgrounds and additional public open spaces for all ages and abilities to enjoy.

·   In response to comments from an external stakeholder and local resident, this deliverable has been changed to ensure all ages and abilities are identified when designing, creating and updating public open space.

The long term health outcome for ’15.3 - Partner with organisations to develop and implement sun protection strategies’ has been updated to:

·   Reduced exposure to ultraviolet radiation.

·   The original outcome was 'increased physical activity'.

·   Recommendation from an external stakeholder provided administration with a more suitable health outcome.

Health Protection

·   Page 23

·   Priority area 18

The deliverable has been updated to

·   18.2 - Support the implementation of alcohol and or smoke free environments including festivals, events, activities and or clubs.

·   It was suggested the original deliverable was too broad.

·   The deliverable has been changed to ensure it is more targeted.

The deliverable has been updated to

·   18.4 - Advocate for reduced exposure to alcohol and tobacco advertising, marketing, promotion and sponsorship.

·   The original deliverable has been changed to include sponsorship.

 

 

 

 

 

Smoke-free town centres by 2025

 

One of the first priorities of the Plan will be to develop a project plan detailing the steps required to achieve smoke-free town centres by 2025. It is anticipated that the project plan could be delivered over two years with actions including:

 

·       Develop partnerships and engage with local businesses and public health stakeholders to scope out the project and encourage local businesses and residents to become smoke-free advocates;

·       Consider policy and regulatory options including enshrining the target in a Local Law;

·       Create a map with clear descriptions of smoke-free Town Centre boundaries and signage;

·       Deliver a public awareness campaign to focus on benefits of reduced second hand smoke in public areas including increased health of our community, decreased litter and improved air quality;

·       Monitor exposure of second-hand smoke during regular assessments in Town Centres, cigarette butt counts, feedback and complaints through local businesses and community members, and reviewing local businesses promotion of smoke-free town centre messages;

·       Review proposals to introduce new smoke-free environments on City owned land;

·       Advocate for local businesses to make their private land smoke-free, considering designated smoking areas are currently permitted on licensed and other premises; and

·       Embed the smoke-free Town Centre target into future City plans and strategies.

 

Actions throughout 2020/2021 financial year

 

As well as focusing on the smoke-free target in the first year of the Plan, it is anticipated the following deliverables would also be a focus of Administration:

 

·       Civic Leadership

Deliverable 1.1 - Incorporate public health, wellbeing and health equity principles and priorities into City policies, plans, reports, programs and activities.

o   Embed public health implications in Council report templates; and

o   Commence introduction of public health principles into new or updated City policies, plans, reports, programs and activities.

 

·       Public awareness and engagement

Deliverable 3.2 - Develop a communication plan to inform, engage and educate residents, visitors, businesses and community organisations on the priority health topics for the City.

 

·       Healthy Eating

Deliverable 5.1 - Increase healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.

o   Research the development of a healthy food and drink framework to include catering for venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities.

 

·       Alcohol and smoking

Deliverable 18.1 - Develop partnerships with the community, organisations and licenced premises to reduce the risk of antisocial behaviour and alcohol related harm in the community.

Deliverable 18.2 - Support the implementation of alcohol and or smoke free environments including festivals, events, activities and or clubs.

o   Review and update the City's Health policies 3.8.3 Concerts and events; and 3.8.7 Alcohol Management; and

o   Research evidence based projects and programs that could help with reducing risks of antisocial behaviour and alcohol related harm in the community.

 

·       COVID-19 recovery

Public health recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic is an important theme in the Plan and has been incorporated into many deliverables within the Plan.

o   Examine ways the City can support mental health and wellbeing of the community;

o   Focusing on community activities, programs and events that encourage social connection and reduce isolation;

o   Supporting our priority population groups who may have been more adversely impacted by the pandemic; and

o   Contributing a continued public health focus in the Vincent Rebound Plan.

 

 

Health Policy Review

 

There are nine policies which have been adopted by Council that relate to public health. As part of the adoption of the Public Health Plan, these policies have been assessed to determine if they are still relevant and/or required. This assessment is included at Attachment 3.

 

It is proposed that five policies are repealed when the Plan is adopted by Council (in accordance with section 2.7 of the Local Government Act 1995). The contents of the policies are either superseded by the Plan; the policies are operational documents that have no legal, legislative or regulatory requirements; and/or there is the policy replicates existing legislation. These policies are:

 

·       Policy No. 3.8.4 – Safe Needle Syringe Collection and Disposal Strategy;

·       Policy No. 3.8.6 – Public Buildings - Use of Open Fires;

·       Policy No. 3.8.8 – Rodent and Vermin Control - Assistance to Ratepayers;

·       Policy No. 3.8.9 – Healthy Vincent; and

·       Policy No. 3.8.10 – Food Act 2008.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Section 45 of the Public Health Act 2016 sets out the requirements for all local governments to prepare a Public Health Plan that applies to its local government district.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to consider adoption of the Plan.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

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

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Accessible City

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

 

Connected Community

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

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

 

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

 

Sensitive Design

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Sustainable Transport

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for this financial year is $41,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $7,000 project costs). The estimated costs which will be subject to Council consideration over the next three financial years include:

 

·       21/22 - $59,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $25,000 project costs).

·       22/23 – $59,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $25,000 project costs).

·       23/24 – $41,577 ($34,577 FTE cost and $7,000 project costs).

 

It should be noted that the Plan complements existing budgeted services, projects and programs. External grant funding opportunities will be sought as opportunities arise, and the City will be partnering with the Department of Health and non-government sector to share resources and progress deliverables.

Comments:

The City is committed to improving the health and wellbeing of our community, and the Plan will guide the integration of a public health focus into existing services, programs and future public health initiatives over the next five years. The implementation of the deliverables in the Plan are to be reported to Council annually, through Corporate Business Plan updates and when supporting policies and/or local laws require adoption.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9.5          Adoption of Amendments to Mobile Food Vendor Policy and Consideration of a Commercial Kiosk Proposal at Hyde Park

Attachments:             1.       Summary of Community Consultation and Submissions

2.       Policy No. 3.8.12 - Mobile Food Vendors Proposed Amendments

3.       Plan of location of proposed Hyde Park kiosk

4.       Photos of current storage shed at Hyde Park

5.       Concept sketch of kiosk at Hyde Park  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the responses received during public advertising of draft Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor at Attachment 1;

2.       ADOPTS the updated Mobile Food Vendor Policy at Attachment 2;

3.       NOTES that the Mobile Food Vendor Policy will be converted to the new policy format following adoption; and

4.       APPROVES the Chief Executive Officer consulting with the community on locating a commercial kiosk at Hyde Park in the location shown at Attachment 3 in early 2021, with the outcomes of the consultation to be provided to Council by April 2021.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider:

 

·       the submissions received during the recent public advertising period on the City’s draft Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor as at Attachment 1 and adopt the updated Mobile Food Vendor Policy at Attachment 2; and

·       consulting with the community on locating a commercial kiosk within Hyde Park, Perth in the location shown at Attachment 3.

Background:

The Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor was first endorsed by Council for trial purposes over a three-month period following the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) held on 2 December 2014. Following the trial, the Mobile Food Vendor Policy was adopted at the OMC held on 25 August 2015, with amendments, subject to a review in 12 months.

 

Following the 12 month review, Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor was endorsed in its current form at the OMC held on 23 August 2016.

 

At the OMC held on 13 November 2018, Council resolved:

 

‘That Council:

 

1.       MODIFIES the Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor by deleting Location 1 from the map of Hyde Park (Section 3, Page 3)

 

2.       INITIATES a review of the Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors and requires a report to be presented to Council by no later than 30 April 2019 to consider a revised policy for the purposes of public consultation. That review is to consider:

 

2.1     Councils Approach to the use of City parks and reserves for commercial purposes;

2.2     Maximum number of hours that a vendor may remain in one location; and

2.3     Permitted trading locations throughout the district.’

 

A review of the Policy was undertaken by Administration and the outcomes of the review were considered by Council at the OMC held on 28 May 2019, where it was resolved:

 

That Council:

 

1.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the proposed amendments to Policy No. 3.8.12 – ‘Mobile Food Vendor’ as at Attachment 1; and

 

2.       NOTES that at the conclusion of the public consultation period any submissions received will be presented to Council for consideration.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor was advertised for public consultation for a period of 21 days between 22 July and 12 August 2020.  The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness, including:

 

·       Written notification to landowner/occupiers directly adjacent to Reserves listed in the Policy;

·       Written notification to current permit holders;

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

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

·       Signage within the parks and reserves captured by the Mobile Food Vendor Policy; and

·       Feedback forms (by means of submission via the Imagine Vincent campaign).

 

Consultation Outcomes

 

During the public comment period, there were 146 visitations to the Mobile Food Vendor Policy review project page through the Imagine Vincent portal. Thirty-six (36) submissions were received during the public consultation period. Of these, 26 were via the Imagine Vincent portal, eight by email, one through the City’s Contact Us website portal and one by mail.

 

Community feedback showed overall support for the six Policy amendments proposed on 28 May 2019, being:

 

1.       Waste management – provision of three bins by vendors;

2.       Vehicle management – safe entry and exit of vehicles;

3.       Single use plastics being limited;

4.       Alternative trading locations being at the discretion of the CEO;

5.       An amendment to the trading location at Britannia Reserve; and

6.       Trading not being permitted at Charles Veryard Reserve on Sundays.

 

Eighty-four percent (84 percent) of respondents agreed that mobile food vendors positively contribute to the energy and activation of the City’s parks and reserves. A summary of the online survey results and comments received on the draft amendments to the Policy with Administration responses can be found in Attachment 1.

 

The City also received six free text submissions from the community, which highlighted concerns relating to noise generated by the Mobile Food Vendors.

 

Noise complaints are typically addressed by provisions in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. The assigned levels in these regulations are not applicable to receivers who are co‑located in a reserve, which creates surveillance and enforcement challenges for the City’s authorised officers.

 

Generators are inherent to the operation of Mobile Food Vendors and in the absence of fixed power, will remain so. Administration has sought a quote to provide fixed power to the Hyde Park Trading Zone, which would cost $13,145. This has not been budgeted for in the 20/21 operational budget. There is currently no scope within the City’s fees and charges schedule to recover these costs, nor measure the usage.

 

It is more practical for Mobile Food Vendors to continue to provide their own power source and take measures to reduce their sound output. This approach has resolved noise complaints relating to one Vendor at Hyde Park. In this case the Vendor built an enclosure that surrounds the generator. This has reduced noise output to a level where no further complaints have been received.

 

Resolution of noise complaints would be further supported by Clause 1.5 which states that “Mobile Food Vendors must consider measures to reduce sound emitted by mechanical devices and/or activities associated with Mobile Food Vendor operations to mitigate potential impacts on amenity of park users”. The City would work with Vendors on a case by case basis to ensure they actively investigate and apply sound attenuation measures to the noise source (likely generator noise) to minimise the impact.

 

During the consultation period, feedback was also sought from internal service units which has resulted in three amendments to the Policy and is shown in Attachment 2. The following table provides a summary of these amendments with proposed wording additions shown in bold and deletions shown in ‘strikethrough’.

 

Further amendments to Policy

Administration comments

Clause 4.4.

 

No waste or litter may be disposed of in Council City rubbish bins. Mobile Food Vendors must provide three bins (general waste, recycling and FOGO, when applicable) for collection and storage of waste generated by their business. Vendors should for use and ensure the area around their position is kept clear of rubbish and refuse at all times and all waste generated/collected by the Vendor should be removed from site by the vendor The City does not permit any commercial waste or waste generated by Vendors to be disposed of in public space rubbish or recycling bins; and

Wording relating to the provision of food organic and garden organic (FOGO) bins has been amended due to postponement of the introduction City’s FOGO service. This Clause will be implemented when FOGO comes into effect.

 

Existing Vendors are aware of this provision and will be provided notice once FOGO has been introduced. All new Vendors will be advised of this requirement.

Clause 8.3:

 

Development approval is not required for as long as all other requirements of this policy are satisfied, pursuant to cl. 61(2)(b) of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.

 

No – permanent fixtures and/or changes to the public realm are not permitted. As a result, Development Approval is not required.

Clause 8.3 has been amended to clarify the head of power through which development approval is not required.

 

This will enable effective and consistent application of this Clause.

Clause 9.2.3

 

Public safety and comprehensiveness of information provided in the application (NOTE: Vendors selling high-risk, potentially hazardous foods will not be considered); and

Section 9.2.3 has been amended as food safety risks are managed under the Food Act 2008.

 

The City’s Environmental Health Officers would review the food risk rating of each Vendor.

 

Whilst not included within the scope of this review, a priority health topic of the City’s Draft Public Health Plan 2020 – 2025 (the Plan) is healthy eating. Following adoption of the Plan, the City will be scoping how healthy food and drink options at City venues, public open spaces, events, festivals and community activities could be improved. Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor would be considered as part of this scoping exercise.

 

Kiosk in Hyde Park

 

Another option for activating Hyde Park that could be considered is a permanent kiosk which is operated commercially. The City has considered fixed food and beverage opportunities within Hyde Park for a number of years as either an alternative or in addition to Mobile Food Vendors.

 

A potential proposal could involve the western storage shed being adapted to become a kiosk. This shed is a brick and tile structure with 32 square metres of internal space which is not required for storage space. Photos of the storage shed are at Attachment 4.

 

If the storage shed was to be used as a kiosk it would require upgrading to food service standards of either a warm kitchen or a full commercial kitchen. A full commercial kitchen can use fryers, stoves and hotplates to prepare any food. However, this comes with increased upfront costs, statutory approvals and higher requirements for exhausts and water waste. The warm and full commercial kitchen requirements and costs are outlined below:

 

Considerations

Warm Kitchen

Full Commercial Kitchen

Food examples

Coffee, baked goods, fresh food, sandwiches, other items brought in and reheated.

Any foods.

Equipment: hot plate, gas stove, deep-fryer.

Exhaust

Nil.

Mechanical exhaust.

Water treatment

Nil.

Grease trap.

Additional utilities

Ceiling and lights, additional power points, floor sealed to food standard with vinyl or tile, walls to food standard with tile, roller-door hatch (serving window).

All requirements of a warm kitchen, plus water pump, grease trap, gas, increase power capacity to 20-32 amp.

Estimated upgrade cost

$30,000-$35,000

$150,000

Heritage Approvals

Nil (if works contained to within existing building).

Regulation 10 or Section 18 approval under Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972.

 

Administration recommends that a warm kitchen is appropriate for Hyde Park. A warm kitchen would also have reduced heritage implications, as it does not require any digging or works outside the building footprint (which would be required for a grease trap an upgrade to the water pump and power capacity). Hyde Park is heritage listed, which means any works outside of the current building footprint will require approval from the Department of Planning, Heritage and Lands in accordance with the Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. The approval process requires consultation with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council and is expected to take at least a year and may result in consultancy costs.

 

Administration is proposing that the kiosk is commercially operated and would invite expressions of interest for the operation of the kiosk. The community consultation would help inform whether a warm kitchen or full commercial kitchen is progressed through the expression of interest process.  A concept sketch of a kiosk at this location is at Attachment 5.

Consultation/Advertising:

Prior to inviting expressions of interest for the operation of a commercial kiosk at Hyde Park, Administration is proposing to consult with the community in respect to locating a kiosk at Hyde Park. The consultation will be in respect to locating a kiosk in addition or as an alternative to food trucks. The consultation would also provide the opportunity to seek the community’s feedback on healthy food options being provided at a kiosk and mobile food vendors, with consideration to the City’s Public Health Plan.

 

Consultation is proposed to commence in early 2021 and would occur in the following ways:

 

·       brochures to residents within walking distance of Hyde Park;

·       brochures to local businesses and the mobile food vendors currently operating in Hyde Park;

·       a sign on the storage shed and notice on the City’s Eco-signs in the vicinity;

·       direct correspondence to local playgroups, schools and other community groups that regularly use Hyde Park; and

·       notice on the City’s website and in social media.

 

If the community is supportive of the kiosk proposal Administration would seek Council approval to invite expressions of interest for the lease of the kiosk. The outcomes of the community consultation are proposed to be presented to Council by April 2021.

 

Pending the outcomes of the community consultation, the City would be responsible for upgrading the storage shed so it is suitable for use as a warm kitchen. This would occur simultaneously with the upgrade to the public toilets and the lighting, which is scheduled to occur in 2021/2022 in accordance with the City’s Long Term Financial Plan. The tenant would be responsible for the kiosk fit out.

Legal/Policy:

·       Local Government Act 1995;

·       City of Vincent Trading in Public Places Local Law 2008;

·       City of Vincent Health Local Law 2004;

·       Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

·       Environmental Protection (Unauthorised Discharges) Regulations 1997;

·       Food Act 2008;

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

·       Australia New Zealand Food Standards Code;

·       Mobile Food Vendor Policy; and

·       Adoption and Review of Policies Policy.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   It is low risk for the City to adopt the amendments to the Mobile Food Vendor Policy as they are primarily administrative in nature and are designed to improve the effectiveness of its application, and to consult with the community on locating a kiosk at Hyde Park.

Strategic Implications

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

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

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Waste Reduction

Financial/Budget Implications:

Consultation in respect to the kiosk is estimated at $2,000 (sign and brochures) and is included in the current operational budget.

Comments:

The amendments proposed by Council to Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors have been supported during community consultation. Adoption of these amendments is supported with the City working with vendors to ensure the intent and objectives of the Policy are met.

 

Further consultation is proposed to consider the potential for a kiosk in Hyde Park, which would gauge whether a commercial kiosk in addition or instead of the food trucks is supported.

 

Subject to the outcomes of this consultation and the subsequent decision around a locating a kiosk at Hyde Park, Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendor may require further amendment.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9.6          Draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan

Attachments:             1.       Community Consultation  15 June 2020 - 13 July 2020

2.       Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan - Final Outcome, Transition Plan and Landscape Plan - Final Version

3.       Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan - Original as Advertised

4.       Revised Landscape Plan

5.       Amenity Element Examples  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the submissions received during the public comment period in relation to the draft Haynes Street Development Plan Attachment 1; and

2.       ADOPTS the Haynes Street Development Plan (includes proposed final outcome, proposed transition plan and proposed landscaping concept plan), included as Attachment 2.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider submissions received during the recent public comment period (Attachment 1) on the draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan and to seek Council adoption of the Plan (Attachment 2).

Background:

The City owns No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, and No. 25 (Lot 93) and No. 31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street, North Perth (Haynes Street Reserve) in freehold. Haynes Street Reserve is currently used for the purpose of a child care centre, a playgroup, a dental health clinic and a car park.

 

Kidz Galore has leased No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street from the City of Vincent since 2004. Kidz Galore contacted the City in 2016 requesting to purchase No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street to gain certainty on their use of the site into the future. At this time, it was discovered that No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street was subject to a Deed of Trust which provides that the land is to be used for public recreation. In addition, the City’s Public Open Space Strategy, adopted by Council in December 2018, identified a lack of local public open space in the North Perth area. Following discussions with Kidz Galore over the implications of the Deed of Trust and the Public Open Space Strategy, Kidz Galore submitted a further proposal to purchase a modified portion of the site in April 2019.

 

Council considered this offer and declined the proposal at the Council Meeting on 28 May 2019 (Item 11.7). The basis of this decision was that the land is encumbered by a Deed of Trust which provides that the land is to be used for the purpose of public recreation, and a commercial child care centre is inconsistent with this purpose. Council also resolved that it did not support varying the Deed of Trust to remove Lot 9 on the basis that the land is not considered to be in excess to the City’s public recreation requirements. It was also not considered “impossible, impractical or inexpedient” for the land to remain subject to the trust.

 

As part of this decision Council requested the Chief Executive Officer prepare a Development Plan identifying the type and size of public open space suitable for the site and the level of amenities required.

 

Consultation to prepare the initial plan and understand the views on the size of public open space and level of amenities required was conducted with the community in October and November 2019. The draft Haynes Street Development Plan was finalised in January 2020. At a Special Council Meeting on 28 January 2020 Council authorised the Mayor to submit the draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan (Attachment 3) to the Attorney General, and subject to the approval of the Attorney General, advertise the Plan for public comment for a period of 28 days.

 

The Attorney General approved the draft Haynes Street Development Plan on 5 March 2020.

 

The draft Development Plan will guide the future development of the City owned land at No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, No. 25 (Lot 93) and No. 31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street, North Perth (Haynes Street Reserve). The plan provides for future public open space in the North Perth area which was identified through the Public Open Space Strategy as an area which is currently lacking adequate provision of public open space. This approach also acknowledges the important role of the current services by transitioning them from the site gradually over a period of time.

Details:

In accordance with Council’s resolution, the draft Haynes Street Development Plan was advertised for public comment for a period of 28 days, between 15 June and 13 July 2020. The following consultation methods were utilised to raise community awareness during the public comment period:

 

·       Mail out to owners and occupiers within 5 minute walking radius and additional phone call to adjacent resident at 12 Eton Street, North Perth;

·       Email to all previous survey respondents and workshop attendees;

·       Display on the City’s Imagine Vincent website, with respondents invited to indicate their level of support for the three sections of the Development Plan and to provide comments;

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

·       Advertisement in the Perth Voice and Stirling Reporter local newspaper.

 

At the conclusion of the advertising period 36 submissions were received; 34 of these were received via the Imagine Vincent website and two submissions were received via email. Respondents were asked to indicate their level of support for the following three sections of the Development Plan and were able to provide comments:

 

·       Development Plan (Final outcome) – the ultimate outcome for the entire site;

·       Transition Plan – how the site will be converted and the relevant timeframes; and

·       Landscape Plan – the design of the public open space including amenities and features.

 

Comments in the submissions received have been responded to by Administration in Attachment 1, and a summary of the level of support for the three sections of the plan is detailed below.

 

Development Plan (Final Outcome)

 

Now that you have reviewed the draft Haynes Street Reserve Development Plan (final outcome), please indicate your level of support.

EHQ Survey

Email

Total

Percentage

I support the plan

27

0

27

75%

I object to the plan

4

1

5

14%

I neither support nor object

3

1

4

11%

 

·       A few comments received indicated that a park was unnecessary and those respondents had concerns with the cost associated with implementation and maintenance.

·       No changes have been made by Administration to the Development Plan (Final Outcome) Attachment 2.

 

Transition Plan

 

Now that you have reviewed the draft Haynes Street Reserve Transition Plan, please indicate your level of support.

EHQ Survey

Email

Total

Percentage

I support the plan

23

0

23

64%

I object to the plan

6

1

7

19%

I neither support nor object

5

1

6

17%

 

·       No changes have been made to the Transition Plan by Administration Attachment 2, as the current timeline will reduce the impact on the community, with children already enrolled in Kidz Galore able to continue and still allow the childcare centre adequate time to relocate. Kidz Galore also would have the opportunity to vacate the building earlier once they do find a suitable site.

 

 

 

 

Landscape Plan

 

Now that you have reviewed the draft Haynes Street Reserve Landscape Plan, please indicate your level of support.

EHQ Survey

Email

Total

Percentage

I support the plan

26

0

26

72%

I object to the plan

5

1

6

17%

I neither support nor object

3

1

4

11%

 

·       The original Landscape Plan that was advertised for public comment has been included as Attachment 3.

·       A revised Landscape Plan was prepared to incorporate feedback received during the consultation process, which is reflected in Attachment 1. This included specific amenity requests such as drink fountains through to more general comments about the balance of uses within the park such as increasing turf areas and reducing play areas. Administration has reviewed all comments received and where possible, reflected changes into the revised Landscape Plan Attachment 4.

·       The following changes were incorporated into the revised Landscape Plan by Administration:

o   Installation of a new path north of the mature trees on Haynes Street and removal of existing footpath to integrate mature trees into the park area;

o   The No.31 (Lot 100) Sydney Street section of public open space will be constructed from July 2021 as part of Stage 1. No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street will be constructed from January 2026 as part of Stage 2. These stages have been clearly defined in the revised Landscape Plan;

o   Inclusive play equipment options will be prioritised during play equipment selection;

o   The basketball court received a few comments in opposition and some alternatives were considered for the area. As this section of the reserve will be installed from 2026, it was determined that further consultation with youth in the area could occur prior to construction of the park to ensure a suitable amenity is provided. The area has been noted as ‘to be confirmed’;

o   The scooter course will consist of simple pathways, which can be maintained within the general maintenance budget;

o   Increase turf area in Stage 1 and reduce the nature play, creating a better balance for a range of activities. The nature play area will be moved west, with half delivered in Stage 1 and the remaining delivered in Stage 2;

o   Replace the section of play equipment in the southern boundary with a seating area, increased planting and a bird bath to create a quiet, relaxing space. A bird bath was prioritised over a water feature or pond. This will be cleaned when necessary during regular maintenance but will not require any specialised servicing, example in Attachment 5;

o   Add lighting along paths;

o   Add a drinking fountain and water tap at the BBQ area;

o   An optional relocation of the footpath along Haynes Street, north of the mature trees with the installation of bollards;

o   The scooter course will consist of a figure 8 pathway and can provide opportunities to integrate other play equipment such as a swing, example in Attachment 5; and

o   The pathways around the bird bath can be reconsidered to reduce maintenance costs. However, as other paths are already being maintained onsite, these paths would not create a significant additional ongoing cost and would be maintained within the general maintenance budget.

 

Current tenants transition update

 

Lot

Address

Lessee/Licensee

Current Expiry

9

15 Haynes Street, North Perth

Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (Child care)

31 December 2020

Comment

The draft Development Plan recommends an extension to Kidz Galore’s lease to remain on site until 31 December 2025. Council approved the lease extension, subject to providing public notice, at its 15 September 2020 Council Meeting. No public comments were received. The lease is currently being finalised for execution.

The City has received a Development Application from Kidz Galore for a new Child Care Centre located at No. 6 London Street North Perth. The application proposes to demolish the existing Midland Brickwork showroom and to build a new single-storey centre that fronts London Street and Haynes Street. The application is currently under assessment and will be advertised for public comment between 5 October 2020 and 18 October 2020.

Lot

Address

Lessee/Licensee

Current Expiry

9

15 Haynes Street, North Perth

North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)

30 June 2021

Comment

The North Perth Playgroup’s lease will not be extended beyond 30 June 2021. The building they currently operate out of will be demolished to construct Stage 1 of the Development Plan. Due to lack of members, the North Perth Playgroup are determining whether the group will continue. The City will assist the remaining members to relocate to another premises or to join with other playgroups within the City.

Lot

Address

Lessee/Licensee

Current Expiry

100

31 Sydney Street, North Perth

North Perth Playgroup Inc (portion)

30 June 2021

Comment

As above.

Lot

Address

Lessee/Licensee

Current Expiry

100

31 Sydney Street, North Perth

Department of Health (Dental Health Services)

30 June 2021

Comment

The Dental Health Services’ lease will not be extended beyond 30 June 2021. The building they currently operate will be demolished to construct Stage 1 of the Development Plan. The City will assist the Dental Health Services, where possible, over the next 9 months to find a suitable relocation site.

Lot

Address

Lessee/Licensee

Current Expiry

93

25 Sydney Street, North Perth

Department of Health (Dental Health Services) (car park licence)

30 June 2021

Comment

The Dental Health Service’s licence of the car park bays expires 30 June 2021.

Lot

Address

Lessee/Licensee

Current Expiry

93

25 Sydney Street, North Perth

Kidz Galore Pty Ltd (car park licence)

30 June 2021

Comment

Kidz Galore has been granted a three year licence over the car park bays, expiring 31 December 2023.

 

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

·       Local Government Act 1995;

·       Charitable Trusts Act 1962;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

·       Public Open Space Strategy 2018.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   It is considered low risk for Council to endorse a Development Plan following public comment which the Attorney General approved, and majority of respondents supported.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

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

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Urban Greening and Biodiversity

Financial/Budget Implications:

The City has considered the below financial considerations in preparing the draft Development Plan:

 

Past and future revenue

 

·       Past revenue to the value of $134,241.12 obtained from the use of No.15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, since the 2015/16 financial year, will be used to return No. 15 (lot 9) Haynes Street to public open space.

·       Future revenue from No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street under the proposed Transition Plan will be used to return the land to public open space.

·       Council approved a new lease, subject to providing public notice, at its 15 September 2020 meeting. The proposed lease fee is $35,000 indexed by 5 percent per annum, plus GST and outgoings. Based on this lease fee, the revenue over the 5 years of the new lease would be approximately $193,000.

·       Council also approved a licence of the car parking bays for a 3 year term. The licence fee is $2,600 indexed by 5 percent per annum. The revenue from the licence over the 3 years would be $8,200.

·       The potential sale of No. 25 (Lot 93) Sydney Street, could fund the construction of the park. The 561 square metres property was given a market value by Landgate of $785,000 on 9 April 2019. The sale would be subject to a future Council decision and would need to be sold in compliance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995.

 

Implementation Costs

 

·       The financial impacts have been considered in the formation of the City’s Long Term Financial Plan 2018/19 – 2027/28.

·       Demolition of buildings is approximately $50,000 per building, with exception of the demountable building on No. 15 (Lot 9) Haynes Street, which would be removed by Kidz Galore.

·       The cost to establish public open space and required amenities is estimated to be from $290,000 to $340,000 including landscaping treatments to the verge. There will also be ongoing maintenance costs, varying depending on the individual amenities provided in the reserve.

 

Lifecycle Costs

 

·       Based on the maintenance levels of service required for a similar area of passive open space, the annual maintenance costs, based on 2020 costing estimates, would include the following:

 

Type of Maintenance

Annual Cost

General maintenance (includes maintenance of pathways, water features etc)

$5,250

Lighting/electrical maintenance

$250

Fencing maintenance

$150

Cleaning (BBQ’s etc)

$500

Vandalism (Graffiti etc.)

$400

Turf maintenance (includes mowing, fertilising and any turf renovation requirements)

$4,500

Furniture/equipment maintenance (includes maintenance of furniture & any playground items)

$2,500

Trees/shrubs/garden maintenance (includes maintenance of large Camphor Laurel verge trees)

$6,500

Reticulation maintenance

$2,250

Weed control

$500

Refuse collection (includes rubbish picking, emptying of rubbish bins & waste collection)

$7,500

Refuse site tipping costs

$750

Total

$31,050

 

·       An additional $9,000 would be required every 4 years for regular planned bore and pump maintenance for the existing groundwater bore/pump onsite.

·       Based on a useful life of 50 years and an estimated cost of $320,000, an annual depreciation amount would be approximately $6,400.

 

Optional amendments to Landscape Plan

 

The cost to convert car parking on Eton Street to park space is estimated at $30,000.

Comments:

The Haynes Street Development Plan provides for future public open space in the North Perth area, while acknowledging the important role of the current services by transitioning them from the site over a period of time. Based on the feedback received and high level of support, it is recommended that Council adopt the Haynes Street Development Plan including the original Development Plan (final outcome), Transition Plan and revised Landscape Plan.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

9.7          Accessible City Strategy

Attachments:             1.       Draft Accessible City Strategy  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       APPROVES the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 at Attachment 1 for advertising for a period of 42 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

2.       NOTES:

2.1     a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council detailing any submissions received during the public comments period;

2.2     the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication;

2.3     the positive summary 12 month trial evaluation results in speed reduction and crash benefits from the City of Vincent 40km/h speed zone trial in North Perth; and

2.4     the full 12 month trial evaluation report on the City of Vincent 40km/h trial undertaken in conjunction with the Road Safety Commission will be released publicly during Road Safety Week in November which will coincide with public consultation on the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030; and

3.       ENDORSES a target in the draft Accessible City Strategy to implement a 40km/h traffic speed zone in all residential areas of the City of Vincent by 2023.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide an overview of the development of the draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 and to present this Strategy for public comment.

Background:

Transport systems are crucial in creating connection and supporting opportunities for people to access all aspects of daily life, including work, education, shopping, leisure, healthcare and other services.

 

The Accessible City Priority of the City’s Strategic Community Plan (SCP) identifies the need to create a future plan for the transport network which has an integrated approach in order to guide the City’s future transport infrastructure and advocacy. Council appointed Cardno at its meeting on 16 October 2018 to commence the Accessible City Strategy (ACS).

 

The City has not previously had an overarching strategic document to holistically guide changes to the transport network. The draft ACS presents an opportunity to integrate planning and transport to support economic, environmental and social activities, in a safe, easy, connected, environmentally friendly and enjoyable City.

 

In the current context, private vehicles frequently offer the most convenient and attractive way to get around. This is typically due to historic patterns of car-centric considerations and design. As the growing environmental costs of transport are recognised, active and sustainable transport options are becoming increasingly important.

 

 

 

 

 

Desktop research and SWOT analysis of Vincent’s transport network.

 

The City began the process of developing the ACS by undertaking a series of investigations to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) associated with the existing transport and land use network. This investigation included:

 

·       Car parking occupancy and utilisation surveys;

·       Bicycle counts;

·       Land use surveys;

·       Intersection turning movement;

·       Travel time surveys;

·       Public Transport Authority smart rider data;

·       Off-street and on-street pedestrian and cycling provision;

·       2016 Census data for journey to work mode share, household size, vehicle occupancy etc.;

·       Household travel survey for mode share by trip purpose; and

·       Modelling the existing traffic network to determine available strategic network capacity along major corridors and key intersections, to determine traffic and growth capability.

 

The outcomes of the SWOT analysis were used to start discussions with the community and stakeholders inclusive of the City’s advisory group.

 

Consultation

 

Initial community consultation and stakeholder engagement was undertaken as follows:

 

·       Community consultation was undertaken in person and via online surveys. The in-person consultation occurred on 30 March 2019. Attendees had the opportunity to provide comment on their transport concerns and experiences within the City as part of a free form workshop and discussion. Approximately 40 people attended the event.  An online survey was made available to the community from 18 March 2019 to 13 April 2019. Respondents were provided the opportunity to make mode specific and general comments in relation to transport within the City, 60 responses were received;

·       Detailed input was sought from a range of government and community stakeholder groups including; adjoining local governments, the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH), the Department of Transport (DoT), Public Transport Authority (PTA), and Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA);

·       The draft ACS was presented to the City’s Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group (STAG). Discussion was centred on the proposed actions and whether these are sufficient in achieving the aim and objectives of the draft ACS. Overall support of the draft ACS was received but questions were raised around the reasoning behind the actions and what these may look like once delivered, and how they could be further improved. Minor modifications have been made to the draft ACS based on the input received; and

·       Detailed Council feedback was provided on the draft as a whole, in relation to consultation of the document, and what can be achieved by engaging with community and various stakeholders on the draft ACS.

 

The draft ACS has been refined based on the feedback provided, and an updated version is included as Attachment 1 for consideration.

Details:

The draft ACS supports the provision of a people-focused transport network which emphasises the role of active transport options. The draft ACS explores the current provision for transport and compares this infrastructure to the current and future needs of the community, across all transport modes, to support the long-term success and viability of Vincent.

 

Structure of the Draft ACS

 

The draft ACS is structured around three key focus areas:

 

1.       Where are we now? - Sets out the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of Vincent’s current transport network and the results of stakeholder engagement surrounding this.

2.       Where do we want to be? -  Determines the vision and associated objectives and plans that will respond to the data and consultation collected in the ‘where are we now?’ focus area. This will enhance and improve Vincent’s transport network. The supporting tools which will be used to achieve this are also outlined.

3.       How do we get there? - Outlines the actions which contribute to achieving the vision, objectives, and plans of the Accessible City Strategy.

 

A summary of each key focus area is as follows:

 

Where are we now?

 

Some of the key findings of consultation and stakeholder engagement were:

 

·       A preference for overall reduction in congestion on the road network and shortcuts on residential streets associated with that congestion;

·       The need to recognise Vincent as being primarily a place for people rather than the movement and storage of vehicles;

·       Dissatisfaction with connectivity in Vincent, particularly east-west and circular public transport, as well as cycle route connectivity;

·       Appreciation of the Greening Program and support for further commitment to expanding this;

·       Concern for pedestrian and cycling safety, specifically across major streets, at roundabouts, and when using cycle lanes; and

·       A strong desire for Vincent to be a leader in innovation.

 

The SWOT analysis, community consultation and stakeholder engagement helped to establish ‘where do we want to be?’ Through this we are able to define realistic, clear and measurable goals for an integrated transport system throughout Vincent, providing a list of actions that directly respond to the opportunities and threats over the next five to ten years. This consultation reaffirmed the community engagement undertaken as part of the development of the SCP.

 

Further to this, the City examined how the ACS would respond to the City’s existing strategies and policies.

 

Where do we want to be?

 

In support of changing the way we travel two supporting tools have been introduced. These are the transport user hierarchy, and link and place framework.

 

The transport user hierarchy is intended to summarise the needs of people travelling within the City in order of priority to guide improvements to the transport network.

 

The proposed transport user hierarchy is as follows:

 

·       People who are walking;

·       People who are cycling;

·       People who are catching public transport; and

·       People who choose to drive.

 

The link and place framework compliments the user hierarchy as a way of connecting users to places. The link and place framework represent the current and expected use of the City’s network categorising all streets in the network according to their specific combined place and link (movement) function, as detailed below:

 

·       Places are locations with individual and specific combinations of land use and design elements and the interactions between elements. This includes the mix and type of retail, commercial, residential, food and beverage and entertainment options in the area, how people move through and to the space, how people spend time in the space, kerbside environments, building architecture and urban design elements. The City identifies a number of specific place types within the existing planning framework.

·       Link refers to the passage of people along streets and roads. The level of movement is understood in terms of number of people, including pedestrians, cyclists, public transit users, and those in cars, rather than just the number of vehicles per day. Using the link and place framework, movement is understood in terms of people carrying capacity, rather than simply private vehicle movement.

 

 

 

The draft ACS identifies the Vision of:

 

A connected City that puts people first, where getting around is safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and enjoyable.

 

This is supported by the four key objectives and associated plans to:

 

1.       Create a safe transport environment;

·       Create active, sustainable transport networks that are safe and legible; and

·       Ensure pedestrian and cycling routes (including schools) are of a high quality and safe for all users.

 

2.       Ensure easy accessibility into and around Vincent;

·       Advocate for connected and reliable transit;

·       Reallocate road and verge space, including on street parking, throughout the City to prioritise vulnerable users according to the user hierarchy; and

·       Be a leader in adaptability and technology.

 

3.       Prioritise environmentally friendly transport modes and initiatives;

·       Reduce carbon emissions caused by the transport network;

·       Prioritise and encourage the use of active and sustainable transport modes;

·       Manage car parking (including supply and pricing) to improve efficiency and support mode shift;

·       Use residential density to support transit; and

·       Obtain relevant data to inform decisions and monitor progress.

 

4.       Have an enjoyable City to get around;

·       Increase pedestrian amenity on residential streets; and

·       Increase pedestrian amenity in town centres.

 

To measure whether the City has achieved the vision and objectives, mode share targets have been created. Mode share describes the proportion of people using each of the various types of transportation modes.  Mode shift refers to changing mode share over time. Extensive growth in development and population across Vincent and throughout the entire region will generate additional transport demand that must be assigned to a movement network already approaching capacity. The road network within Vincent has a limited capacity, and regional and local development will place further pressure on the existing on the existing transport network. Mode shift from private vehicles to more sustainable and active modes of transport is necessary to more efficiently use the existing road capacity.

 

How do we get there?

 

The draft ACS outlines the actions that have been developed to ensure that the vision, objectives and plans are being met. These actions highlight the partners that the City will work with and the timeframes to progress these actions. A measurement has been provided for each of the actions and is a way of measuring the individual items implementation, its impact and level of success.

 

40km/h trial background and proposed new target

 

In April 2019, the City of Vincent, Road Safety Commission, WA Police, and Main Roads WA commenced a trial of a 40 kilometres per hour (km/h) local speed limit area in the southern section of the City of Vincent. Various quantitative and qualitative data was collected by the City of Vincent before and during the trial to support a formal evaluation.

 

GHD were engaged by the Road Safety Commission to provide advice and monitoring of the data collection and research design, to undertake data analysis, and to evaluate the outcomes of the trial.

 

The summary finding by GHD is that the 40 km/h trial within the City of Vincent has resulted in some speed reduction and crash benefits. This result is in line with what would be expected based on previous research in this field. The evidence also suggests that local street amenity has somewhat improved. The increase in the total number of pedestrian and cyclists observed triangulates with the slight improvement in perceived street safety and amenity reported by respondents.

 

It is not possible to completely exclude the impacts of COVID-19 on these results. However, the triangulation of multiple sources of data (collected mostly before the pandemic) generally supports these findings.

 

Complementary street design, road user awareness, and enforcement measures to reinforce the 40 km/h speed limit may result in the realisation of a greater level of total benefits. If left in place, it is possible that vehicle speeds within the trial area would continue to mediate below the new limit – particularly if supporting measures are introduced. Future evaluation would be useful in assessing the longer-term effects and potential effectiveness of supporting measures.

 

The full 12th month trial evaluation report by GHD is expected to be released publicly during Road Safety Week in November which will coincide with the public consultation on the draft Accessible City Strategy.

 

This will enable full public consultation and engagement with the community on the proposed target to implement a 40km/h zone in all residential areas of the City of Vincent by 2023.

Consultation/Advertising:

As per Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation, it is proposed to seek community feedback and input on the draft ACS through a 42-day public comment period. This will include:

 

1.       Notice in the local newspapers;

2.       Notices on the City’s webpage, social media and e-newsletter;

3.       Dedicated project page on the City’s Imagine Vincent community engagement portal providing an opportunity to comment on the document as a whole, as well as a survey on the key areas of the draft ACS (the transport user hierarchy, the link and place framework, the aim, the objectives, plans and associated actions, and targets) and a map for people to pin personal experiences to understand place specific issues and feedback;

4.       Notices at the City’s Library and Local History Centre and community buildings;

5.       Targeted engagement with key stakeholders; and

6.       An Open Day workshop inviting people to comment in person on the draft ACS.

 

The intent of the consultation beyond seeking feedback on the draft ACS in its entirety is to achieve the following:

 

1.       Specifically explore those actions which have been identified as having the potential to create a more significant amount of change than others and may require further consideration through community consultation e.g. compact roundabouts and parking permits;

2.       Understand how broader actions directly affect the community so that their implementation can be targeted and effective; and

3.       Gain further knowledge of the experiences people have with Vincent’s transport network.

 

To ensure that a broad cross section of respondents is captured, in addition to the consultation methods stated above, flyers promoting the consultation exercise will be distributed at a number of locations across the City including but not limited to train stations, town centres, primary schools and high schools, child care centres, and aged care facilities. The data that has been collated to date will be presented both through the draft ACS and highlighted in community consultation. Nationwide consultation will also be undertaken to receive feedback on the implementation of some of the actions which are firsts for Western Australia. This would further inform the success of actions and the change they have enabled in order to determine whether they are appropriate to be implemented in Vincent.

Legal/Policy:

Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation sets outs the requirements for formal advertising of the document.

 

Further to this, the draft ACS is intended to respond to the City’s existing strategies and policies. From a strategic perspective, The ACS aligns with, clarifies and supports the following already established positions in Imagine Vincent:

 

·       Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028;

·       Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024;

·       Greening Plan 2018-2023; and

·       Local Planning Strategy 2014.

 

From a policy/action plan perspective, the ACS is intended to guide the review of the Bicycle Network Plan (2013) and the Precinct Parking Management Plans (2009) and replace the Car Parking Strategy (2008).

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to adopt the draft Accessible City Strategy for the purpose of advertising.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Accessible City

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

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

We have embraced emerging transport technologies.

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Sustainable Transport

Financial/Budget Implications:

The total cost of the standalone project items included in the Strategy’s Implementation Plan is $3,985,000, of this $230,000 is included in the City’s Annual Budget or LTFP. Ongoing projects have a total cost of $3,440,000 per annum for the life of the strategy, of this $280,000 is included in the City’s Annual Budget or LTFP.

 

Where appropriate there is opportunity for projects to gain external funding or be funded through the City’s Cash in Lieu Reserve.

 

Each initiative that is not currently budgeted will require its own business case or project plan prior to commencement. At this point the financial viability of each project will be further investigated.

Comments:

The City is committed to improving Vincent’s transport network to focus on Vincent being a connected City that puts people first, where getting around is safe, easy, environmentally friendly, and enjoyable.

 

The draft ACS is intended to guide the integration of the transport network over the next ten years with a major review of progress being undertaken in 2025.

 

Focus will be on creating a safe transport environment, ensuring easy accessibility into and around Vincent, prioritising environmentally friendly transport modes and initiatives, and having an enjoyable City to get around.

 

The intent is to enable a more strategic approach to the changes and growth of the transport network as an overarching vision and guide for the City’s transport related policies and works. The draft ACS is not likely to remain static.

 

As it is reviewed, new information will be included that may modify previously accepted positions. As we continue to deliver and refine actions, we will make sure to keep an open and transparent dialogue with our community.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

10          Infrastructure & Environment

10.1        Update on Manna Inc Meal Service at Weld Square

 

 

REPORT TO BE ISSUED SEPARATELY

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

11          Community & Business Services

11.1        Beatty Park Leisure Centre Renewals Business Case

Attachments:             1.       Business Case and Project Plan - Beatty Park Indoor Pool and Change Room Redevelopment 2020

2.       Beatty Park Upgrade Business Case - Images of Key Areas  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.   APPROVES the Business case for the Beatty Park Leisure Centre Upgrade as listed in the CBP 2020/21 – 2023/24 as item 23;

2.   NOTES Tenders for the Pool tiling and water treatment will be advertised in October 2020; and

3.   NOTES Council will be provided with the opportunity to review and comment on final designs for the change room upgrades prior to the change room upgrades going to tender.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the business plan for the Beatty Park Leisure Centre Indoor pool renewals project as included in the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24 (CBP) as Item 23: Beatty Park Leisure Centre Upgrade.

Background:

Beatty Park Leisure Centre (BPLC) services approximately 900,000 patrons annually, with numbers increasing over the last three years. 

 

The swim school is a popular activity at BPLC.  70% of the 2,300 adults and children enrolled in the swim school originate from neighbouring Councils, demonstrating that BPLC is a regional facility.  The swim school utilises the indoor heated shared passive and 25m pool (SPP).

 

BPLC underwent a redevelopment in 1994, at which time the SPP was built in place of the original 1962 outdoor practice pool.  Stages 3 and 4 of the project, then managed by City of Perth, did not occur.  As a result, the toilets on the northern elevation remain as constructed in 1962. The toilets do not provide changing areas and are the only facilities in that area for patrons using the SPP.  The plant room also remains as designed in 1962.

 

In 2011, BPLC underwent a major upgrade to the aquatic centre, new lanes were added to the 50m pool with accessible ramp, and a new 12m pool was built.  All other pools were stripped and retiled.  In addition, the gym was built and a new entrance and reception area was added.  Stages 3 and 4 of the project were unable to be funded at the time.  The filtration plant servicing the SPP was not upgraded as planned (stage 3) and renovations to the grandstand and northern toilets did not proceed (stage 4).  The latter sets of toilets remain in original 1962 condition.

Details:

Scope of this Business Case

 

Council adopted the 20/21 budget funding $2.93 million for the following five projects:

 

1.         SPP tiling,

2.         SPP filtration,

3.         Change room renewal to the northern elevation, and other SPP improvements,

4.         Electrical renewal to the grandstand structure and associated tenancies and

5.         Critical maintenance to the grandstand as identified in the 2019 Peter Baxendale structural assessment. 

 

This business case covers projects 1 to 3.

 

This business plan excludes projects 4 and 5. $600,000 of the budgeted $2.93M funding has been set aside to deliver projects 4 and 5.

 

Project Descriptions

 

A business case for the three projects is at Attachment 1.  The following provides a description of each project.

 

Included at Attachment 2 are images of the key project areas for ease of reference.

 

Project 1 – SPP Tiling (estimated project cost $900,000)

 

Tiling to walls and the floor of the SPP has begun to fail.  Tiles are delaminating from the concrete shell, allowing water behind the adjacent tiles, causing further delamination.  If not treated this failure will continue and will lead to catastrophic unplanned failure, closure of the pool with no notice, and the potential for injury to users.  Temporary remediation measures have occurred on three occasions within the last 18 months.  Complete removal and replacement of tiles is now required.

 

Project 2 – SPP Filtration Plan (estimated project cost $430,000 to $700,000- additional funds available through Local Government Grants Commission from the Commonwealth)

 

The 30 year old SPP filtration plant is well past end of life, having lasted double the twelve to fifteen years recommended by the manufacturer and service contractors.  The filtration plant, when installed, provided the water turnover rates acceptable at the time (1994) however these rates are well below current standards.

 

When tiles are removed from the pool shell (Project 1) we have access to the filtration pipework.  A further invasive inspection will be undertaken at this time, and there is a likelihood that reticulation filtration pipework will require replacement prior to retiling.  Thus, it is critical the two projects (filtration and tiling) are managed concurrently. 

 

The LTFP proposes funding for basic annual renewal of non-fixed plant on failure such as pumps and valves.  It is expected that on completion of the SPP plant renewal this year, major capital investment within the plant room will not be required again for another seven to ten years.

 

Project 3 – Change Room Renewal and other SPP improvements – Northern Elevation (estimated project cost $1,000,000)

 

3a Change Room Renewal and slide replacement

 

The SPP zone enjoys high use by families, children, elderly and persons with disability.  It is the destination facility for swim school and rehabilitation providers.

 

The toilets located on the northern elevation provide basic sanitary facilities (10 toilets, 1 urinal and 4 hand basins), however the fit out remains as built in 1962.  Access is down a flight of stairs and it does not provide acceptable functionality for persons with mobility issues. 

 

There are no shower facilities in this zone, which then places undue strain on the eastern toilets/showers and family change rooms. 

 

An initial concept design has been completed and detailed design work is now underway for all components of Project 3 taking into consideration DAIP Outcome 2: People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to access the buildings and other facilities of a public authority.

 

Improvements include providing additional “on deck” showers for patrons, creation of new change rooms and toilets on the same level as the pool deck and accessible facilities for persons with disability and mobility issues.

 

The 26 year old concrete slides may need to be removed to fit the new facilities and the new design will incorporate a replacement slide, as this is a much used element.

 

3b Improvement to storage for swim school

 

Works are planned to improve swim school storage, improving security of equipment, and improved safety for swim school staff.  This will involve creating a lockable space for staff access, improved lighting and possibly a toilet.

 

3c Improvement to sauna

 

The sauna and spa areas are high demand and subject to overcrowding during peak periods.  Known as the “wellness area”, the sauna/spa facility generates approximately $300,000 a year in revenue.  However BPLC has had cancellation or suspension of memberships due to overcrowding.

 

An expansion of the sauna in the wellness area is seen as an opportunity to cater for the current high demand on this area.

 

BPLC proposes to expand the sauna which is expected to add approx. 12% or $36,000 per year in casual income and will add 3% or $78,000 per year increase in membership income.

 

It is proposed to complete this work while the SPP is being updated, to minimise disruption to customers.

Consultation/Advertising:

The main user of the SPP area is the Beatty Park Swim School which has been consulted extensively throughout the process. Changing facilities for patrons has been the number one concern for many years especially with the multi award winning Angelfish program attracting a wide range of people with accessibility issues. Currently they are required to share the one fully accessible change room and 3 smaller family/accessible change rooms all of which are not within the SPP area.

 

As part of the detailed design for the change rooms our Swim School parents/carers and accessible users groups will be consulted to ensure the final design caters for their clients. This will achieve DAIP Outcome 6: People with disability have the same opportunities as other people to participate in any public consultation by a public authority.

Legal/Policy:

Nil

Risk Management Implications

Low:   It is low risk for Council to approve the business case.  Approving the business case mitigates asset           maintenance risks, improves the safety of staff and customers.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management.

 

Connected Community (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

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

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

 

Thriving Places (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

 

Innovative and Accountable (select the priority outcome below or delete if not applicable)

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

 

Sustainable Energy Use

 

Financial/Budget Implications:

Project Cost

 

The budget for these projects is included in the annual budget 2020/21, CBP and LTFP.

 

BPLC Revenue Impact of Closure due to Project

 

The project is planned for completion during the summer months, as the Swim School is not in operation for 7 weeks, and the outdoor pools will be available for both Vacation Swimming and casual swimming. 

 

Closing the facility in summer (Dec to April) will reduce revenue by $755K, while closing the facility in winter (May to Sep) will reduce revenue by $1.1M. The greatest impact on revenue loss is the closure of the swim school, which is mitigated in summer by the ability to move swim classes to the external pools. 

 

Reduction in revenue due to the project has been factored into the approved 2020/2021 budget.

 

Asset Lifecycle Costs

 

This project requires no change to the maintenance or operating costs for BPLC in the 10 year Long Term Financial Plan.

 

In particular, without projects 1 and 2, Beatty Park will experience higher levels of unplanned maintenance as the asset deteriorates, and greater revenue loss due to unforeseen breakdown of equipment.

 

The anticipated increase of $114,000 per annum in revenue due to expansion in the spa and sauna area, equating to $1.14M in revenue over 10 years, will be included in the next LTFP update.

 

 

10 year LTFP Impact

Contingency

Impact on Maintenance & Operating Costs

$nil

$nil

Impact on Revenue

+$1.14M

±15%

Net Surplus (Deficit)

+$1.14M

±15%

Comments:

BPLC is an $80 million regional heritage asset managed by the City of Vincent and renewal investment in the past four years has ensured the centre continues to provide a level of service expected by patrons in a highly competitive market. 

 

The projects noted and supported by the business case attached are crucial in providing a safe, compliant and fit for purpose facility into the future.  Projects 1 and 2 are critical and without action in the short term will lead to a forced unplanned shutdown of the centre and the associated income and reputational imposts to the City.

 

Project 3 will bring the provision of changing rooms and the level of accessibility up to current standards while also providing additional income for the facility.

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

11.2        Final endorsement of Youth Action Plan

Attachments:             1.       Youth Action Plan community consultation comments

2.       Youth Action Plan Workshop recommendations

3.       Youth Action Plan 2020 - 2022  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the responses received during the advertising of the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 during the public comment period at Attachment 1 and recommendations from the Youth Action Plan Workshop held on 9 September 2020 at Attachment 2;

2.       ADOPTS the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 at Attachment 3; and

3.       NOTES that final editorial, design and formatting of the document will be determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication.

 

Purpose of Report:

To seek Council adoption of the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 incorporating the recommendations made by the Youth Action Plan Working Group.

Background:

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 25 June 2019, Council endorsed a Councillor Budget Submission for the development of the City’s first Youth Action Plan (YAP).  The development of the YAP was included as Objective 3.10 within the City of Vincent’s Corporate Business Plan 2019-2020.

 

Following Council endorsement, an extensive consultation campaign commenced from October 2019 to April 2020.  To ensure the consultation was from a diverse a range of our youth, as well as from local service providers and the broader community, the consultation was carefully designed to ensure a range of qualitative and quantitative information was collected.  The information collected during this first consultation phase informed the development of the YAP with a range of formal and informal engagement tools utilised to reach as many networks as possible.

 

Administration spoke with over 400 youth, parents and service providers from across Vincent about the issues that matter the most to them.  Through these conversations, forums, surveys and focus groups, the community have helped the City develop a Youth Action Plan that reflects the diversity of our young people along with their thoughts on youth priorities, issues and opportunities.

 

A range of formal and informal engagement tools were used so as to reach as many networks as possible with small incentives provided to complete online surveys.  Administration also conducted general ‘street based’ conversations that allowed for the gathering of qualitative incidental information.  Officers presented at community events, pop-up stalls/stations and ad hoc activities.

 

Following the completion of the first community consultation, Officers drafted a Youth Action Plan that centred around four (4) key themes being:

 

·      Support and Opportunity;

·      Community and Participation;

·      Wellbeing and Resilience; and

·      Organisational Capacity.

 

Subsequently, at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 21 July 2020, Council resolved to:

 

“1.      RECEIVES the Draft Youth Action Plan 2020-2022, at Attachment 1;

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the Draft Youth Action Plan 2020-2022 for public comment for a period of 21 days, inviting written submissions in accordance with Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

3.       NOTES that a further report will be presented to the Ordinary Council Meeting in September 2020 detailing any submissions received during the public comment period; and

4.       NOTES that the Draft Youth Action Plan 2020-2022 will be modified to improve formatting, styling and graphic design, as determined by the Chief Executive Officer, prior to publication.”

DETAILS:

Administration commenced the final consultation for the draft Youth Action Plan on 17 August 2020.  An extensive consultation campaign was conducted through:

·       General community feedback sought through:

 

o   The City’s consultation portal Imagine Vincent

o   Notices on the City’s website, social media channels, Library and Local History Centre and Beatty Park; and

o   Attendance at pop up events at Leederville Skatepark and Britannia Reserve pump track.

.

·       Targeted engagement with key stakeholders through:

 

o   direct contact with youth who provided feedback during the consultation phase;

o   direct conversation with local youth service providers and schools;

o   direct conversations and contact with CYPAG members and the Vincent Youth Network;

o   direct communication and distribution to all regular community facility hirers whose programs encompass children and young people; and

o   Direct communication and distribution to all junior sporting clubs.

 

In addition to the above, a Youth Action Plan 2020 -2022 workshop was held on 9 September 2020, with members of the Children and Young People Advisory Group, along with representatives from the Vincent Youth Network (VYN) in attendance, to review the draft Youth Action Plan prior to final submission to Council.  The working group proposed some amendments that will be incorporated into the draft Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022 following endorsement by Council as detailed in Attachment 2.

 

The Draft YAP 2020-2022 has been developed to be ambitious but achievable and is primarily designed to lay the foundations for establishing and creating opportunities to strengthen our connections with, and understanding of, our young people. More specifically, it:

·       demonstrates the City’s commitment to recognising and supporting our youth community;

·       provides a framework for how the City will work with young people, service providers and the community to support our youth over the life of the Plan;

·       provides guiding principles for ensuring the City’s services and programs consider the impact on youth and allow for synergies and integration with existing plans and strategies; and

·       provides targeted objectives for how the City can support, connect and empower its young people.

 

To ensure the YAP stays a meaningful and relevant resource for the City and the public, it incorporates a strategic long‑term (five year) vision and mid‑term (two year) deliverables which will be reviewed and refined through an evaluation process.

 

The deliverables have been developed under the umbrella of four focus areas, or themes, identified through stakeholder feedback obtained during the initial community consultation period. An operational‑level implementation plan is being developed by Administration to support the delivery of the deliverables. It is also anticipated that the Children & Young Peoples’ Advisory Group (CYPAG) and the Vincent Youth Network will assist in the implementation of the YAP through identifying, advocating and exploring ways of addressing the issues and needs of young people in the City of Vincent.

 

The Plan also recognises the impact of COVID‑19 and commits that at an operational level, deliverables will involve response and recovery initiatives specifically to deal with the current and future uncertainty caused by the pandemic. A specific deliverable has been included to address mental health.

Public advertising of the YAP 2020 – 2022 has now been undertaken in accordance with Council Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation as contained within Attachment 1 with eighteen formal responses being received.

 

Public notice was provided from 17 August 2020 to 7 September 2020 for the required 21 days, in the following ways:

 

·       on the City’s website – 17 August 2020;

·       on the notice board at the City’s Administration and Library and Local History Centre – 17 August 2020;

·       Perth Voice – 20 August 2020; and

·       Social media and Instagram posts – 17 and 28 August and 1 September 2020.

Consultation/Advertising:

No further consultation is required.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   There is low risk to Council adopting the Youth Action Plan 2020 – 2022.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

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

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

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

 

Thriving Places

Our town centres and gathering spaces are safe, easy to use and attractive places where pedestrians have priority.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Specific actions and deliverables within the Youth Action Plan 2020-2022 will be delivered through allocations in the 2020/2021 operating budget and subsequent budgets subject to Council consideration.  Administration will also seek grant funding through the Federal and State Governments as opportunities arise.

 


This page has been left blank intentionally


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                  20 October 2020

PDF Creator




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

11.3        Adoption of amendments to Community Funding Policy - Emergency Relief Donations

Attachments:             1.       Community Consultation Comments

2.       Community Funding Policy - New Version

3.       Community Funding Policy - Original Version  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES that one submission was received during the advertising of the draft ‘Community Funding Policy’ comment period, as summarised at Attachment 1; and

2.       ADOPTS the ‘Community Funding Policy’ at Attachment 2.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the submission received as a result of the public consultation and seek approval of the proposed amendments to the Community Funding Policy (Attachment 2) to specifically include a funding category for ‘Emergency Relief Donations’.

Background:

The Community Funding Policy (Attachment 3) was reviewed and adopted in June 2017, with further amendments, approved in June 2017, July 2018 and September 2018, to include the youth development grant and female sports participation grant categories.

 

The addition of emergency relief in this Policy arises from our experience in responding to hardship arising during the COVID-19 lockdown period.  It will enable the City to provide immediate relief to people who are vulnerable, experiencing disadvantage or at risk, with emergency relief grocery deliveries during periods in any declared State or Local Emergency, and where no other support is available.

Details:

On 15 March 2020, the Western Australian Government declared a State of Emergency under the Emergency Management Act and a Public Health Emergency under the Public Health Act in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Whilst a range of measures were implemented by Federal and State Governments, as well as assistance available through charities and relief organisations, some residents did not meet the criteria for assistance programs, or were simply unaware or unable to access the assistance.

 

Many businesses transitioned into offering services online only, which then became a potential barrier to some vulnerable and isolated residents, particularly seniors and people with disability. These residents were advised to stay at home at all times due to their vulnerability to COVID-19 and their access to basic items became challenging.

 

The addition of the Emergency Relief Donations for seniors, people in hardship and the vulnerable will provide the City with the ability to provide immediate and timely assistance to those who are in crisis.  The City will facilitate essentials such as food and household consumables. 

 

Residents would be eligible for up to $500 worth of emergency relief assistance under this program, within a six-month period. All donations would be in the form of purchase of goods or services and there would be no distribution of cash.

 

It is anticipated that strong support would be received from local grocery stores for this initiative and delivery could be provided via the existing Vincent Community Support Network.

 

While this funding stream has specifically been developed in response to the COVID-19 emergency, it has been structured to enable the City to activate this funding in any declared State or Local Emergency.

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 28 July 2020, it was resolved that Council:

 

“1. APPROVES the amendment to Policy 3.10.11 – Community Funding, at Attachment 1;

 

2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the amended Policy 3.10.11 – Community Funding for a period of 21 days; and

 

3.  NOTES that at the conclusion of the public notice period any submissions received would be presented to Council for consideration.”

 

Public advertising of the amendments to the Community Funding Policy for emergency relief donations has now been undertaken in accordance with Policy 4.1.5 – Community Consultation as contained within Attachment 1.

 

In accordance with the City’s Policy 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies, public notice was provided from 7 August 2020 to 31 August 2020, which is in excess of the 21 days required, in the following ways:

 

·       on the City’s website – 7 August 2020;

·       on the notice board at the City’s Administration and Library and Local History Centre – 7 August 2020;

·       Social media post – 13 August 2020; and

·       Perth Voice – 20 August 2020.

 

Administration received one submission, as at Attachment 1.  This feedback related to funding for Heritage Assistance Funding and will be considered during the review of the associated Council Policy No. 7.6.9 – Heritage Assistance Fund.

Consultation/Advertising:

No further consultation is required.

Legal/Policy:

Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Act provides Council with the power to determine policies.

 

City’s Policy 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies sets out the process for repealing and adopting policies.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       It is a low risk for Council to provide local public notice of the amended Policy 3.10.11 – Community Funding.

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.

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Administration expects that up to $5,000 could be allocated from the existing budget.  No budgetary impact.

 PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

11.4        Investment Report as at 31 August 2020

Attachments:             1.       Investment Statistics as at 31 August 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Statistics for the month ended 31 August 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 August 2020 and the interest amounts 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 August 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $26,788,392. The total funds include an amount of $10,549,531 that relates to monies held in a non-interest bearing account (CBA ‘everyday’ account).   

 

The balance of funds held in term deposit investments for the period ending 31 August 2020 is $16,238,861 compared to $49,641,317 to the period ending 31 August 2019.

 

Investment activity has decreased significantly compared to last year due to the following reasons: -

 

1.         The current low interest rates available in the market for short to medium term maturity periods. Instead of investing funds Administration have transferred Municipal funds (only) to an Online Saver account that offers similar competitive interest rate of 0.65% for a six month period.

2.         The option of transferring to the Saver accounts offers the City flexibility as the monies can be withdrawn at any time without incurring any additional fees.

3.         All Reserve and Leederville Trust monies are being invested as normal, however, due to the lower interest rates available, interest yield on these investments have decreased significantly.  

 

It is important to highlight that with the current economic downturn it is anticipated that interest rates will either remain the same or decrease even further to help stimulate the economy.

 

As a result, Administration will ensure that funds held in the non-interest bearing account will be reviewed and transferred to the Saver account on a daily basis to take advantage of the favourable interest rate in the saver account.

 

 

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

 

Month

2019/20

2020/21

Ended

Total funds held

Total term deposits

Total funds held

Total term deposits

July

$32,209,493

$32,209,493

$21,740,955

$17,906,824

August

$49,641,327

$49,641,327

$26,788,392

$16,238,861

September

$44,876,698

$44,876,698

 

 

October

$46,846,286

$46,846,286

 

 

November

$46,118,236

$46,118,236

 

 

December

$38,557,295

$38,557,295

 

 

January

$37,915,806

$37,915,806

 

 

February

$35,377,640

$35,377,640

 

 

March

$33,969,162

$33,969,162

 

 

April

$30,832,893

$30,832,893

 

 

May

$28,935,398

$28,935,398

 

 

June

$25,079,463

$17,565,310

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 31 August 2020 is:

 

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment

Budget Adopted

Budget YTD

Actual YTD

% of FY Budget

Municipal

$230,000

$38,334

$11,195

29.20%

Reserve

$180,205

$30,034

$20,766

69.14%

Subtotal

$410,205

$68,368

$31,961

46.75%

Leederville Gardens Inc Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$10,645

0.00%

Total

$410,205

$68,368

$42,606

62.32%

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust were not included in the 2020/21 Budget as actual interest earned is restricted.

 

The City has obtained a weighted average interest rate of 0.62% for current investments including the operating account. The Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for August 2020 is 0.10%.

 

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 August 2020, $2,591,726 (16%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

 

The following guidelines have been established to manage the City’s investments, including maximum investment ratios:

 

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

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

  A1+

30%

12.5%

30%

Nil

90%

56.0%

A-1

25%

16.0%

30%

Nil

80%

16.0%

A-2

20%

15.7%

n/a

Nil

60%

28.0%

 

 

 

 

 

 

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

“6.14.   Power to invest

 

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

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

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

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

[(b)   deleted]

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

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

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

 

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

 

19.     Investments, control procedures for

 

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

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

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

(b)    the transactions related to each investment.

 

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

 

(1)        In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

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

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

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

 

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

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

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

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

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

(e)    invest in a foreign currency.”

 

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

 

 

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                    20 October 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  20 October 2020

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

Attachments:             1.       Payments by EFT and Payroll August 20

2.       Payments by Cheque August 20

3.       Payments by Direct Debit August 20  

 

Recommendation:

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

 

EFT payments, including payroll

 

$4,202,979.42

Cheques

 

$456.55

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$163,311.87

 

 

 

Total payments for August 2020

 

$4,366,747.84

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 August 2020 to 31 August 2020.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 2.2.18) the power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

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

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 1 August 2020 to 31 August 2020, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT Payments

2570 – 2581

$2,988,810.33

Payroll by Direct Credit

August 2020

$1,214,169.09

Sub Total

 

$4,202,979.42

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82608 - 82609

$456.55

Sub Total

 

$456.55


 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$395.84

Loan Repayments

$100,782.60

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$55,253.51

Credit Cards

 

$6,879.92

Sub Total

 

$163,311.87