AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

17 November 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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

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.
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.


 

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 7

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 7

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

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

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 7

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 7

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 7

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 7

8          Declarations of Interest 7

9          Strategy & Development 8

9.1             No. 67 (Lot: 63, D/P: 672) Mary Street, Highgate - Single House. 8

9.2             No. 305 (Lot: 4, D/P: 1602) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth - Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreation Private (Amendment to Approved) (Unauthorised Existing Development) 53

9.3             Nos. 103-105 (Lot: 38; D/P: 28) Summers Street, Perth - Proposed Child Care Premises (Amendment to Approved) 110

9.4             No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth - Two Grouped Dwellings. 131

9.5             Place Plan Minor Annual Review. 181

10        Infrastructure & Environment 327

10.1           Response to Petition - E-Permit Implementation Update. 327

11        Community & Business Services. 334

11.1           Outcome of advertising and adoption of amendments - Purchasing Policy. 334

11.2           Adoption of Property Management Framework [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 355

11.3           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 September 2020 to 30 September 2020. 429

11.4           Investment Report as at 30 September 2020. 455

11.5           Financial Statements as at 30 September 2020. 466

11.6           First Quarterly Budget Review [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 530

12        Chief Executive Officer 554

12.1           City of Vincent Advisory Groups [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 554

12.2           Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Progress Update. 572

12.3           Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 20 October 2020. 583

12.4           Council Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates for 2021. 626

12.5           Updated project plans for 5 strategic projects in the Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24  629

12.6           Advertising of new policy - Attendance at Events Policy. 637

12.7           Information Bulletin. 645

13        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 705

Nil

14        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 705

Nil

15        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 705

16        Urgent Business. 705

Nil

17        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 705

Nil

18        Closure. 705

 

 

 


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

 

1.       Options are currently being presented to the community for the lot at 10 Monmouth Street. The only options given are: sell it; leave as it is; and an unspecified ‘other’. Why hasn’t the city developed a landscape plan for the lot and presented that to the community?

 

          The purpose of the consultation is to get community feedback on the potential sale of this lot. It is not proposed that the City will change the management of the lot if it is not sold – it would remain in its current condition. Therefore the development of a landscape plan is not necessary at this stage.

 

2.       The concept plan on the Barlee Street Carpark was confidential in the Briefing Agenda, and has only been made public because of council intervention. The report also did not contain any information about parking utilisation. I’m not sure but I believe we have the Mayor to thank for those being included in this agenda.

 

          Why did the Administration make the concept plan confidential and why didn’t they include any parking data until prompted by Council? Why isn’t there a parking impact statement included in this report – have the staff actually considered it? By the way there were 36 cars parked there at 6:45 last night – a Monday night.

 

          The attachment at the Council Briefing included an assessment of the market valuation as well as a concept plan. The assessment of the market valuation was considered confidential. Following discussion at the Council Briefing the concept plan and summary/assessment of the market valuation were separated and attached separately. The concept plan could therefore be made public.

 

          The parking data will form part of the consideration by the community and Council when investigating alternative uses for the City’s land, however, it did not form part of the consideration for approving the extension of lease.

 

3.       Why are changes to documents like the Public Health Plan, and others on tonight’s agenda, no longer shown with ‘tracked changes’ so that the community can see any changes, if any? By the way, I did compare the advertised health plan and the plan on the agenda and the only changes were to add some words about smoking, and adding a couple of points about ultraviolet radiation, and minor changes – nothing substantive!

 

          Minor changes were made to the Public Health Plan in response to the comments received from the community and stakeholders. The changes to the Plan were outlined within the report along with the reasons why the changes were made.

 

4.       On 20 September 2018 the City paid Kott Gunning Lawyers a sum of $60,000 which was described as “settlement of a legal matter”. What was the legal matter – was it related to an unfair dismissal claim? Who approved the payment – was it the former CEO?

 

          The legal matter was confidential, payment of the settlement sum was approved by the former CEO.

 

5.       In response to your answer to my question 2 at the last meeting. Can you confirm that transport depot, fuel depot, service station, and corrective institution uses are exempt from a DA in non-residential zones under the Vincent’s approach, but would require a DA under the Minister’s order?

 

          If a change of use was proposed then these uses would be exempt from development approval. The exemptions extend to use only and not works. Where works are proposed i.e. installation of fuel tanks and associated infrastructure this would require development approval. The City’s COVID exemptions were intended to provide flexibility for existing businesses who may need to adapt their operations in response to the pandemic and also endeavour to cut red tape for any new business who may wish to commence in the City within an existing premises.

 

Item 9.7 Accessible City

 

The document is OK but is pretty vague – more of a plan for plan.

 

It has errors. On page 13 it says that South of Vincent there is higher on-street parking demand because of greater commercial land use. The reality is that most properties south of Vincent were developed before cars were a thing.  Why is this important – because the suggestion is that residents be charged for parking permits.  On page 12 it says that households are moving away from multi-car ownership. Data from the last 3 censuses shows the opposite – the number of zero car households has dropped from 14.2% to 9.4%; household ownership has gone up from 1.38 to 1.52 cars per household; and multi-car households have gone from 40.7% to 46.5%.

 

One of the opportunities listed on page 20 is the ability to significantly improve road safety outcomes by going to 30kph limits; the Safe Active Streets are at 30kph; documentation about compact roundabouts says they are only safe for cyclists if the speed is less than 30kph; Austroads Safe System principle states that speeds less than 30 kph significantly decrease death and serious injury. Yet Vincent sticks with 40kph!

 

The data contained on page 13 represents a summary of parking within Vincent at the stated point in time. The development of properties within Vincent before cars is a reality in many areas across Vincent. The proposed action regarding the pricing of residential parking permits was intended to be an investigative exercise. The action to investigate the pricing of parking permits has now been removed from the draft Accessible City Strategy (ACS). The observation which has been made regarding car ownership is correct. In light of this the City will correct the assumption which has been made in the draft ACS.

 

Noting that the desirable speed of private vehicles for pedestrians and cyclists is 30km/hr. It is recommended that the best way to achieve this long-term change is through various initiatives and treatments of the road. The 40km/h areas are one very positive way of getting to this ideal outcome.

 

3.2     Sonia Grinceri of Leederville

 

·                Questioned the lack of public parking during office hours on the east side of Oxford Street, Newcastle Street and Carr Place.

          There is extensive public parking available along the streets identified as well as Frame Court and The Avenue Car Parks. Rangers patrol the Leederville Town Centre each day to ensure the parking restrictions are adhered to and that the required parking turnover is achieved.

 

·                Problem exacerbated by on street seating.

          Parklets and on street seating are provided on request by businesses and are seen as important in our town centres to promote vibrancy and enhance pedestrian activity. Businesses must apply for parklets and through this application must provide evidence of support from neighbouring businesses.

 

·                The lack of public parking is affecting businesses in this area.

 

          There is adequate public parking in and around the Leederville Town Centre and there is not a shortfall. The City is not ignoring the needs of business operators and respond to any parking complaints received in addition to maintaining regular patrols in the area.

 

·                What plans are in place to compensate for loss of short term on street parking due to hospitality use?

          There are no plans nor is there a requirement to compensate businesses for changes in parking.

 

·                Why did Council abandon its proposal to build multistorey parking on Frame Court?

          The Leederville Activity Centre Plan is currently being drafted and will be available for community consultation in 2021. This consultation process will gather feedback on what the community’s vision is for Leederville now and into the future. This will address specific spaces in Leederville such as Frame Court as well as specific issues including what parking and other transport infrastructure is required in the future.

 

3.3     Lisa Fanciulli of Perth

 

Spoke against the e-parking permits and advised that there is not an issue with the existing parking permit process.

·                Residents do not want to have to ask their visitors to register their number plates

          Residents will be the account holder and so will manage the registrations on their account. A resident may choose to register the visitor’s vehicle before they arrive or once the visitor arrives. Once the registration has been entered and made active that vehicle will be live on the system instantly. The registration can be retained in the system for future visits so it will only need to be entered once. Please note that residents will only need the registration, no other details will be required.

 

·                Will their number plates be logged all over the City?

          No

 

·                Asked how the City will ensure data security and privacy?

          Data is hosted within Microsoft’s Australian Azure data platform which itself is certified to ISO 27001, the same information security standard that the City of Vincent bases its security framework on.

 

          The Licence Plate Recognition technology (LPR) used by Rangers to identify vehicle registrations does not identify the vehicle owner it simply confirms if the registration is active and eligible to park.

 

3.4     Sally Lake of Highgate

 

·                In the past it has been the tradition that anybody that made a submission was informed the meeting. Queried if the City made a decision to stop advising people who made a submission, or was it an oversight?  Queried if the people who made submissions on Items 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 11.2, 11.3 and 12.5 were advised of this meeting.

Response for 9.4:

 

Respondents for the Public Health Plan community consultation were contacted via e-mail between 12 –19 October 2020 to thank them for their submission and were provided with a link to the council agenda and report.  It is acknowledged that the notice period may have been too short in some instances.

 

Response for 9.5:

 

The City acknowledged Vending Vincent Policy consultation submissions upon receipt and advised the anticipated Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) would be held in September 2020.  Respondents were not further advised of the change of date to the October OMC which was an oversight.  The responsible team have put mechanisms in place to ensure notification is provided in the future.

 

Response for 9.6:

 

The key stakeholders relating to the new Haynes Reserve including the current tenants of the site were informed of the Council meeting agenda item.

 

Response for 9.7:

 

The Accessible City Strategy (ACS) is now going to be released for consultation. Submission providers will be notified of the date of the Council Meeting when the ACS will be tabled for adoption.

 

Response for 11.2:

 

Community consultation was customised to suit the Youth audience and their advocates.  Consultation process is detailed in the paper.  Final review of consultation process and input was conducted with the Children and Young People Advisory Group who were informed of the meeting.

 

Response for 11.3:

 

One community comment was received which related to heritage.  Comment was unrelated to the policy changes proposed.  Community member was advised their feedback had been passed on to the appropriate officer.

 

Response for 12.5:

 

All persons submitting a response to the City’s EHQ page on the proposed transfer of ANZAC Cottage to the National Trust were informed by email dated 8 October 2020 of the upcoming Council briefing and meeting, a link to the Council Agenda was included in the email. The National Trust of WA, VVAAWA and the Friends of ANZAC Cottage (as interested parties) were also notified by email.

 

3.5     Andrew Main of North Perth – Item 9.7

 

Question 1

In the 12 month period it took the City of Fremantle to prepare its integrated transport strategy, drafts of the strategy were regularly provided to a formal Council Committee for its consideration and feedback. As such, the draft strategy was a public document as were the changes made.

 

In keeping with the City Of Vincent’s value of being accountable, will the City make public a copy of the draft Strategy that was initially submitted to the City by its consultants, and indicate the changes made to the strategy as a result of requests by officers and councillors since that time?

 

The version which has been presented to Council is an evolved version of the original submitted to the City by the consultant. The changes made to this version have provided additional context and ensured that the draft aligns with vision and values of Vincent. Any previous version of the document is not considered to be complete and correctly reflect the intent of the project. This is a working document which has evolved and will continue to evolve following the next round of community consultation.

 

Question 2

When the city prepares documents of a similar nature to the Accessible City Strategy, feedback received during the consultation process, and the City’s response to this feedback, is publicly available.

 

Formal resident consultation on the strategy took place in May 2019 and there has been engagement by the City with state government agencies. However, a consultation report on feedback received has not been put in the public domain. As such, when will the city make public a report which includes the feedback received from both residents, ratepayers and state government agencies?

 

A summary of the consultation to date has been included in the draft strategy. Following the advertising of the draft document, a consultation report will be finalised detailing all consultation which has occurred as part of the project.

 

Question 3

To prepare the strategy, it is clear that there has been a considerable amount of research, as well as field surveys, carried out by the consultants. To aid members of the public and other stakeholders that wish to provide comment on the strategy, will the city provide the data that has been collected and used to prepare the strategy and the findings and recommendations within it?

 

The data which is believed to be most relevant has been included in the draft ACS. During the consultation period, stakeholders would be able to express a view on the information which has been included, and whether it provides enough support for the recommendations which have been made.

 

Question 4

Low traffic neighbourhoods are precincts that have been treated so that through traffic, or ‘rat running’, is discouraged through the use of measures including modal filtering. Was the consultant asked to consider, or did they provide advice, on the concept of low traffic neighbourhoods? Why was the concept not discussed in the strategy or a recommendation made to implement them in the City?

 

The issue of rat running was identified through community consultation. This is to be addressed by the draft ACS through Actions 1.2.3, 4.1.1, 4.1.2 and 4.1.4.

 

Though there is no direct reference to rat running and the reduction of it, the combination of these actions would address the issue and create streets which are safer for pedestrians and active transport users.

 

Question 5

It is noted that the strategy includes mode share targets for journeys to work. Why doesn’t the strategy include mode share targets for all trips, and/or trips to school, shops, recreational facilities, sporting facilities etc? In addition, why doesn’t the strategy include targets for cycling trips along key cycling routes, of which data is collected through the ‘Super Tuesday’ count?

 

Most commonly, mode share for cities is expressed in terms of journey to work for residents. For the purpose of easy comparisons to the Census and other local government areas, the current journey to work mode share has been calculated. Journey to work is also the most common trip made by a resident/worker in Vincent, as such a shift in this will create the most notable change.

 

This is not the only mode shift that is required to change and be used as a measurable target.

 

Additional actions have been created which look to collect data which can be used to calculate different journey mode shift in the future. This includes:

 

Action 1.2.5: Work with schools to support active travel through resources and programs, including route maps and education programs. Encourage schools to join the Your Move program so that journey to school data can be collected and appropriate mode shift targets created.

 

Question 6

The draft strategy aims for modal shift in the community but one area where the City has greatest control of modal shift is its own workforce. Why doesn't the strategy explicitly include any actions and targets for modal shift in the City's workforce so that the City can be seen to lead by example? In addition, why aren’t similar mode shift targets recommended for elected members given the strong support this would provide for the concept?

 

The City of Vincent has a program to encourage active transport options for its staff to its various work locations. Council has demonstrated strong support for active transport through its endorsement of a range of projects, strategies and plans including the development of this Accessible City Strategy.

 

Question 7

There are a number of tables and maps in the draft strategy document which are difficult to read due to their low resolution.

 

Will the city make all tables and maps separate documents so that they are legible to those that wish to view them?

 

Those requiring higher resolution versions of tables and maps contained with the Strategy, can contact the Policy & Place Team on 9273 6556 to obtain these.

 

 

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 20 October 2020

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest

8.1       Cr Joshua Topelberg declared a proximity interest in Item 9.2 No. 305 (lot: 4, d/p: 1602) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth - change of use from warehouse to recreation private (amendment to approved) (unauthorised existing development) as his business is two doors away from the subject property.  He is not seeking approval to participate in the debate or to remain in Chambers or vote in the matter.

 

8.2       Mayor Cole declared an impartiality interest in item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework, as she is a social member of the North Perth Bowls Club and her son is a member of the Floreat Athena Football Club.

             

8.3       Cr Alex Castle declared an impartiality interest in item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management   Framework, as she is a social member of the North Perth Bowls Club.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

9            Strategy & Development

9.1          No. 67 (Lot: 63, D/P: 672) Mary Street, Highgate - Single House

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Urban Design Study

4.       Administration Streetscape Analysis

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

6.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Single House at No. 67 (Lot: 63; D/P: 672) Mary Street, Highgate, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 6:

1.       Development Plans

This approval is for a Single House as shown on the approved plans dated 12 October 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.       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;

4.       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;

5.       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;

6.       Fencing

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

7.       Landscaping

7.1     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 28.74 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and

7.2     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;

8.       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;

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;

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 three storey single house at No. 67 Mary Street, Highgate (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a single house on a vacant lot. The proposed dwelling has a building height of two storeys as viewed from the primary street (Mary Street) and three storeys as viewed from the Right of Way (ROW) to the rear. The proposed development would have pedestrian access from Mary Street and vehicle access from the ROW. The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 2.

Background:

Landowner:

Minh Truong and Hoang Thu Thi Pham

Applicant:

MNB Residential

Date of Application:

10 June 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant Lot

Proposed Use Class:

Single House – ‘P’

Lot Area:

426.2 square metres

Right of Way (ROW):

Kaadadjiny Lane – 3.0 metre width, City of Vincent owned, sealed and drained

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Mary Street to the north east, a single storey dwelling to the north west and a vacant site to the south east and a 3 metre wide ROW (Kaadadjiny Lane) to the south west. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties are zoned Residential R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The subject site and all adjoining properties are within the Residential built form area and have a building height limit of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

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 Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes (R Codes).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setback

 

ü

Open Space

 

ü

Building Height

 

ü

Garage Width

 

ü

Street Surveillance

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Sight Lines

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Site Works & Retaining Walls

 

ü

Visual Privacy

 

ü

Solar Access

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities & Facilities

ü

 

Heritage Management

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes - Clause 5.1.2

 

Porches may project 1 metre into the primary street setback area where the projection does not exceed 20 percent of the lot frontage.

 

 

The porch projects 1 metre into the primary street setback area for 30.7 percent of the lot frontage.

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes - Clause 5.1.3

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

North West

Ground Floor Laundry: 1.1 metre

First Floor Ensuite – WIR: 1.8 metres

 

South East

Under-croft Lift – Stair: 1.0 metre

Ground Floor Lift: 1.1 metres

First Floor Balcony 2 – Lift: 1.9 metres

First Floor Hallway – WIR: 2.8 metres

 

 

 

Lot Boundary Setbacks

North West

Ground Floor Laundry: 1 metre

First Floor Ensuite – WIR: 1.3 metres

 

South East

Under-croft Lift – Stair: 0.7 metres

Ground Floor Lift: 0.7 metres

First Floor Balcony 2 – Lift: 0.7 metres

First Floor Hallway – WIR: 1.9 metres

Lot Boundary Walls

3.5m maximum height

3.0m average height

Lot Boundary Walls

South East

Garage – Plant Room/Family – Balcony 1:

5.0 metre maximum height

4.55 metre average height

 

North West

Scullery – Balcony:

5.2 metre maximum height

5.0 metre average height

 

Verandah – Ensuite:

3.9 metre maximum height

3.4 metre average height

Open Space

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes - Clause 5.1.4

 

40% open space

 

 

37.2% open space

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.6

 

6 metre wall height

9 metre roof pitch

 

 

7.8 metre wall height

9.9 metre roof pitch

Garage Width

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.5

 

Garages which are 50% or less than the width of the lot

 

 

Garage accounts for 100% of the ROW frontage

Outdoor Living Areas

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Clause 5.3.1

 

Outdoor living areas shall be directly accessible from habitable room of the dwelling

 

 

Outdoor living area not directly accessible from a habitable room of the dwelling

Site Works & Retaining Walls

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Clause 5.3.7; and

R Codes – Clause 5.3.8

 

Site Works

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

 

Retaining Walls

Retaining walls greater than 0.5m in height set back from lot boundaries in accordance with the setback provisions of Table 1.

 

 

 

Site Works

Courtyard (south east): 0.9 metres fill

Courtyard (north west): 1.2 metres fill

 

 

Retaining

North west = 1.3 metres

South east = 1 metre

Visual Privacy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Clause 5.4.1

 

Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces shall have a 7.5 metres cone of vision setback to lot boundaries.

 

South east

Balcony 1: 3.2 metres

Balcony 2: 1.3 metres

 

North west

Balcony 1: 3.1 metres

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015, for a period of 14 days commencing on 10 September 2020 and closing on 23 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, seven submissions were received, six in objection and one with concern for the proposed development. The key concerns raised in the submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       Extent and height of development and lot boundary walls;

·       Visual privacy impacts to adjoining properties;

·       Building footprint of the development; and

·       Garage width.

 

In response to the comments raised during community consultation, the applicant prepared revised plans to improve the built form outcomes of the site and reduce departures to the deemed-to-comply provisions, these changes are summarised in the Design Review Panel section below.

 

A summary of the submissions received along with Administration’s comments on each are provided in Attachment 5.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The submitted development plans were referred to a member of the City’s Design Review Panel for comment. The following comments and recommendations were provided:

 

·       The extent of lot boundary setbacks, boundary wall and building height departures contribute to excessive bulk, scale and massing;

·       Whilst the house does sit lower than the level at the street boundary, the application should consider a further reduction of the floor level to address concerns relating to building bulk and scale;

·       The balcony, dining, family, kitchen and scullery internal spaces are generous in scale and could be reduced in size without affecting the functionality or design intent;

·       Consider incorporation of timber columns with masonry base elements to be more consistent with the front façade and supports of the dwelling that occupied the site prior to demolition;

·       The garage would visually dominate the ROW streetscape. Consider providing further articulation of the rear façade and introducing face brickwork to the lower section to tie in with side boundary parapet face brickwork; and

·       Consider simplification of the roof form.

 

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

·       Provided privacy screening to balcony 1 at the rear;

·       Introduced additional post and pier details to the front verandah to reference the established streetscape;

·       Increased the garage door setback from the right of way by 0. 5 metres;

·       Reduced the extent of site works and retaining across the site; and

·       Reduced the building height of the proposal.

 

The changes made by the applicant appropriately address the comments and recommendations made by the Design Review Panel member.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

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

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy; and

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

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

 

The application proposes a departure to the street setback deemed to comply standards of the R Codes. The ground floor alignment of the dwelling to the verandah is setback to 5.5 metres, in line with the average street setback. The verandah projects 1 metre into the primary street setback area for 30.7 percent of the lot frontage in lieu of the 20 percent permitted under the R Codes. The setback of the porch satisfies the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The porch remains an open component of the dwelling which contributes to the residential amenity of the occupants and provides additional articulation to the front façade of the dwelling;

·       The upper floor of the dwelling is stepped 3 metres behind the ground floor building alignment to provide clear distinction of the ground and upper floors;

·       The setback of the first floor to Mary 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 clearly distinguishes the ground and first floors as viewed from Mary Street, and is well articulated and minimises visual bulk through the following:

o   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 and reflect existing streetscape outcomes;

·       The development incorporates predominant built form and design features of the streetscape through its colours and materials, setting back of upper floors and pitched roof form. The earthy colour palette of the dwelling references many existing dwellings on Mary Street and the contrasting gable and banding details to the dwelling are consistent with the verandah and gable roof detailing of neighbouring dwellings. The proposed front fence incorporates render and wrought iron details that are also features of the streetscape; and

·       The proposal incorporates deep soil zones, planting areas and canopy coverage within the front setback area, including four mature trees as well as the retained mature verge tree. 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.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards along the north western boundary on the ground and first floors to the dwelling. The proposed north western boundary setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       A 1 metre setback proposed to the laundry on the ground floor accommodates the clothes drying area for the subject property, and seeks a 0.1 metre departure to the adjoining property. The minor departure does not accentuate building bulk and scale of the subject wall to the boundary;

·       The north western elevation incorporates contrasting render and glazing to the north western façade to reduce the bulk and blank walls of the development to the adjoining property;

·       The upper floor walls are setback from the line of the boundary walls below to create articulation and visual interest as viewed from adjoining property and the street;

·       The proposed development meets the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes in relation to solar access for adjoining sites. The reduced setbacks would not result in an undue loss of access to direct sunlight to the adjoining property, and the wall is setback from the boundary to maintain ventilation to adjacent buildings;

·       The reduced lot boundary setbacks do not exacerbate impacts of overlooking on the adjacent property as there are no major openings from habitable rooms which have an adverse impact on the neighbouring property in terms of visual privacy. Departures to visual privacy from Balcony 1 and Balcony 2 are acceptable as the cone of vision does not fall to active habitable outdoor spaces or habitable rooms of the adjacent properties and is obscure in nature; and

·       The lot boundary setback departures would fall to the side setback area which extends along the side boundary of No. 69 Mary Street and provides pedestrian access to the extensive open space at the rear of the site. One opening is located along the boundary of the neighbouring property but would be screened by a sufficient dividing fence.

 

The application proposes departures to the lot boundary setback deemed-to-comply standards along the south eastern boundary to the under-croft, ground and first floors to the dwelling. The proposed lot boundary setbacks satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The upper floor walls are setback from the line of the boundary walls below to create articulation and visual interest as viewed from adjoining property and the street. The stepping of portions of development away from the boundary ensures the dwelling does not create actual or perceived vertical massing. The remainder of the south western elevation to the ground floor (hallway) is stepped back to 1.8 metres meeting the deemed to comply provisions;

·       The south-east elevation is well articulated and incorporates multiple large 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, horizontal banding and render that assists in breaking up the ground and first floor walls when viewed from the adjoining property;

·       The bulk length of the upper floor is articulated so as to provide actual and perceived stepping of the dwelling. The south eastern façade demonstrates articulation of the upper floor at the front of the dwelling as well as a chimney element visible from Mary Street to break up the vertical aspect of the dwelling. Building bulk is further alleviated by openings to the balcony, hallway and water closet to reduce the extent of solid walls;

·       The south eastern elevation incorporates contrasting materials including render, cladding, timber accents and glazing which would effectively ameliorate the building bulk and reduce the appearance of blank solid walls as viewed from the adjoining property and the street;

·       Major openings to the south eastern façade are appropriately screened to alleviate any direct overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining properties. Visual privacy departures to Balcony 1 and Balcony 2 are acceptable as they do not provide a direct line of site to active habitable spaces or habitable rooms of the adjacent properties and instead fall to extensive areas of open space and anticipated future vehicle access points;

·       The adjoining vacant property is not located directly to the south which will allow any future development to maintain adequate access to the northern aspect and associated winter sunlight. The proposed development satisfies the R Codes requirements relating to solar access for adjoining sites and the proposed lot boundary setbacks would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties’ access to direct sunlight or ventilation; and

·       The adjoining property to the south is currently vacant and the reduced lot boundary setbacks would not impose bulk and scale on an existing outdoor living area or active space.

 

Lot Boundary Walls

 

The application proposes boundary walls to the north western and south eastern lot boundaries. The deemed-to-comply provisions permit a boundary wall length of 24.03 metres, with an average height of 3 metres and a maximum height of 3.5 metres. The initial proposal proposed boundary walls that were three storeys high and exceeded the maximum length permitted.

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns with development located on the boundary, height of the lot boundary walls and the impact of increased height and bulk of these walls. Following community consultation and DRP comments, the applicant provided amended plans reducing the height and length of the boundary walls. The acceptability of the boundary walls proposed are detailed below.

 

South East

 

The boundary wall proposed from the garage to lift portion of the dwelling would have a maximum height of 5 metres and average height of 4.55 metres. The south 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 advertised proposal sought greater boundary wall height departures to the verandah to study portion on the south eastern aspect of the dwelling. In response to community consultation comments, the applicant has reduced the boundary wall height to demonstrate compliance;

·       The south eastern elevation is well articulated and incorporates contrasting colours and materials including face brick, render, vertical banding and glazing to break up the impact of building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property and the right of way;

·       The boundary wall is located to the rear of the site and would not have an adverse impact on the Mary Street streetscape;

·       The boundary wall would be finished with face brick consistent with the adjoining dwellings and broader ROW streetscape;

·       The stepping back of the ground and first floors and the open courtyard to the boundary ensures adequate ventilation is provided to the adjoining property;

·       The adjoining vacant property is not located directly to the south which will allow any future development to maintain adequate access to the northern aspect and associated winter sunlight. The proposed development satisfies the R Codes requirements relating to solar access for adjoining sites and the proposed boundary wall would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties’ access to direct sunlight or ventilation;

·       The boundary wall would not result in any overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property. The openings on the remaining portion of the south eastern elevation satisfy the R Codes provisions relating to visual privacy and the development would not result in any direct overlooking to the adjoining property; and

·       The aggregate boundary wall length to the south eastern lot boundary is 19.7 metres, being less than the 24.03 metres that would otherwise be permitted; and

·       Existing boundary walls are located within immediate proximity of the site on Kaadadjiny Lane to No. 47, No. 49 and No. 55 Mary Street, as depicted in Administration’s Streetscape Analysis included at Attachment 4. The existing boundary walls are constructed to two and three storey scales and are visible from the ROW. The proposed lot boundary walls are consistent with the established and emerging built form of dwellings to Mary Street and Kaadadjiny Lane.

 

North West

 

The boundary wall proposed from the scullery to balcony portion on the first floor of the dwelling would have a maximum height of 5.2 metres and average height of 5.0 metres. The verandah to ensuite portion also on the first floor would have a 3.9 maximum height and 3.4 metre average height. The north western boundary walls satisfy the relevant design principles and local housing objectives of the R Codes and Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The north western elevation is well articulated and incorporates contrasting colours and materials including face brick, render, vertical banding and glazing to break up the impact of building bulk when viewed from the adjoining property, right of way and Mary Street;

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

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

·       The aggregate boundary wall length to the north western lot boundary is 23.5 metres, being less than the 24.03 metres that would otherwise be permitted;

·       The boundary wall abuts the extensive areas of garden and open space of the neighbouring property at No. 69 Mary Street. The open space is well separated from the dwelling to which it relates and does not form the primary outdoor living area of its occupants, which is concentrated towards the middle of the lot, adjacent to the courtyard of the subject property. The extensive open space at the rear of the lot is not likely to be utilised or occupied for extended periods of time, and the boundary wall would not impact the residential amenity of the neighbouring property; and

·       Existing boundary walls are located within immediate proximity of the site on Kaadadjiny Lane to No. 47, No. 49 and No. 55 Mary Street, as depicted in Administrations Streetscape Analysis (refer Attachment 4). The existing boundary walls are constructed to two and three storey scales and are visible from the right of way. The proposed lot boundary walls are consistent with the established and emerging built form of dwellings to Mary Street and Kaadadjiny Lane.

 

Open Space

 

The development proposes 37.2 percent open space in lieu of the 40 percent deemed to comply requirement under the R Codes. The proposal is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The development is not considered to result in adverse impacts of building bulk to adjoining properties and the street. The design details such as openings, articulation, roof type and colours and materials is considered to reduce impacts of bulk;

·       The outdoor living areas and open space for the site provide contributions to usable and external spaces of the lot as well as sufficient access in and around the site which responds to the natural contours of the site for the needs of the occupants;

·       The lot provides sufficient planting zones and deep soil areas which facilitate proposed and future landscaping across the site. The open space and landscaping areas provided offer functional and leisure opportunities;

·       Setbacks of the dwelling from the primary street, right of way and side boundaries provide multiple areas of open space to provide an attractive setting for the building and landscaping on the site;

·       The applicant proposes dedicated area for external fixtures (i.e. air conditioning units) and clothes drying areas to the side and rear boundaries, screened form adjacent properties and the street. As a result, the proposed outdoor living areas and open space are for the dedicated use of active and/or passive recreation; and

·       The open space calculation does not includes portions of the dwelling which are accessible and usable more than 0.5 metres above the natural ground level, and unenclosed spaces to Balconies 1, 2 and 3. The balcony spaces contribute to additional areas of outdoor living and amenity for use by the residents.

 

Building Height

 

The application proposes a three storey dwelling, a maximum pitched roof height of 9.9 metres and a maximum pitched roof wall height of 7.8 metres in lieu of the two storeys, maximum pitched roof height of 9.0 metres and maximum pitched roof wall height of 6.0 metres set as a deemed-to-comply standard in the Built Form Policy.

 

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

 

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

 

·       The natural ground level of the site slopes down by approximately 3.6 metres from the street boundary to the rear of the property. The proposal presents as a two storey dwelling when viewed from Mary Street. The three storey element of the proposal is located away from the street and responds to slope of the site by providing the garage to the ROW as an under croft level which is cut into the site;

·       The location of the three storey building height away from the street would ensure the dwelling does not dominate the established streetscape character. The third storey and maximum height applies only to the rear of the site, and is centrally located on the upper floor of the dwelling to mitigate the imposition of perceived and actual bulk and scale to the northern, eastern and southern properties. The two storey scale of the dwelling as it faces Mary Street satisfies the building height deemed-to-comply standards;

·       In response to comments received during community consultation, the applicant reduced the building height to the top of the pitched roof from 10.2 metres to 9.9 metres. The applicant also reduced the wall height departure from 7.9 metres as advertised to 7.8 metres;

·       The central location and increased street setback of the upper floor to 8.1 metres creates a tiered built form outcome when viewed from the adjacent properties and Mary Street and reduces the appearance of the upper floor. The incorporation of windows and balconies as well as articulation of the upper floor reduces the appearance of blank walls to the property’s side and rear boundaries;

·       Development of a three storey appearance to the right of way is a prevalent built form within the established streetscape. The built form of the dwelling, with the garage to the dwelling located on the ground floor with living spaces elevated above is clearly demonstrated in the streetscape analysis included as Attachment 4. Unlike the neighbouring properties, the upper storey elements of the development are stepped away from the street and from the side boundaries. The stepped vertical and horizontal massing of the proposal reduces the actual and perceived bulk of the development;

·       The gable roof elements of the dwelling are detailed in a contrasting timber cladding to break up the bulk of the roof and wall heights of the dwelling. The timber detailing on the upper storey in addition to the large windows from Bed 4 and the balcony ensures the upper storey, when viewed from the street, does not present large expanses of solid blank walls. The proposed pitched roof form would be consistent and complimentary with the established streetscape character;

·       The 3.65 metre slope of the lot from street to the ROW means the proposed dwelling to the rear sits lower than the neighbouring dwellings and verge level, and does not impact on the established Mary Street streetscape character;

·       The development proposes departures to the R Codes standards relating to site works and retaining walls but these departures are considered to be appropriate in the context of the sloping site;

·       The adjoining vacant property is not located directly to the south which will allow any future development to maintain adequate access to the northern aspect and associated winter sunlight. The proposed development satisfies the R Codes requirements relating to solar access for adjoining sites and the proposed boundary wall would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties’ access to direct sunlight or ventilation; and

·       Site works proposed to the front setback of the dwelling cut into the land rather than fill the land, and as a result, the dwelling sits below the verge and road level. Articulation to the side boundary setbacks to the ground and upper floors means the overall vertical mass and scale of the development does not take up the whole lot frontage, leaving view vistas along the side boundaries. The combination of the above factors means the overall scale of development is mitigated across the site to limit the imposition of building height that obscures access to views of significance.

 

Garage Width

 

The development proposes a 10.1 metre garage width inclusive of garage door and supporting structures. The proposed garage width accounts for 100 percent on the ROW frontage to Kaadadjiny Lane in lieu of the 50 percent permitted under the Built Form Policy.

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns with the setback and width of the garage width.

 

The application is considered to meet the local housing objectives and design principles of the Built Form Policy and the Residential Design Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The subject site provides vehicle access from a right of way rather than Mary Street, consistent with the requirements of the R Codes. The development would not have an adverse impact on the established Mary Street streetscape in relation to vehicle access points or garage doors;

·       The applicant has revised the proposal to increase the setback of the garage to Kaadadjiny Lane from 2.3 metres to 4.8 metres, and the setback of the garage door to 5.3 metres. The setback of the garage door would effectively mitigate its dominance on the ROW streetscape;

·       Although not the primary frontage for the dwelling, the rear of the site maintains suitable street surveillance to the public realm, via major openings from balcony 1, balcony 2 and the master suite at the rear;

·       The materials of the dwelling include contrasting brick, render and concrete on the façade along with a number of openings to the street to help to break up the façade of the dwelling and encourage an active façade and reduce the impact of the garage width;

·       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 application proposes meaningful deep soil zones and 4 new trees between the ROW and the dwelling;

·       The actual garage door has a width of 6 metres, accounting for only 59.4 percent of the ROW frontage;

·       As per Administration’s streetscape analysis (Attachment 4), 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 major openings facing the ROW; and

·       The additional width of the garage provide sufficient vehicle manoeuvring for two vehicles for ingress and egress from the site.

 

Outdoor Living Areas (OLA)

 

The application proposes that the primary OLA (main courtyard) would be accessible from the ground floor hallway rather than a habitable room of the dwelling as outlined under the R Codes. The application is considered to meet the design principles of the Residential Design Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       Although not able to be directly accessed from a habitable room, the courtyard area is within immediate proximity of the dining and living rooms to the benefit of the dwellings occupants and would be readily accessible for passive and active use;

·       The application satisfies the minimum OLA requirements of the R Codes, providing 27.8 square metres which is greater than the 20 square metres required. Ancillary outdoor living spaces are also provided by way of the upper floor balconies and the south eastern courtyard area;

·       The outdoor living area provides the minimum 4 metre dimensions in length and width of the spaces;

·       The outdoor living area provides an uncovered space with landscaping, providing an accessible area which can be utilised during good weather for active or passive use; other outdoor spaces such as balcony 1 is able to be enjoyed year round;

·       The open nature of the courtyard allows for adequate ventilation to the dwelling while allowing for sufficient exposure to sunlight; and

·       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.

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out additional deemed-to-comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the WAPC and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.  The Built Form Policy requires the provision of 30 percent canopy coverage, 3 percent planting areas and 12 percent deep soil zones. The application proposes 28.74 percent canopy and 14.9 percent planting areas deep soil zones. The departures to the landscaping provisions are acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The applicant has proposed to plant 11 Dwarf Magnolia trees as well as a Weeping Peppermint Tree within the lot boundaries. The proposed tree species are capable of providing 3 to 5 metres of canopy each at maturity. Although some overlap of canopy is proposed, this outcome would still represent a departure from the deemed-to-comply standards this is mitigated by the provision of additional shrubs and species as well as planting zones within the boundaries of the proposal which will provide ancillary forms of landscaping to the site;

·       The landscaping provided to the dwelling will serve to soften the appearance of the proposed dwelling and reduce the overall impact of the building bulk and scale when viewed from the Mary Street and neighbouring properties. The current provision of landscaping in the proposal is considered to contribute to the reduction of the urban heat island effect, increase urban air quality, provide a greater landscape amenity for the locality and create a sense of open space between the proposed dwelling and neighbouring properties;

·       The application proposed planting areas and deep soil zones greater than those required by the Built Form Policy. Additional planting zones allows for the owner/occupier to plant additional landscaping areas in the future;

·       The proposed landscaping is respectful of the existing verge tree on Mary Street which are mature in growth, and are listed on the City’s significant tree register. The verge tree cannot be removed or illegally trimmed and the landscaping proposed within the front setback does not inhibit future growth of the tree. In their current state, the verge trees will partially obscure the dwelling as viewed from the street;

·       The proposed landscaping includes portions of canopy which extends outside of the lot boundaries, contributing to the provision of landscaping within the broader locality; and

·       The proposed landscaping to the lot does not inhibit vehicle use of the space, with mature trees located away from the dwelling in proximity to the vehicle access points to maintain sufficient sight lines.

 

Site Works and Retaining

 

The application seeks departures to the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes in relation to site works and retaining walls. The application proposes 0.9 metres of fill and 1 metre of retaining to the south eastern boundary, and 1.2 metres of fill and 1.3 metres of retaining to the north western boundary. The retaining wall and site works satisfy the relevant design principles of the R Codes and are acceptable for the following reasons:

 

·       The application proposes cut and fill of the site that respects the natural slope and contours, limiting the amount of retaining required and accounting for the 3.6 metre natural slope from the street to the ROW;

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

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

·       In response to comments received during community consultation, the applicant reduced site works and retaining across the site by 0.3 metres which consequently reduced the overall building height and lot boundary walls;

·       Retaining walls together with a dividing fence and landscape screening on the ground floor would ensure privacy is maintained for the benefit of the subject and neighbouring properties; and

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

 

Visual Privacy

 

The application proposes departures to the deemed to comply requirements of the R Codes in relation to visual privacy from the ground floor balcony 1 and upper floor balcony 2 at the rear of the site.

 

South West

 

Balcony 1 proposes a 3.1 metre cone of vision setback and balcony 2 proposes a 1.3 metre cone of vision setback to the south eastern lot boundary in lieu of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes. The application is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The adjacent property at No. 65 Mary Street is a vacant lot and the City has not approved any development applications for the site and the cone of visions from balcony 1 and balcony 2 fall to the rear portion of the adjoining property. It is likely that vehicle access for any future development application at the adjoining property would be from the ROW in accordance with the R Codes standards and the affected portion of the site would contain car parking facilities rather than habitable spaces. The cone of vision from the balcony would not result in any adverse overlooking and subsequent loss of privacy to the adjoining property for its future occupants;

·       Balcony 2 is an enclosed space which serves as an extension of the master bedroom. The enclosed nature of the balcony in addition to the 2.5 square metre footprint does not meet the definition of ‘active habitable space’ as per the R Codes. Notwithstanding, the current provisions and definitions of R Codes – Volume 1 does not account for such spaces in the visual privacy assessment, which has recently been resolved as part of R Codes – Volume 2 (Apartments). Imminent review of Volume 1 may seek to resolve the assessment ambiguity for such spaces. As a result, the visual privacy from Balcony 2 is assessed as per the 7.5 metre cone of vision requirements as a worst-case scenario;

·       Balconies 1 and 2 are screened for the portion that is parallel to the lot boundary, resulting in a cone of vision which is oblique rather than direct;

·       The provision of trees for canopy coverage at the rear of the lot would provide additional landscaping screening to further obscure the cone of vision;

·       Balcony 2 is 2.5 square metres in area and can only be accessed from the Master on the upper floor of the dwelling. The space is unlikely to be used for extended periods of the time given the size of the balcony and its access limited to one habitable room; and

·       The proposed balconies look primarily in the direction of the ROW and would not allow a view corridor back towards the adjoining property. The proposed balconies are setback from the ROW and would not result in any portion of the cone of vision affecting the adjoining properties on the other side of the ROW.

 

North East

 

Balcony 1 proposes a 3.1 metre cone of vision to the north western lot boundary in lieu of the 7.5 metre deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes.

 

The City received submissions during the community consultation period raising concerns with the cone of vision from balcony 1 and the perceived loss of privacy.

 

The application is considered to meet the design principles of the R Codes for the following reasons:

 

·       The cone of vision from balcony 1 would fall to the extensive rear backyard of the dwellings at No. 69 Mary Street. In accordance with the R Codes explanatory guidelines, protection from overlooking is not required for open space other than that defined as outdoor living areas. Protection from overlooking generally is not necessary for extensive areas of garden which are well separated from the dwelling to which they relate. There are no major openings located to the rear of No. 67 Mary Street which would be impacted by the cone of vision. The cone of vision does not fall to habitable rooms or active habitable spaces for the occupants of these adjoining dwellings and does not inhibit the residential amenity and privacy of its occupants;

·       Balcony 1 is screened for the portion that is parallel to the lot boundary, resulting in a cone of vision which is oblique rather than direct;

·       The proposed balconies look primarily in the direction of the ROW and would not allow a view corridor back towards the adjoining property. The proposed balconies are setback from the ROW and would not result in any portion of the cone of vision affecting the adjoining properties on the other side of the ROW.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

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

 

Assessment of the application against the local housing objectives of the policy has identified the following built form and site planning measures implemented to encourage and maintain sustainable design of the dwelling:

 

·       The dwelling incorporates limited stepping of rooms to the internal floor plan of the site, to ensure the dwelling is and remains universally accessible and can be easily modified to accommodate changing family size and circumstances. This ensures the dwelling can evolve over time and remain in place for the future, rather than demolished should living arrangements and needs shift;

·       The siting and floor plan of the dwelling is established in line with the existing north east and south westerly orientation of the subject site;

·       Open fencing to northern (front) elevation is provided so as to not screen areas of north facing openings and open space for maximum natural light and access to winter sun;

·       Upper level windows are provided for access to year round natural light;

·       Climate moderation devices in the way of eaves, and cantilevered upper floor to allow for winter solar penetration and summer shading;

·       Openable windows for cross ventilation;

·       Dwelling incorporates north facing windows and living areas where practicable within the constraints of the block and R Codes to aid in access to light;

·       Reduced scale of openings on the western elevation to moderate internal temperatures;

·       Living spaces and habitable rooms open to private open spaces for natural and cross ventilation, reducing the reliance on passive heating and cooling devices;

·       Stepping of the southern elevation and structures to mitigate overshadowing and ensure sufficient solar access is provided to neighbouring dwellings;

·       Dwelling takes a tiered approach, stepping the upper floors away and articulated from the boundaries to reduce actual and perceived scale, shadowing and bulk to neighbouring dwellings. The stepping of development ensures ventilation and light corridors are maintained for the occupants and neighbouring dwellings; and

·       The applicant has also revised the dwellings colour and materials from a dark colour palette (grey and black) to earthy and neutral tones which assist with mitigating solar absorptance and urban heat island effect for the broader streetscape.

 

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

 

Administration has reviewed the proposal in light of the local housing objectives and is satisfied that the development has incorporated sufficient environmentally sustainable design features to meet the intended built form outcomes of development within the City.

 

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:

 

·       Incorporation of face brick detailing to the boundary walls as a feature of the dwelling, as seen in the façade of neighbouring dwellings and front fences within the immediate streetscape;

·       Pitched roof form with gable and chimney details to the façade;

·       Use of a light colour palette in the rendered finish of the dwelling façade and fixtures;

·       Architectural detailing on verandahs, gables roofs and the like of character dwellings along Bulwer Street;

·       Render and wrought iron infill complimentary to existing front fences along Mary Street; and

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

 

Review of the Mary Street streetscape by Administration and the DRP member notes the development has incorporated design features that ensure the development appropriately references and integrates with the surrounding streetscape and its built form context.

 

Heritage Management for Adjacent Properties

 

The site is adjacent to a State Heritage Property at Nos. 42 – 64 Mary Street which is inclusive of Sacred Heart Church, Halls and Presbytery Monastery. As per the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties, consideration is to be given to the statement of significance for the site which is as follows:

 

Sacred Heart Group is a notable ecclesiastical and education group esteemed by the district community and the local Parish and School communities. Each of the places is a fine example of its style, with the major buildings being designed by notable architects of their day, renowned for their work for the Catholic Church. The place has associations with the orders of Sisters of Our Lady, Redemptorist Fathers, Christian Brothers and Bishop Gibney and Archbishop Clune.

 

The proposed development is cognisant of the adjacent heritage property for the following reasons:

 

·       The colours and materials proposed are reflective of the existing dwelling – pitched roof with tile details, contrasting trims to external finishes and wrought iron fence detailing. The overall form, colours and materials are of a similar finish and provide a level of cohesion and continuity between the proposed dwelling and built form significance of the adjacent heritage site;

·       The dwelling is stepped in line with the natural slope of the site and does not appear obtrusive or dominant to the streetscape;

·       In line with the Burra Charter, the built form of the dwelling provides a clear differentiation between the original heritage fabric of the heritage site and the proposed dwelling so as to not create obscurity about the heritage premises or mimic the physical significance of the place; and

·       The proposed scale and siting of the dwelling from the primary street does not obscure the heritage site in any way.

 

The application was referred to the Department of Planning Lands and Heritage for comment. After review of the proposal, DPLH confirmed no issues or concerns with the proposed location and scope of works to the subject site.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020


 



 




Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 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                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

9.2          No. 305 (Lot: 4, D/P: 1602) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth - Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreation Private (Amendment to Approved) (Unauthorised Existing Development)

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Applicant's Supporting Information

4.       Previous Development Approvals

5.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's 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 to amend Development Approval dated 5.2014.124.1 dated 4 June 2014 for Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreation Private (Amendment to Approved) at No. 305 (Lot: 4; D/P: 1602) Fitzgerald Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following and with the associated determination advice notes included in Attachment 7:

1.       All conditions and requirements detailed on development approval 5.2014.124.1 dated 4 June 2014 continue apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1     Condition 2 is deleted;

1.2     Condition 3 is deleted and replaced with:

1.2.1  The maximum total number of clients shall be limited to twenty (20) at any one time;

1.3     Condition 4 is deleted and replaced with:

4. Hours of Operation

4.1     Prior to the provision of the amended Noise Management Plan in satisfaction of Condition 8 below, the hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 9:00am and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 12:00pm Saturday; and

4.2     Upon provision of the amended Noise Management Plan to the City in satisfaction of Condition 8 below, the hours of operation shall be limited to 5:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

1.4     Condition 8 is added:

8. Noise Management Plan

8.1     Within 28 days of the issue of this approval, the Applicant must engage a suitably qualified acoustic consultant to:

(a)      Review the Fibre Active West Noise Management Plan dated 26 October 2020 (NMP) submitted with this application to ascertain whether the measures specified in the NMP are sufficient to ensure noise emissions from activities at the premises will not exceed the assigned levels specified in the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (Assigned Levels) at all times during which the premises operates, namely 5:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

(b)      Consider whether any additional measures are required to ensure noise emissions from activities at the premises will not exceed the Assigned Levels at all times during which the premises operates; and

(c)      Prepare a report which states whether the measures specified in the NMP will ensure noise emissions from activities at the premises will not exceed the Assigned Levels at any time and identifies any additional measures required to ensure noise emissions from activities at the premises do not exceed the Assigned Levels (Report);

8.2     Within 35 days of the issue of this approval, provide a copy of the Report (referred to in Condition 8.1(c)) to the City;

8.3     Within 42 days of the issue of this approval, provide an amended noise management plan (amended NMP) to the City which incorporates any additional measures specified in the Report and which:

(a)      provides mitigation measures to ensure noise emissions at the premises do not exceed the Assigned Levels at any time during which the premises is operating, namely 5:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 5:00pm Saturday;

(b)      incorporates any additional measures specified in the Report; and

(c)      a procedure for dealing with complaints and breaches of the amended NMP, to the City’s satisfaction; and

8.4     All recommended measures in the Report shall be undertaken in accordance with the Report, to the City’s satisfaction, prior to the commencement of the hours of operation 5:30am to 6:00am and 9:00am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 12:00pm to 5:00pm Saturday as well as the increase of patron numbers to a maximum of 20 during any operating hours, and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers. The use shall at all times operate in compliance with the amended NMP.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an amendment to a previous approval for a Change of Use from Warehouse to Recreation Private (Unauthorised Existing Development) at No. 305 Fitzgerald Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The subject site is located at No. 305 Fitzgerald Street, West Perth, as shown on the location plan as included as Attachment 1.

 

A Recreation Private use (Gym) has operated at the subject site from August 2013 in accordance with the development application approved by Council at the Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 26 March 2013 and amended application approved by Administration under Delegated Authority on 4 June 2014.

 

The use is a ‘CrossFit Gym’ which is a structured high-intensity interval training fitness class under the guidance of a coach with activities consisting of a combination of free weight exercises, skipping and rowing.

 

The amendments proposed as part of this development application are summarised as follows:

 

Occupancy Numbers

 

The proposed development application seeks to increase the number of occupants on-site at any given time. The Gym currently operates in accordance with Conditions 2 and 3 of the previous approval that provides the following occupancy numbers:

 

2.       The maximum total number of employees shall be limited to five (5) at any one time

 

3.       The maximum total number of clients shall be limited to fifteen (15) at any one time.

 

The application proposes to delete Condition 2 relating to the maximum number of employees and proposes to amend Condition 3 relating to the maximum number of clients, to allow a maximum of 20 clients on-site at any one time.

 

Operating Hours

 

The proposed development application seeks an amendment to the previously approved operating hours to broaden the usage of the facility. The use currently operates in accordance with Condition 4 of the previous approval that provides the following operating hours:

 

2.       The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 9:00am and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 12:00pm Saturday, inclusive and accordingly, the classes shall be scheduled to allow a 15 minute interval between classes to enable sufficient time for patrons to arrive and leave the facility.

 

The application proposes to amend Condition 4 relating to the hours of operation to:

 

(a)      Allow the premises to operate from 5:30am to 8:00pm Monday to Friday;

(b)      Allow the premises to operate from 7:00am to 5:00pm on Saturday; and

(c)      Remove the requirement to have a 15 minute interval between classes.

 

Advertising Signage

 

The development application also seeks approval for three unauthorised existing signs on the Fitzgerald Street elevation of the building.

 

All other aspects of the use remain as per the previous approval.

 

The proposed development plans are included in Attachment 2. The supporting information provided by the applicant is included in Attachment 3, comprising a summary of the proposed amendments, Parking Management Plan and Noise Management Plan.

Background:

Landowner:

Jedan Holdings Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Bjorn Voon

Date of Application:

4 August 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Commercial        R Code: N/A

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Recreation Private

Proposed Use Class:

Recreation Private

Lot Area:

354.5m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Fitzgerald Street to the south-east, Eden Street to the north-west and commercial properties to the north and south. On the opposite side of Fitzgerald Street are commercial developments and on the opposite side of Eden Street are residential developments including Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings.

 

The subject site and adjoining properties along Fitzgerald Street are zoned Commercial under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are within the Activity Corridor as prescribed under the City’s Local Planning Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The adjoining properties across Eden Street are zoned Residential R80 under LPS 2 and are within the Residential Built Form Area under the Built Form Policy.

 

Previous Approvals

 

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 26 March 2013 Council approved the proposed change of use from ‘Warehouse’ to ‘Recreation Private’. In accordance with Condition 4 of the approval, the term of approval issued for this application was one year after which time the applicant was required to obtain further development approval.

 

On 20 March 2014 the applicant lodged a development application seeking approval for the Recreation Private use in perpetuity. Following assessment the application was approved under Delegated Authority on 4 June 2014. Based on the Delegated Authority Register for 2013/2014, the determination was permitted under Delegated Authority. The Delegated Authority Register 2013/2014 did not require amended development applications to be referred back to Council for determination and when advertised the application received less than six written objections.

 

The Minutes of the 26 March 2013 Ordinary Council Meeting, the 4 June 2014 Delegated Approval Notice and previously approved development plans are included as Attachment 4.

 

Previous Compliance

 

A compliance investigation commenced in relation to the Gym in May 2020 following a number of complaints that were received in relation to noise, operating hours and vibration impacts from the Gym. The applicant has submitted the proposed development application seeking approval for the change in operation hours and signage in response to the compliance investigation.

 

The Gym has since altered their morning operating time to start again at 6:00am, in accordance with the previously approved operating hours. The Gym is still however operating a class at 1:00pm Monday to Friday, which is outside the previously approved operating hours. Administration exercised its discretion under Policy No. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement to allow the Gym to operate between 9:00am and 5:00pm.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising (Signs and Advertising Policy), Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation (Sound Attenuation Policy) and Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Non-Residential Development Parking Policy).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Previously approved

Requires further Discretion

Land Use

 

ü

 

Parking

ü

 

 

Bicycle Facilities

ü

 

 

Operating Hours

ü

 

 

Advertising Signage

 

 

ü

Sound Attenuation

 

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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


 

Advertising Signs

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

 

Two wall signs permitted

 

 

Three wall signs proposed.

Sound Attenuation

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation

 

Acoustic report required for non-residential uses that propose amplified music

 

 

Acoustic report not provided.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days from 4 September 2020 to 17 September 2020. The method of consultation included website notification and 14 letters being mailed to all the owners and occupiers of the properties adjoining the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

 

During the community consultation, the City received a total of 98 submissions, including five objections and 93 letters of support. The concerns raised are summarised as follows:

 

·       Dropping of weights, music and yelling of trainers causes excessive noise and vibration which impacts the amenity of adjoining properties;

·       Noise issues from the premises have been ongoing for a number of years; and

·       The noise management measures proposed have not been verified.

 

The submissions received during the consultation period are summarised with their relative locations in the table below.

 

Submissions received during the advertising period

Within 100 metres of subject site

More than 100 metres from subject site

All submissions

SUPPORT

5.1%

89.8%

94.9%

OBJECT

5.1%

0%

5.1%

OTHER

(not stated/no opinion)

 

N/A

 

N/A

 

N/A

 

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

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

 

The application did not require referral to the DRP given there are no internal or external works proposed, with the exception of advertising signage.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

·       Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising;

·       Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation; and

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

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

In accordance with Schedule 2, Clause 76(2) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 and Part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, the applicant would 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 impacts the conditions imposed.

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:

The City has considered the application against the Environmentally Sustainable Design Provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, which is informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Car Parking

 

The following proposed amendments to previous conditions of approval would impact on car parking provisions and are discussed below:

 

·       The proposed deletion of Condition 2 relating to the maximum number of employees permitted on-site at any given time;

·       The proposed amendment to Condition 3 relating to the maximum number of clients, to allow a maximum of 20 clients on-site at any one time; and

·       The proposed amendment of Condition 4 of the previous development approval to remove the requirement for a 15-minute interval to be provided between classes.

 

Applicant Justification

 

The Applicant has provided written justification and a Parking Management Plan in support of the proposed amendments to conditions, as included in Attachment 3. The Applicant’s justification for the amendments is summarised below:

 

·       The condition relating to the removal of the requirement for intervals between classes is not considered to be valid and applicable given the requirement for an interval is not referenced in any of the City’s planning policies;

·       Sufficient parking is provided in the locality to accommodate the use. As sufficient parking exists, the interval period is considered unreasonable in the context of class scheduling;

·       The site is within close proximity to alternative transport including high frequency bus routes and pedestrian and cycle pathways. The use of these alternative methods would be encouraged by the owner; and

·       Classes are not open to the public and must be reserved online, which provides certainty to the numbers attending the class.

 

Previous Approvals and Policy Requirements

 

In accordance with the Non-Residential Development Parking Policy, the Gym requires 0.22 car bays per person.

 

Under the Applicant’s justification submitted as included in Attachment 3, the Gym proposes a total of 22 people to be on-site at any given time, including 20 clients and two staff, resulting in a requirement for 4.84 car bays to be provided on-site. There are three constructed car-bays on-site accessed from Eden Lane. The proposal results in a car parking shortfall of 1.8 car bays on-site.

 

Under the 2013 development approval, a car parking shortfall of 2.06 bays was approved, with the requirement for a cash-in-lieu payment of $7,203. This was based on a total of 11 people being on-site at any one time.

 

Under the 2014 amended development approval an additional parking shortfall of 1.66 bays was approved with no additional requirement for cash-in-lieu contributions. This was based on a total of 20 people being on-site at any one time.

 

A total shortfall of 3.72 bays has been previously approved for the Gym under the 2013 and 2014 development approvals.

 

The City’s Non-Residential Development Parking Policy came into effect in March 2018 that applied revised parking requirements for Recreation Private. While occupancy numbers have increased on-site, the revised parking provisions for Recreation Private under the current policy do not result in additional parking requirements for the site.

 

Based on the current policy and occupancy numbers, the development does not provide a further parking shortfall than that previously approved.

 

Administration Comments

 

The removal of Condition 2 relating to a limit on employees permitted on-site at any one time; the amendment to Condition 3 relating to the maximum number of clients increasing by five people; and the removal of the requirement for a 15 minute interval to be provided between classes is suitable for the following reasons:

 

·       Administration did not receive community consultation objections in relation to car parking and the proposed condition modifications. The City received a number of support letters that highlighted car parking within the area is sufficient for members;

·       The development does not result in a further shortfall to the previously approved parking shortfall;

·       After seven years of operation, the Gym has demonstrated that the parking for the use does not have a detrimental impact on traffic or parking for residents or business in the area. The City has not received any complaints relating to car parking since the use commenced operation;

·       The purpose of the Condition requiring intervals between classes was to ensure clients could leave the premises prior to new classes commencing to assist with car parking availability. There are a number of on-street parking options within close proximity of the subject site which can suitably accommodate parking without the need for intervals between classes, including:

o   16 bays along  Eden Street between Bulwer Street and Vincent Street (no time restrictions applicable);

o   10 bays along Fitzgerald Street between Bulwer Street and Vincent Street (only time restrictions relate to bus lanes. No parking permitted between 6:30am – 9:00am heading south. No parking permitted between 4:30pm – 6:00pm heading north);

o   36 bays along Bulwer Street between Fitzgerald Street and Vincent Street (2 hour time restriction between 8:00am and 5:30pm);

·       The development provides four short term bicycle bays and can provide long term bicycle bays within the premises. End of trip facilities have been provided to accommodate visitors accessing the development by cycling. There are dedicated cycle lanes on both sides of Bulwer Street and in addition there are footpaths provided on both sides of Fitzgerald Street, Eden Street and Vincent Street;

·       The subject site is well serviced by public transport being located on a high frequency bus route along Fitzgerald Street; and

·       There is minimal risk removing the condition requiring a number of staff on-site as the Applicant’s written justification details that two staff would be expected to be on-site at any given time. It is not expected that the number of staff would substantially increase given the client numbers proposed. It is likely that staff, if driving to work, would park within the on-site bays.

 

Sufficient on-site parking is provided for staff of the development and there is sufficient alternative transport methods and public parking within the vicinity of the subject site to accommodate any customer parking demand. The amendments as proposed meet the objectives of the Non-Residential Development Parking Policy and are supported.

 

Signage

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising (Signs and Advertising Policy) permits a maximum of two wall signs per tenancy. The development application seeks approval for three unauthorised existing wall signs to the Fitzgerald Street elevation.

 

The City did not receive specific community submissions relating to the proposed advertising signage. The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Signs and Advertising Policy as follows:

 

·       The signage provided meets the permitted dimensions and area as prescribed in the Signs and Advertising Policy;

·       The scale and design of the signage is appropriate to the building and the architectural detailing to which it relates. The additional signage does not result in a proliferation of signage;

·       As two of the signs are white in colour and attached to a white wall, the signage does not dominate the streetscape;

·       The scale and design of the signage is compatible with the existing surrounding development and the size and colours of the sign are appropriate with the area; and

·       The proposal ensures that the signage does not adversely impact the amenity of the surrounding properties, while providing appropriate exposure of the proposed use.

 

Noise Management

 

Proposed Amendments

 

The application seeks approval for additional operating hours to broaden the use of the Gym. The use currently operates in accordance with Condition 4 of the previous approval that provides the following operating hours:

 

4.       The hours of operation shall be limited to 6:00am to 9:00am and 5:00pm to 8:00pm Monday to Friday and 7:00am to 12:00pm Saturday, inclusive and accordingly, the classes shall be scheduled to allow a 15 minute interval between classes to enable sufficient time for patrons to arrive and leave the facility.

 

The additional operating hours to be considered as part of this application are:

 

·       Monday to Friday 5:30am – 6:00am;

·       Monday to Friday 9:00am – 5:00pm; and

·       Saturday 12:00pm – 5:00pm.

 

Policy Requirements

 

The City does not have any Local Planning Policies that outline requirements for operating hours for Recreation Private uses but the City’s Sound Attenuation Policy requires development applications for non-residential uses that involve amplified music to be accompanied by an acoustic report.

 

The previous development applications for the use were approved without any acoustic report or noise management plan in support of the use.

 

Proposed Noise Mitigation Measures

 

The applicant has not provided an acoustic report prepared by an Acoustic Consultant/Engineer in support of the proposed additional operating hours and is seeking a variation to the Sound Attenuation Policy.

 

The Applicant has provided a Noise Management Plan and written justification to address the management of noise generated on site for the additional operating hours proposed. The proposed Noise Management Plan is included in Attachment 3 and proposes the following measures:

 

·       The use of rubber mats when certain weights may be dropped. The use of mats are for movements where there is a possibility that barbells may be dropped;

·       Requirements for barbells and weights to be under control. The noise management plan states the only time weights will be dropped is when a person cannot safely control the weight;

·       Implementation of volume control levels for different times of the day;

·       Noise mitigation measures for amplified music, voice levels and the opening of roller door for different parts of the day; and

·       Contact details of the Gym owner provided to all surrounding properties to assist in quick response to noise matters.

 

In addition to the Noise Management Plan measures proposed, the use would still be required to comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 at all times.

 

Administration Comments

 

The Noise Management Plan has not been prepared or verified by an acoustic consultant, as such, there is no evidence to confirm the mitigation measures will be effective to control the noise emitted from activities at the venue, or that the activities comply with the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. Since July 2020, Administration have consistently recommended the applicant engage the services of a noise specialist/acoustic consultant to provide them certainty around the proposal.

 

Administration consider the proposed noise management strategies will go some way to mitigating the impact of activities from the Gym, so long as the Gym rules are administered and any breaches of those rules are investigated.

 

The Noise Management Plan provides a commitment for the applicant to comply with what has been written within the Plan. The Noise Management Plan is a daily tool which would be used to manage the Gym. The Noise Management Plan would also provide more assurance to the adjoining neighbours that the gym would control its activities on a daily basis in an appropriate manner.

 

It has been identified that additional measures could be included within the Noise Management Plan to better manage the activities of the Gym. Administration recommends a condition of development approval requiring an amended Noise Management Plan be submitted to the satisfaction of the City outlining measures that will be implemented to address any complaints or breaches to the Plan’s requirements and the compliance measures that will be undertaken where breaches of these requirements are identified. This requirement would assist to minimise the impact of noise on surrounding residents and tenancies.

 

The applicant has suggested the measures have been tested with the adjoining properties but not by a technical expert. Administration sought legal advice in relation to whether it would be reasonable to enforce a condition of approval requiring the Noise Management Plan to be reviewed by an acoustic consultant. This requirement would confirm that the management strategies would be effective in protecting the amenity of occupants in the surrounding properties from the impacts of noise and that they would achieve compliance with the assigned levels of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Noise Regulations) for all hours of operation.

 

Legal advice received confirmed that it would be reasonable to require a technical review by an acoustic consultant as the City has received a number of complaints about noise and vibration and as the proposal is also significantly increasing the intensity of the discretionary land use. This is for amenity purposes and is irrespective of the need for the applicant to comply with the Noise Regulations.

 

The legal advice also confirmed that it is orderly and proper to impose noise management measures through the noise management plan for the entire operation of the land use and not just the operating hours proposed through the amendment.

 

As such, in response to a number of complaints received in relation to noise and vibration, Administration has recommended a condition of approval requiring a technical review to be undertaken by an acoustic consultant that demonstrates that the noise management strategies set out in the Noise Management Plan would be effective in meeting the assigned levels of the Noise Regulations.

 

The technical review would provide assurance to both the City and neighbouring properties that the measures implemented by the Noise Management Plan would be effective in mitigating the impact of noise to not adversely impact the amenity and comfort of surrounding properties.

 

An advice note has also been recommended regarding the requirement to have ongoing compliance with the Regulations. The operation is required to comply at all times with all aspects of the Regulations, irrespective of what conditions are imposed on the development approval. Should the City receive a justified complaint regarding unreasonable noise or vibration from the venue, the City’s Authorised Officers would investigate and take necessary action according to the Regulations.

 

If the application is approved by Council the City’s Compliance Services team would follow up the compliance with the Noise Management Plan related conditions to ensure they are met within the specified timeframes and that the recommendations as provided within the Noise Management Plan are implemented.

 

The proposed amendment to the approval is supported, subject to the recommended conditions relating to the Noise Management Plan.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 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



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

9.3          Nos. 103-105 (Lot: 38; D/P: 28) Summers Street, Perth - Proposed Child Care Premises (Amendment to Approved)

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Location Plan

2.       Previous Minutes of Approval and Plans

3.       Development Plans  

 

 

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 Change of Use to Child Care Premises (Amendment to Approved) at Nos. 103-105 (Lot: 38; D/P: 28) Summers Street, Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3 dated 5 October 2020, subject to the following:

1.       All conditions and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2015.586.1 granted on 20 September 2016 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1     Condition 1 is amended to read as follows:

1.1     A maximum of 63 children and 15 staff are permitted on site at any one time;

1.2     The Child Care Premises shall only operate between:

·        Monday to Friday: 7:00am – 6:30pm; and

·        Closed Saturday, Sunday and Public Holidays.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for an amendment to a previous approval for a change of use from Grouped Dwelling to Community Use (Day Care Centre) at Nos. 103-105 Summers Street, Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to increase the number of children from the previously approved maximum of 60 to 63. The application does not propose any modifications to the existing building which require further development approval. The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 3.

 

The applicant has sought an increase to the number of permitted children due to the increase in demand for places at the centre due to its success since opening in 2016.

Background:

Landowner:

Teresa Mangione

Applicant:

Rowe Group

Date of Application:

5 October 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R80

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Child Care Premises – ‘A’

Proposed Use Class:

Child Care Premises – ‘A’

Lot Area:

1,013m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is bound by Summers Street to the north, a single storey grouped dwelling to the west, Norwood Park to the east, a single storey single house to the south east and a two storey commercial development to the south west.

 

The subject site and adjoining property to the west are zoned Residential R80 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are located within the Residential built form area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The adjoining property to the south east is zoned Commercial under LPS2 and is located within the Mixed Use built form area under the Built Form Policy. The adjoining property to the south west is zoned Mixed Use R100 under LPS2 and is located within the Mixed Use built form area under the Built Form Policy.

 

The subject site and adjoining property to the west have a permitted maximum building height of 4 storeys and the adjoining properties to the south have a maximum building height of 12 storeys under the Built Form Policy.

 

The subject site is located within the Perth Parking Management Area under the Perth Parking Management Act 1999.

 

The subject site is currently occupied by the Akidamy School of Early Learning in accordance with the conditional approval for a Change of Use from Grouped Dwelling to Community Use (Day Care Centre) granted by Council at its Ordinary Meeting held on the 20 September 2016. The minutes from this meeting, including a copy of the approved plans, are included in Attachment 2.

 

The previous development application was approved under the East Perth Redevelopment Authority Scheme (EPRA Scheme) which has since been rescinded and replaced by LPS2. The EPRA Scheme did not include a land use definition for child care premises and the application was assessed under the land use description of ‘community use (day care centre)’. The current application has been assessed as an amendment to the previous approval with the description of the application updated to child care premises which is consistent with the current land use definitions under LPS2.

 

A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2 and the City’s policies including Policy No. 7.5.3 – Education and Care Services (Education and Care Services Policy).  In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Previously approved

Requires further Discretion

Land Use

 

ü

 

Car Parking

 

ü

 

Education and Care Services Policy

 

 

ü

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Education and Care Services Policy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.5.3 – Education and Care Services

Clause 2.3 – External Play Space

 

7 square metres of external play space per child which equates to 441 square metres.

 

 

 

411.5 square metres of external play space.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The application does not require advertising. The application does not propose any departures from the relevant planning framework which could reasonably be considered to have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties or the surrounding streetscape. The land use was approved in 2016 and the proposal to increase the maximum number of children by three would not substantially alter the existing land use. The external built form outcome remains unchanged when viewed from the public realm. In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Consultation, the proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on the community, or the economy, lifestyle, amenity and/or environment of any member of the community or community group.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

·       Policy No. 7.5.3 – Education and Care Services; and

·       Perth Parking Management Act.

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

The application to amend an approval can be considered in accordance with Schedule 2, Clause 77(1)(b) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015.  Clause 77(2)(b) allows the application to be made during or after the period within which the development must be substantially commenced. Clause 77(4) provides the local government the ability to approve the application with or without conditions or refuse the application.

 

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 would have the right to apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the Council’s determination.

 

Perth Parking Management Act 1999

 

The subject site is located within the Perth Parking Management Area under the Perth Parking Management Act 1999, which provides provisions relating to the maximum amount of car parking which is permitted to be provided in a development but does not provide any minimum requirements. The City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements does not apply to the subject site.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 


 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City has considered the application against the Environmentally Sustainable Design Provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, which is informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Child Care Premises External Play Space

 

The application proposes to increase the maximum number of children from 60 to 63. The City’s Education and Care Services Policy requires child care premises to provide 7 square metres of external play space per child which equates to 441 square metres the application proposes 411.5 square metres of external play space.

 

The departure to the Education and Care Services Policy is consistent with the objectives of the Policy and would not adversely affect the surrounding area for the following reasons:

 

·       The existing external play space provides both covered and uncovered areas allowing it to be used all year round. The play space is established and provides a diverse range of different spaces and activities that can be used by the children;

·       The land use has previously been approved by the City and the proposal to increase the maximum number of children by three would not substantially alter the existing land use, the proposal would have a negligible impact on the surrounding area in relation to noise, parking and traffic. The location of the Child Care Premises on the end of Summers Street adjacent to Norwood Park to the east and non-residential land uses to the south further reduces the impact of the development on the surrounding area;

·       The Child Care Premises will continue to provide a total of four on-site parking spaces as per the previous approval. The site is located within the Perth Parking Management Plan Area which provides maximum parking requirements rather than minimum parking requirements, the City’s Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements is not applicable to the subject site. Notwithstanding, the increase in children by three would not result in a significant increase in traffic movements to and from the site and the existing parking arrangement would remain sufficient;

·       Aside from the parking bays provided on site, the City has recorded a total of 51 parking spaces located along Summers Street between West Parade and Lord Street. A Street parking survey was conducted in November/December 2018 which identified the demand for parking on the street, the average duration of stay and what time of day the spaces were occupied. For Summers Street the survey data stated the following:

o   At peak demand the parking spaces provided reached a capacity of 51 percent or 26 vehicles. This was between the hours of 12:00pm and 2:00pm. As the drop off and pick up times for the Child Care Premises are between the hours of 7:00am-10:00am and 3:00pm-6:00pm, the data suggests that there would be adequate parking available during this time for parents to drop off their children;

o   The average time vehicles were in the street parking bays was for 2 hours with an average total of 33 vehicles. Following this the next highest duration of stay was for four hours and had an average of 10 vehicles. This shows that parking is readily available as users would only be there for a short period of time;

·       The Child Care Premises is located 40 metres from the East Perth Train Station and associated car park which provides a practical alternate means of transport;

·       The development continues to provide two bike racks on site, however these have been moved with the approval of the City through a Building permit; and

·       Based on the City’s records, no compliance matters have been raised or investigated in relation to the existing child care premises since it commenced operating in 2016.

 

The proposed increase of three children would not result in any adverse impact to the adjoining properties or surrounding area. It is recommended that the Council approves this amendment to the previous development approval.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

9.4          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.       Deferred Development Plans

6.       Administration Streetscape Analysis

7.       Applicant Justification

8.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

9.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant's 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).

 

Ordinary Meeting of Council 20 October 2020

 

The application was previously presented to Council at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 20 October 2020 for determination, at the request of the applicant Administration recommended that Council refuse the application 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.

 

After consideration of the application, the following procedural motion was carried by Council:

 

The application to be deferred to enable the applicant to address the issues related to separation of balconies and impact of the building mass.  Report to be presented to Council no later than 17 November 2020 Council Meeting.

 

The development plans presented to Council on 20 October 2020 that resulted in the deferral are included as Attachment 5.

 

Key Changes

The applicant submitted amended development plans to the City on 26 October 2020, in accordance with Council’s procedural motion to defer the item. The amended development plans sought to address the aforementioned deferral reasons cited by Council. The changes undertaken by the applicant to address the reasons for deferral and Administrations recommendation are as follows:

 

·       Increase ground floor setback to 3.3 metres;

·       Increase upper floor setback to 2.8 metres;

·       Provide 2.5 metre separation of the balconies, articulated 2.2 metres behind the balconies;

·       Introduced additional openings from the living rooms to address Deague Court;

·       Revised the roof form and pitch of Unit 2;

·       Revised the colours and materials of the dwellings;

·       Reduced the width of the driveways to the dwellings; and

·       Revised the studio doors/openings to portrait style windows

 

The appropriateness of the grouped dwellings as well as the revisions to the plans are discussed in further detail under relevant headings in the Comments section of this report.

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: 3.3 metres

Upper Floor

Balcony: 2.8 metres

Living: 5.0 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: 3.4 metres

Average height: 3.35 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

38.7% 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 8. The applicant’s written justification for the proposal, as well as written response to the submissions received are provided as Attachment 7 and Attachment 9 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 5 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.

 

After deferral of the application at Council’s Ordinary Meeting in October, the applicant prepared plans (Attachment 2) seeking to address Council’s deferral reasons, specifically the separation of balconies and impact of the building mass. The City sought comments on the amended proposal from the Design Review Panel member which are summarised as follows:

 

·       Changes in the roof form, materiality and articulation between the two dwellings appears to provide differing built forms, allowing the dwellings to read as being distinct from one another while still being ‘related’;

·       The increased street setback is positive;

·       The additional articulation, colours and materials of the dwellings create sufficient and reasonable modulation when viewed from the street;

·       The proposal provides a suitable built form outcome within the context of Deague Court. The location does have the benefit of the park adjacent and open aspect to the street, to afford a more flexible approach to street setback;

·       The garage doors have been reduced to single doors so no longer dominate the frontage; and

·       Single width crossovers and garden areas in front of the studio, as well as articulation of the windows resolves the previous issues regarding the appearance of these rooms as a possible car parking spaces.

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 3.3 metres to the garage and studio on the ground floor, and 2.8 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 3. 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 2.8 metres from the street boundary, 0.5 metres forward of the ground floor setback, limiting actual articulation of the upper floor. The dwellings with protruding 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;

·       In response to the deferred application at the 20 October 2020 Council meeting the applicant has prepared amended plans which introduce additional colours and materials (horizontal cladding, contrasting render colours, amended window sizes and a revised roof form to Unit 2) to the façade of the development. The contrasting cladding and renders to the ground and upper floors of both dwellings creates a level of distinction between Unit 1 and Unit 2 to mitigate the appearance of blank and monotonous facades, however the contrasting colours and materials apply only to those portions within the street setback with this same approach not demonstrated on remainder of the dwelling as viewed from adjacent properties. While the updated facades of the dwelling now express a legible difference between the two dwellings, the colours and materials do not reduce the impact of building bulk of the development on the streetscape with the dwellings remaining well forward of the average street setback;

·       The upper floor balconies located forward of the garages on 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. While the materiality has improved between the ground and upper floor in the revised plans there has been no physical change to the ground floor form and this still presents as a flat façade;

·       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 6. 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 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 3.4 metres and a maximum height of 3.35 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 38.7 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                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020


 


 



 



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020


 


 



 



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

9.5          Place Plan Minor Annual Review

Attachments:             1.       Vincent Town Centre Place Plan (VTCPP)

2.       North Perth Town Centre Place Plan (NPTCPP)

3.       Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan (MHTCPP)

4.       Implementation Framework Progress Update VTCPP

5.       Implementation Framework Progress Update NPTCPP

6.       Implementation Framework Progress Update MHTCPP

7.       Vincent Town Centre Place Plan Review

8.       North Perth Town Centre Place Plan Review

9.       Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan Review  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the revisions made to the Vincent Town Centre Place Plan, North Perth Town Centre Place Plan, and Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan, shown in Attachment 7, Attachment 8, and Attachment 9; and

2.       NOTES the annual review of the Place Plans for 2020 where Administration will finalise the revisions to the Vincent Town Centre Place Plan, North Perth Town Centre Place Plan, and Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan to be presented for endorsement at 17 November 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to provide Council with an update on the Place Plans implementation over the past 12 months and provide recommended minor amendments to ensure the Place Plans continue to be robust and responsive documents.

Background:

On 1 May 2018, Council adopted the first two Town Centre Place Plans, the Vincent Town Centre Place Plan (VTCPP) and the North Perth Town Centre Plan (NPTCPP).  Once adopted, Place Plans are scheduled for an annual minor review. With a major review scheduled every four years following Place Plan adoption. Following this schedule, the VTCPP and NPTCPP included as Attachments 1 and 2 were reviewed and refined at the Ordinary Meeting of Council (OMC) on 25 June 2019.

 

At the 17 September 2019 OMC, the Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan (MHTCPP) was adopted and can be viewed as Attachment 3. The MHTCPP is now due for the first annual minor review and the VTCPP and NPTCP are due for their second annual minor review.

 

This minor annual reviews involve a progress assessment of actions within the Place Plans. Feedback was also sought from Council Members and Town Teams. The review has now been completed, in line with the adopted approach to the Place Plan implementation, as shown below.

 

Details:

Progress of the key action items outlined within the Place Plans is assessed in each Implementation Framework Progress Update included as Attachments 4, 5 and 6.  These attachments provide an update on each key action item and the associated Place Plan document changes proposed as part of the minor review.

 

The Progress Updates include changes to:

w

·       Project delivery dates as a result of the effects of COVID-19;

·       Reflect completed actions; and

·       The assignment business unit for certain actions, based on skills sets and capabilities.

 

These changes are marked up in the reviewed Place Plans, included as Attachments 7, 8, and 9.

 

Informing Documents

 

The annual review has also involved consideration of the following informing documents that have been prepared or reviewed within the past 12 months:

 

·       Safer Vincent Plan 2019/22;

·       Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019 - 2024; and

·       City of Vincent Rebound Plan.

 

Further informing documents are currently under development, or have recently been endorsed, and would be considered as part of the next annual review:

 

·       Accessible City Strategy;

·       Economic Development Strategy;

·       Leederville Activity Centre Plan;

·       Leederville Oval Masterplan;

·       Public Health Plan;

·       Sports and Recreation Plan; and

·       Vincent Wayfinding Strategy.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation of Place Plans occurs at the four year major review. For the annual review, feedback has mainly been sought from Town Teams and the monthly Rebound Roundtable.

Legal/Policy:

Nil

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to endorse the revised Place Plans which will guide the implementation of key action items within the Town Centres for the next year.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

 

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.

 

Connected Community

An arts culture flourishes and is celebrated in the City of Vincent.

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

 

Thriving Places

We are recognised as a City that supports local and small business.

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

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

 

Sensitive Design

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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:

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:

Nil.

Comments:

The Place Plans are ‘place based’ strategic documents that guide the direction of funding and resources to support each of the City’s five town centres by unlocking their economic, social and environmental potential.

 

The preparation, implementation and review of the Place Plans for each Town Centre aligns with Council’s adopted approach to Place Management.  This approach to Place Management is evolving through the following three-phase process:

 

·       Phase 1: Establish;

·       Phase 2: Plan; and

·       Phase 3: Manage.

 

The ongoing review of the Place Plans will ensure that the City’s direction keeps pace with emerging trends and community aspirations for the Town Centres.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator




 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 



PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 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                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 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                                                                                17 November 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                                                               17 November 2020

10          Infrastructure & Environment

10.1        Response to Petition - E-Permit Implementation Update

Attachments:             1.       E-Permits 2nd letter to residents advising the site is now live

2.       Getting help with your e-Permit  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the update on the implementation of the E-Permits system and that a further update report will be provided to Council in February 2021.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide an update to Council on the implementation of the E-Permit system.

Background:

A petition requesting that Council review the decision to introduce an electronic permit system containing 26 signatures was received by Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting of the 20th October 2020. Council resolved that the petition be received and a report prepared for the next meeting.

 

The introduction of an electronic parking permit system (E-Permit) to replace the current paper parking permit system involves no change to Council Policy. Residential properties retain the same allocation of parking permits and residents will still be eligible to park within the same zones with the same conditions.

Details:

The E-Permit system went live on Monday 2 November 2020 after a period of testing involving more than 30 members of the public. A total of 3,421 hard copy letters and 854 emails were sent to existing residential permit holders to advise them that the system was live and providing details of how to create their account (Attachment 1). The communication directed residents to the City’s website where information on how to create an account, an instructional video and FAQ’s are available to help residents. Residents who require any form of assistance were advised to contact the Rangers Administration Team via a direct telephone line.

 

Residents were allocated a unique access code in the notification letter/email that was linked to their property and the account for that property could not be created without the correct code being entered. This access code was made available only to current permit holders, in lieu of them having to upload or produce proof of residency. New residents that require an e-permit, are required to make contact with the Ranger Administration team and provide proof of residency. Once it has been validated, they will then receive their access code from Ranger Administration, which will enable them to then create an E-Permit account.

 

To date the implementation has been smooth and orderly with 1,215 residents having created their accounts.

 

Access and Inclusion

 

Administration has a strong understanding of the different needs of our community, and the age demographic of the City’s residents, through extensive experience and daily contact with residents on parking issues. To assist residents that may not have access to the internet, are elderly or have a disability that precludes them from accessing or creating an E-Permit, Ranger Services have the following contingencies in place;

 

·      Phone service – the resident can contact the City on 9273 6022, which is a direct line into Ranger Services. They will then be assisted, and Administration can either talk them through how to create an account or create the account for them;

 

·      Phone service after hours – The City has ‘Insight’ in place who monitor and receive after hours calls. Any calls received ‘after hours, will be directed through to the Ranger that is on call. That Ranger will then take all of the caller’s details including name, address and vehicle registration(s), and advise the Ranger team by email. Ranger Administration will contact the resident the next business day to see if they can provide any further assistance or advice.  If the Ranger is not available, a message will be taken and passed on;

 

·      In Person - At the Customer Service Centre, Ranger Services can meet the resident and assist them with creating an account, managing their account or assisting with any concerns they may have. This can be either through a scheduled meeting time, or also for those that come into the Library without notice;

 

·      Family members - can also assist a resident in managing their account. They can also make contact with the Ranger Services team for assistance on the resident’s behalf;

 

·      Service providers – Administration can create an E-permit allocation for a service provider that accommodate the needs of a vulnerable resident permit holder.

 

·      In exceptional circumstances Administration can consider varying the requirement to use an E-permit in line with Council Policy 3.9.3 (Parking Permits), subject to the applicant providing written justification. The need to vary the requirement will need to be genuine and has not be offered as a service option as such a variation is seen to be required only in exceptional circumstances.

 

·      E-Permit Guide for the Elderly, Persons with Disability, and their Carers - An e-permit guide has been developed to support the elderly and persons with disability.  This will be available online, at the Library, and will be mailed out with reminder notices for establishing an e-Permit.

 

To date, there has been 15 requests for assistance and all have been dealt with quickly and easily. Eleven accounts have been created where the resident has come into the Library and Administration staff have assisted them face to face, and four accounts have been created by Administration staff whilst the resident has been on the phone.

 

The approached described above will be monitored and kept under review and can be adapted accordingly as the implementation proceeds.  The implementation program for e-permits complies with the principles of the City of Vincent Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2017 – 2022.  Administration is also remaining in communication with disability service providers during implementation and adapting protocols as required to maximise access and inclusion.

 

Customer feedback

A short survey has been sent to new account holders requesting feedback and there is a link to the survey on the website for future new account holders. The results of the survey will be provided to Council in the next update report.

 

Next Steps

Paper permits will be honoured throughout the transition period until the end of January 2021. A reminder letter or email will be sent to all residents that have not yet created an account in the week of the 11 January 2021. This communication will remind resident to create an account and also ask for feedback on any concerns they may have with setting or operating an account.

Consultation/Advertising:

Administration has sent a short survey to new account holders and will send a further letter requesting feedback to those residents that have not yet created an account on or around the 11 January 2021.

Legal/Policy:

Nil

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for the City to have the E-permits system implemented.

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.

 

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The replacement of approximately 10,000 paper permits with E-permits is a more sustainable option.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Nil

Financial/Budget Implications:

The E –permit system will result in an estimated saving of $6,200 per annum.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

11          Community & Business Services

11.1        Outcome of advertising and adoption of amendments - Purchasing Policy

Attachments:             1.       Summary of Submissions

2.       Purchasing Policy - Updated 2020 - marked up copy

3.       Purchasing Policy - Updated 2020 - clean copy  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the community submission received in relation to amendments to the Purchasing Policy, at Attachment 1; and

2        ADOPTS the Purchasing Policy at Attachment 2.

 

Purpose of Report:

To present the outcome of public consultation and seek approval of the proposed amendments to the Purchasing Policy. 

Background:

On 9 May 2020, in response to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, regulation 11A (1) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 was amended to raise the tendering threshold for the purchase of goods and services to “under $250,000”. 

 

In July 2020 administration undertook a review of the policy and proposed amendments to reflect the new legislative requirements and updates to align with current practices and the City’s strategic priorities. 

 

The substantive changes to the policy are as follows:

 

·       a focus on sustainable procurement has been included to emphasize the City’s commitment to sustainable procurement and long-term sustainability;

 

·       the City’s commitment to support and provide a fair opportunity to all local businesses has been reflected on the proposed amendments. The City is encouraging local businesses to register on Vendor Marketplace which provides an important database for City’s officers to refer to;

 

·       commitment to supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Disability Enterprises has been added. The City understands the importance of supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and Disability Enterprises. These disadvantaged groups have so much to contribute to the City. It is worth noting, Regulation 11(2) (h) of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 allow for goods and/or services to be directly purchased (i.e. without having to go through a competitive tender process) from a person registered on the Aboriginal Business Directory WA and from a Disability Enterprise; and

 

·       the City’s recognition and commitment to the importance of workplace gender quality has been reflected in the proposed amendments. The City does not procure organisations who are listed as a non-compliant employer under the Workplace Gender Equality Agency’s Non-Compliant List.

 

At its 15 September 2020 meeting, Council approved inviting public comment on the proposed amendments to the Purchasing Policy.

Details:

In accordance with the City’s Policy 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies, public notice was provided from 26 September 2020 to 26 October 2020, which is in excess of the 21 days required, in the following ways:

 

·       Perth Voice – 26 September 2020;

·       Eastern Reporter (Vincent and Stirling) – 24 September 2020;

·       on the City’s website and social media 24 September 2020; and

·       on the notice board at the City’s Administration and Library and Local History Centre - 24 September 2020.

 

Administration received 2 submissions, as at Attachment 1.

 

No amendments have been made to the Policy as a result of the submissions. Administration’s response is provided. 

 

In some cases, Administration has referred to the Purchasing Framework which is the procedural document that advises and guides staff on the process to be used when purchasing goods and / or services on behalf of the City, while complying to the Local Government Act and Regulations. Further to this, all staff are required to complete an induction in relation to procurement and procurement training is also provided to staff.

Consultation/Advertising:

No further consultation is required.

Legal/Policy:

City’s Policy 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies sets out the process for repealing and adopting policies.

 

City Policy 4.1.5 – Community Consultation – specifies the community consultation required.

Risk Management Implications:

LOW            Adopting the proposed amendments to this policy is low risk as it aligns with the Local Government Act 1995 and the objectives of the policy.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

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:

Improved sustainability outcomes resulting from application of this policy.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

11.2        Adoption of Property Management Framework

Attachments:             1.       Summary of Community Consultation Comments

2.       Property Management Framework - approved by Council for advertising 17 March 2020

3.       Property Management Framework - updated version advertised

4.       Property Management Framework - final for adoption

5.       Property Management Policy - final for adoption

6.       City's Policy No. 1.2.1 - Terms of Leases

7.       Delegation under section 3.58 of the Local Government Act

8.       Frequently Asked Questions

9.       Financial Implications for Groups

10.     Options for Clubs and Groups

11.     Community Benefit Subsidy Matrix  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES:

1.1     the submissions received during the draft Property Management Framework public comment period, as summarised at Attachment 1;

1.2     that amendments and additions were made to the version of the Property Management Framework approved by Council for advertising on 17 March 2020, as at Attachment 2, as detailed in this report; and

1.3     that the amendments and additions include the removal of the requirement for Category 1 – Small Community Groups, that are entering into a Management Agreement with the City, to pay for:

a)    Costs associated with all outgoings, rates, taxes and insurances associated with the property;

b)    pest inspections (including termite inspections) and treatment;

c)    rubbish and recycling bin charges;

d)    cost of statutory compliance (RCD, smoke alarm and emergency exit); and

e)    Building insurance;

1.4     the updated Property Management Framework, as at Attachment 3, was advertised and discussed with community groups; and

1.5     that further minor amendments to the Property Management Framework were made based on community comments.

2.       ADOPTS the:

2.1     Property Management Framework at Attachment 4; and

2.2     Property Management Policy at Attachment 5.

3.       REPEALS the City’s Policy 1.2.1 – Terms of Leases, at Attachment 6.

4.       DELEGATES BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the power to dispose of property in accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995, to the Chief Executive Officer, as detailed in Attachment 7, subject to:

4.1     the disposal being in the form of a lease, licence or management agreement to a Category One (1) or Category Two (2) group currently occupying a City building, in accordance with the adopted Property Management Framework;

4.2     the lease, licence or management agreement to a Category One (1) or Category Two (2) group not requiring any special conditions that sit outside of the Property Management framework or a change in the responsibilities; and

4.3     any requests from community or sporting groups not currently occupying a City building in Category One (1) or Category Two (2), to be presented to Council for approval. 

5.       NOTES that:

5.1     the assessment of the Community Benefit Subsidy will be undertaken by Administration, and for any new groups as set out in recommendation 4.2 above, would be presented to Council for approval; and

5.2     new requests for leases and licences within Category Three (3) and Four (4) groups will be presented to Council for approval.

6.       APPROVES Community Groups and Sporting Clubs within categories one (1) and two (2) to receive support during a four (4) year transition period, as follows:

6.1     where the group or club experiences an increase in fees due to the implementation of the Property Management Framework;

6.2     they incrementally increase their fees each year, by a rate of 25% of the difference between the current fee and the proposed fee; and

6.3     they transition completely to the terms of the Property Management Framework within a four (4) year period.

7.       REQUIRES that all Community Groups and Sporting Clubs with a lease, licence or management agreement are required to provide, by 1 November annually, or less frequently by agreement:

7.1     a completed Community Group Health Check; and

7.2     a current copy of their Certificate of Insurance Currency.

8.       NOTES that further amendments to the Property Management Framework will be completed prior to the commencement of the transitioning of Community Groups and Sporting Clubs over to the Property Management Framework as detailed in the report.

 

Purpose of Report:

To seek Council adoption of the Property Management Framework (Attachment 4) and the Property Management Policy (Attachment 5) and delegate power to the Chief Executive Officer to approve leases, licences and management agreements to Category One (1) and Two (2) Community and Sporting Groups transitioning over to the Property Management Framework.

Background:

The City currently has lease/ and licence arrangements with a range of not-for-profit community organisations, sport and recreation clubs, government agencies and commercial entities.  These arrangements were based on the City’s existing Policy No. 1.2.1 – Terms of Leases (Leasing Policy).

 

The City has experienced issues in administering the Leasing Policy as it provides little clarity on the terms of the lease arrangement, and potential variations of those terms based on the type of organisation, type of activity, or value to the community.

Details:

The City has prepared a Property Management Framework to ensure any City property that is leased or licenced are managed in a consistent, fair and transparent manner.  The Framework also provides an equitable methodology for calculating lease and licence charges.

 

Historically there has been no rationale or strategy behind the assignment of leases and licences.  The current Leasing Policy has been inadequate and simply states that:

 

·       Any new lease granted by the Council shall usually be limited to a five year period and any option to renew shall usually be limited to no more than a ten year period; and

·       Council may consider longer periods where the Council is of the opinion that there is a benefit or merit for providing a longer lease term.

 

The City has completed a comprehensive review of existing leases, and reviewed the application of the Policy to those leases.

 

Public Advertising of the draft Property Management Framework

 

At the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 17 March 2020, it was resolved that Council:

 

“1.      NOTES the draft Property Management Framework, at Attachment 1;

2.       RECEIVES the draft policy – ‘Property Management Policy’ at Attachment 2;

3.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the new Policy in Recommendation 2 above and invite public comments for a period of at least 21 days; and

4.       NOTES that at the conclusion of the public notice period any submissions received would be presented to Council for consideration.”

Public advertising of the Property Management Framework and the Property Management Policy has now been undertaken in accordance with Policy 4.1.5 – Community Consultation as contained within Attachment 1.

 

Amendments to the Property Management Framework

 

In response to community feedback during consultation, Administration recommends changes to the Property Management Framework including:

 

·       Clarifying maintenance obligations for both the lessee/licensee and the City in a separate table;

·       Removing the word incentive and replacing it with subsidy, with respect to the Community Benefit Matrix for clarity;

·       Changing the address of Highgate Forrest Park Playgroup from 127 Wright Street, Highgate to 66 Harold Street, Highgate;

·       Expanding on and providing clearer definitions and examples of Capital Renewal and Capital Upgrades for clarity; and

·       The removing of the requirement for Category one and two clubs and groups to repaint the facility inside and out every five (5) years. This will now be the responsibility of the City. The Property Management Framework will be updated to reflect this change.

 

Following Council Briefing on 8 September 2020, Administration proposes the following amendments to the Property Management Framework including:

 

·       The inclusion of ‘Maintain, Service and Repair Bore and Pump’ in the Schedule of Maintenance Obligations for Category One and Category Two (2) groups.  This inclusion provides that: The Lessee is responsible for annual inspection, and determining the schedule for maintenance and repair.  Service, repair and maintenance costs are to be allocated between the lessor and tenant in the property lease, with the Lessors responsibilities being defined within the property lease;

·       The removal of the Lessee from Category One (1) and the Licensee and Lessee from Category Two (2) from being responsible for Capital upgrades;

·       The inclusion of the payment of excess for building insurance in the Essential Term Template and Schedule of Maintenance Obligations for Category One (1) and Category Two (2);

·       The removal of the word ‘Malicious’ in the Schedule of Maintenance Obligations for Category One (1) and Two (2);

·       The removal of the requirement for Category One (1) and Category Two (2) groups to replace sheds, roller doors and garages;

·       The removal of the requirement for Category One (1) and Category Two (2) groups to repair and maintain wiring; and

·       The consistent use of the word tenant to define a Lessee, Licensee or Management Agreement holder within the Property Management Framework.

 

Removal of the responsibilities of payments for the tenant in Category One (1) – Small Community Groups

 

The Property Management Framework presented to the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 17 March 2020 incorrectly reflected that tenants in Category One (1) – Small Community Groups who were subject to a Management Agreement would be responsible for the payment of outgoings, pest inspections, rubbish and recycling bins, statutory compliance and building insurance.   This was rectified with all relevant groups being provided with the amended Property Management Framework prior to consultation.

 

Assisting Clubs and Groups to understand the Property Management Framework

 

Administration has developed a set of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ’s) Attachment 8 to help clubs and groups to better understand the Property Management Framework. 

 

The FAQs also respond to questions raised during the public consultation process.

 

Impact Assessment for Categories One and Two

 

Attachment 9 sets out the likely financial implications to clubs and groups in categories one (1) and two (2) if the Property Management Framework is endorsed. 

 

For those organisations who may experience an increase it also demonstrates the annual increase that will occur each year for 4 years during a period of transition.

 

Assisting Clubs and Groups to transition across to the Property Management Framework

 

Attachment 10 sets out the transition options available for clubs and groups as we implement the Property Management Framework.

 

Initially, Administration will work with the eight (8) sporting clubs and community groups in category one (1) and two (2) who are currently on a month-to-month lease (holding over) to transition them over to the new Property Management Framework.  Groups that want to transition to the new Framework before the end of their lease will be helped next.  The remaining groups will be helped when their leases expire.

 

Administration will use a baseline property condition report to identify specific issues that may require attention, and will identify the actions to be taken by either the lessor or the tenant in response. 

 

If a group in category one (1) or two (2) is likely to experience an increase in leasing fees, as detailed in Attachment 9, Administration recommends they are given four (4) years to incrementally move to  the new charging methodology.  This would be on the basis that their lease fee closes the gap between the current rate and the proposed rate, with incremental steps of 25% annually (of the gap) until the applicable rate is reached.

 

If any club or group is concerned about the additional costs associated with the implementation of the Property Management Framework, Administration will discuss possible alternative options such as seasonal licences, shared usage and multipurpose facilities.

 

The transition of all leases to the Property Management Framework will continue until 31 October 2030 should existing leases continue to run their course through to expiry.

 

Gross Rental Value (GRV)

 

The Valuer General Office (VGO) values land in accordance with the provisions of the Valuation of Land Act 1978. The GRV is the yearly income the property would be expected to generate if rented. The rental value for a house is influenced by factors like age, construction, size, car shelters and pools. By analysing property rents against these individual attributes and characteristics it is possible to assess a valuation for all properties, whether they are rented or not.

 

The use of GRV is proposed to minimise the current disparity between the City’s lease and licence arrangements along with providing a cohesive framework that will provide the foundation for a consistent, transparent and equitable approach for community and sporting groups.

 

Community Benefit Subsidy Matrix

 

Administration has developed a community benefit matrix, as detailed in Attachment 11 which determines the level of subsidy each sporting club or community group is eligible for.  The following is taken into account when determining the subsidy:

 

·       Level of volunteer assistance in managing the day to day affairs of the group;

·       The extent of the service provided by the group and whether or not it is directly targeted to the Vincent community;

·       Whether or not the facilities are made available to others in the local community;

·       The social and community benefit and whether or not the group services users from a range of socio-economic background, females, LGBTIQ+, the multicultural community and people with disability; and

·       Ability to raise revenue through venue hire.

 

Delegation of power to approve leases to Chief Executive Officer

 

This is proposed to streamline the granting of leases, licences and management agreements for community and sporting groups. As the Property Management Framework clearly sets out the terms and conditions of these tenure arrangements, it is not necessary for Council to consider the individual lease, licence or management agreement. The Chief Executive Officer will be required to grant the lease, licence or management arrangement in accordance with the approved terms in the Property Management Framework, which includes the annual rent.  Where a group requires a special condition to the Management Agreement, Lease or Licence, such as the inclusion of a bore, or clarification on responsibilities, these will be presented to Council for endorsement and decision making.

 

Any requests by new sporting clubs and sporting groups for a management agreement, lease or licence will be presented to Council for review and approval.  This would provide Council with the oversight and understanding of community usage and benefit.

 

All Category Three (3) and Category Four (4) groups and organisations will be presented to Council to approve responsibilities, conditions and annual fees, based on a market valuation. These leases and licences traditionally have longer tenure arrangements that Category One (1) and Category Two (2) tenants. It is appropriate for Council to approve these arrangements.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City has held discussions with all community groups and sporting clubs within categories one (1) and two (2) who hold a lease or licence.  Feedback from these groups has been reviewed and considered and (where appropriate) incorporated into the Framework. 

 

Commercial entities and government agencies will be informed of the Framework during lease renewal negotiation of lease renewal.

 

In accordance with the City’s Policy 4.1.1 – Adoption and Review of Policies, public notice of the new policy was provided for a period exceeding 21 days in the following ways:

 

·       On the City’s website;

·       In the local newspapers;

·       On the notice board at the City’s Administration and Library and Local History Centre; and

·       Through direct contact with all sporting clubs and community groups within Category 1 and 2 by providing a link to the website advising of the consultation period.

Administration has met with interested organisations and discussed their feedback.  Feedback has been considered in the changes proposed herein.

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.

 

Section 5.42 of the Local Government Act 1995 provides that a local government may delegate powers and duties to the Chief Executive Officer. 

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       There is a low risk for Council to adopt a new Property Management Framework and supporting policy.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Under the proposed model, the City will generate approximately $38,543.82 in the first year from both Category One and Two groups, compared to $30,195.40 under the current charging methodology. This includes the eight (8) groups currently in holding over transitioning to the Property Management Framework this financial year with the new charging methodology applied. Category one – small community groups have a financial benefit within this framework that allows for a maximum subsidy of 50% and up to 25% subsidy for category two – sporting clubs, community groups and organisations.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

11.3        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 September 2020 to 30 September 2020

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

2.       Payments by Cheque September 20

3.       Payments by Direct Debit September 20  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 September 2020 to 30 September 2020 as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

EFT payments, including BPAY and payroll

 

$7,686,809.35

Cheques

 

$608.90

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$144,535.27

 

 

 

Total payments for September 2020

 

$7,831,953.52

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 September 2020 to 30 September 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 September 2020 to 30 September 2020, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT and BPAY Payments

2582 – 2593

$5,897,895.67

Payroll by Direct Credit

September 2020

$1,788,913.68

Sub Total

 

$7,686,809.35

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82610 - 82614

$1,101.10

Cancelled cheques

82611 and 8262

-$492.20

Sub Total

 

$608.90


 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$395.84

Loan Repayments

$100,782.60

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$37,163.03

Credit Cards

 

$6,193.80

Sub Total

 

$144,535.27

 

 

 

Total Payments

 

$7,831,953.52

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 12(1) and (2) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

“12.    Payments from municipal fund or trust fund, restrictions on making

 

(1)      A payment may only be made from the municipal fund or the trust fund —

 

·       if the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from those funds — by the CEO; or

·       otherwise, if the payment is authorised in advance by a resolution of Council.

 

(2)      Council must not authorise a payment from those funds until a list prepared under regulation 13(2) containing details of the accounts to be paid has been presented to Council.”

 

Regulation 13(1) and (3) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 refers, i.e.-

 

“13.    Lists of Accounts

 

(1)      If the local government has delegated to the CEO the exercise of its power to make payments from the municipal fund or the trust fund, a list of accounts paid by the CEO is to be prepared each month showing for each account paid since the last such list was prepared –

 

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

(2)      A list prepared under sub regulation (1) is to be —

 

·       presented to Council at the next ordinary meeting of Council after the list is prepared; and

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       Management systems are in place that establish satisfactory controls, supported by the internal and external audit functions. Financial reporting to Council increases transparency and accountability.

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:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

All municipal fund expenditure included in the list of payments is in accordance with Council’s annual budget.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 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                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                17 November 2020

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

11.4        Investment Report as at 30 September 2020

Attachments:          1.       Investment statistics as at 30 September 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Statistics for the month ended 30 September 2020 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s Investments as at 30 September 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:

A Summary of Key Investment Decisions in September 2020

 

·           Administration transferred Municipal funds (only) to a CBA Online Saver account during September;

 

This account offered a competitive interest rate of 0.65% with the flexibility to withdraw funds at any point in time without incurring additional fees. 

The Online Saver interest rate has subsequently decreased to 0.45% in October 2020. As a result, in October, Administration has reinvested most of these funds into other financial institutions with an average interest rate of 0.5%.

·           Financial institutions with ‘no current record of funding fossil fuels’ are not providing competitive rates at this time and are also minimising their investment levels.  This is impacting the City’s ability to provide investment preference to these organisations.

 

Investment Status at 30 September 2020

 

As at 30 September 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $38,460,372. Interest bearing term deposits account for $23,921,321 and the remaining $14,539,051 is held in a non-interest bearing account. The non-interest bearing account is higher than usual due to term deposits maturing closer to the reporting period. 

 

Investment activity has decreased significantly compared to last year due to low interest rates being offered by financial institutions. 

 

It is anticipated that interest rates will decrease further in the short to medium term to aid the economy in its recovery.

 

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

$26,105,854

$21,740,955

$17,906,824

August

$49,641,327

$44,977,692

$26,788,392

$16,238,861

September

$44,876,698

$41,017,535

$38,460,372

$23,921,321

October

$46,846,286

$37,782,515

 

 

November

$46,118,236

$36,123,083

 

 

December

$38,557,295

$34,633,796

 

 

January

$37,915,806

$33,773,707

 

 

February

$35,377,640

$33,681,961

 

 

March

$33,969,162

$28,466,025

 

 

April

$30,832,893

$25,975,451

 

 

May

$28,935,398

$22,319,031

 

 

June

$25,079,463

$17,565,310

 

 

 

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 30 September 2020 is:

 

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment

Budget Adopted

Budget YTD

Actual YTD

% of FY Budget

Municipal

$230,000

$57,501

$12,318

21,42%

Reserve

$180,205

$45,051

$29,912

66.40%

Subtotal

$410,205

$102,552

$42,230

41.18%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$14,390

0.00%

Total

$410,205

$102,552

$56,620

55.21%

*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 a weighted average interest rate of 0.74% for current investments whereas the Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for September 2020 is 0.09%.

 

Sustainable Investments

 

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

 

As at 30 September 2020, $2,591,726 (7%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities. The decrease in percentage is primarily due to lower interest rates being offered by the banks divested out of fossil fuel activities compared to banks exposed to fossil fuel activity.

 

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%

22.2%

30%

Nil

90%

83.4%

A-1

25%

6.7%

30%

Nil

80%

6.74%

A-2

20%

4.7%

n/a

Nil

60%

9.86%

 

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

“6.14.   Power to invest

 

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

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

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

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

[(b)   deleted]

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

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

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

 

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

 

19.     Investments, control procedures for

 

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

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

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

(b)    the transactions related to each investment.

 

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

 

(1)        In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

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

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

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

 

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

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

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

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

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

(e)    invest in a foreign currency.”

 

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

 

Strategic Implications:

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

 


 

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 2020



PDF Creator




 


 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                               17 November 2020

11.5        Financial Statements as at 30 September 2020

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 30 September 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 30 September 2020 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 30 September 2020. 

Background:

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires a local government to prepare each month a statement of financial activity including the sources and applications of funds, as compared to the budget.

 

The 2019/2020 financials are in the process of being finalised and audited, therefore the balances provided  for 2019/2020 in this report are provisional and subject to change.

 

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 30 September 2020:

 

Note

Description

Page

 

 

 

1.

Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph

1-3

2.

Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type Report

4

3.

Net Current Funding Position

5

4.

Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas

6-46

5.

Capital Expenditure and Funding graph and Capital Works Schedule

47-51

6.

Cash Backed Reserves

52

7.

Rating Information and Graph

53-54

8.

Debtors Report

55

9.

Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position

56

 

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

 

Operating revenue is reported separately by ‘Program’ and ‘Nature or Type’ respectively. The significant difference between the two reports is that operating revenue by ‘Program’ includes ‘Profit on sale of assets’ and the report for ‘Nature or Type’ includes ‘Rates revenue’.

 

Revenue by Program is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by an amount by $1,323,623 (36%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           A favourable variance of $234,627 as a result of the early issue of food premises licences (Health);

·           A favourable variance of $505,028 primarily due to an increase in forecast revenue generated from Beatty Park (Recreation and Culture);

·           A favourable variance of $713,649 due to an increase in revenue generated from parking activities (Transport); and

·           An unfavourable variance of $198,686 due to a timing variance relating to invoicing of interim rates and a reduction in interest earnings from term deposits (General Purpose funding).

 

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by $1,346,058 (3.4%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           A favourable variance of $1,485,510 for revenue generated primarily from operations at Beatty Park and parking facilities within the City (Fees and charges).

 

Expenditure by Program reflects a slight over spend of $62,650 (0.6%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position

 

·      A favourable variance of $104,462 primarily contributed by a timing variance relating to the rates hardship waiver applications (General purpose funding); and

 

·      An unfavourable variance of $199,070 primarily contributed by employee costs at Beatty Park as a result of operations resuming back to normal (Recreation and Culture).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects a slight over-spend of $75,954 (0.7%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      Employee costs reflects an unfavourable variance of $618,683. This variance is materially contributed by the following areas: -

 

Beatty Park - $400,000. Staff have been deployed back to work as a result of operations resuming at Beatty Park. This will be adjusted accordingly at the first quarterly budget review in November.

Rangers shift allowances and budget phasing variance - $125,000. This will be reviewed and adjusted accordingly at the November budget review.

 

·      Materials and contracts reflect a favourable variance of $497,176. This is mainly contributed by a timing variance with the provision of waste tipping services. 

 

Surplus Position – 2020/2021

 

The provisional surplus position brought forward to 2020/21 is $2,963,903 compared to the adopted budget amount of $1,615,763. The actual opening surplus figure will be adjusted once the end of year audit has been finalised.  

 

Content of Statement of Financial Activity

 

An explanation of each report in the Statement of Financial Activity (Attachment 1), along with some commentary, is below:

 

1.         Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report (Note 1 Page 1)

 

This statement of financial activity shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Program.

 

2.         Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type Report (Note 2 Page 4)

 

This statement of Comprehensive Income shows operating revenue and expenditure classified by Nature or Type.

 

3.         Net Current Funding Position (Note 3 Page 5)

 

‘Net current assets’ is the difference between the current assets and current liabilities; less committed assets and restricted assets.

 

4.         Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas (Note 4 Page 6 – 46)

 

This statement shows a summary of operating revenue and expenditure by service unit including variance commentary.

 

5.         Capital Expenditure and Funding Summary (Note 5 Page 47 - 52)

 

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

 

 

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

 

6.         Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 53)

 

The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserve portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 30 September is $10,464,069.

 

7.         Rating Information (Note 7 Page 54 - 55)

 

The notices for rates and charges levied for 2019/20 were issued on 7 August 2020. The Local Government Act 1995 provides for ratepayers to pay rates by four instalments. The due dates for each instalment are:

 

 

Due Date

First Instalment

18 September 2020

Second Instalment

18 November 2020

Third Instalment

18 January 2021

Fourth Instalment

18 March 2021

 

Rates debtors for 2020/21 was raised on 29 July 2020 after the adoption of the budget.

 

The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 30 September 2020 is $18,649,163 excluding deferred rates ($241,196) and including ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.

 

The outstanding rates percentage for 2020/21 is 47% compared to 41% for the similar period in 2019/2020, this is contributed by:

·      324 ratepayers have opted to pay their rates either weekly, fortnightly or monthly (rates smoothing), this option has been offered for the first time this financial year;

·      Late adoption of the budget and issuing of rates notice compared to last financial year; and

·      Administration has also received 24 hardship applications and these ratepayer payments will now be deferred until March 2021.

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 56)

 

Total trade and other receivables as at 30 September 2020 is $1,938,287.

 

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

 

·        $1,632,664 (90%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.

 

$971,183 of this amount has been transferred to long-term infringement debtors (non-current portion).

 

Furthermore, as some of the unpaid infringements are aged, a provisional amount of $186,666 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the current portion (within 12 months) and a provisional amount of $196,072 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the non-current portion (greater than 12 months). This treatment is in accordance to the new requirements of the changes in the Accounting standards (AASB 9). This provisional amount is subject to change once the 2019/2020 financial statements have been Audited and approved.

 

·        $140,983 (9.5%) relates to cash-in-lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay their debt over a fixed term of five years.

 

On 8 April 2020, the Minister of Planning WA issued a provision that exempts proponents from making cash in lieu related payments for existing or new non-residential development to the City. This exemption is effective up to the earlier date of either: -

 

a)   90 days after the date upon which the State of Emergency Declaration ceases to have effect or is revoked; or

b)   Midnight, 1 May 2023.

 

·        Tenancies are being dealt with in accordance to the direction approved by the COVID-19 Committee.

 

·        Health licenses debtors are being followed up with final reminders. Thereafter, these debts will be sent to the debt collectors for further follow up.

 

9.         Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Financial Position report (Note 9 Page 57)

 

As at 30 September 2020, the Centre’s operating surplus position is $26,799 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $160,562. This is primarily contributed by the increased activity relating to the swim school and fitness initiatives at the Centre.

 

10.       Explanation of Material Variances

 

The materiality thresholds used for reporting variances are 10% and $20,000 respectively. This means that variances will be analysed and separately reported when they are more than 10% (+/-) of the year to date budget and where that variance exceeds $20,000 (+/-). This threshold was adopted by Council as part of the budget adoption for 2020/2021 and is used in the preparation of the statements of financial activity when highlighting material variance in accordance with Financial Management Regulation 34(1) (d).

 

In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 30 September 2020 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

 

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

Section 6.4 of the Local Government Act 1995 requires a local government to prepare an annual financial report for the preceding year and other financial reports as prescribed.

 

Regulation 34 (1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 requires the local government to prepare a statement of financial activity each month, reporting on the source and application of funds as set out in the adopted annual budget.

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

Section 6.8 of the Local Government Act 1995, specifies that a local government is not to incur expenditure from its Municipal Fund for an additional purpose except where the expenditure is authorised in advance by an absolute majority decision of Council.

 

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       Provision of monthly financial reports to Council fulfils relevant statutory requirements and is consistent with good financial governance. 

 

Strategic Implications:

Reporting on the City’s financial position is aligned with the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028:

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Not applicable.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                 17 November 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                                                               17 November 2020

11.6        First Quarterly Budget Review

Attachments:             1.       Operating Statement by Nature or Type

2.       Operating Statement by Program

3.       Rate Setting Statement

4.       Cash Back Reserves

5.       Capital Budget

6.       Schedule of further amendments to the 2020/2021 Annual Budget

7.       First Quarter Budget Summary  

 

Recommendation:

That Council BY ABSOUTE MAJORITY APPROVES the following amendments to the 2020/2021 Annual Budget:

 

a)   A net increase in the Operating Budget of $1,054,630 as per Attachments 1 and 2;

 

b)   A net increase in Special Purpose Reserves totalling $639,000 as per Attachments 3 and 4;

 

c)   A net increase in the Capital Expenditure Budget of $112,336 as per Attachment 5;

 

d)   A net increase in the closing surplus of $1,132,110, resulting in a forecast year end surplus at 30 June 2021 of $952,403, as per Attachment 3;

 

e)   Pursuant to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, ADOPTS the amendment of Fees and Charges for parklet fees; and

 

f)    Further amendments to the 2020/2021 budget, totalling $926,000, as detailed in Tables 6.1, 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 in Attachment 6.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

The purpose of this report is to consider and authorise proposed first Quarterly Budget Review for 2020/2021, including amendments to the 2019/2020 capital carry-forward items.

Background:

The 2020/2021 budget adoption was challenging due to the uncertainty and volatility created by the COVID-19 crisis. In response the City utilised the following principles in developing the 2020/2021 budget:

 

·       Created a conservative and pessimistic outlook in forward estimates;

·       Provided hardship support for property owners;

·       Used special purpose cash reserves to support community grants;

·       Reduced discretionary expenditure;

·       Maintained permanent employment of staff; and

·       Tightly monitor changing conditions through quarterly budget reviews

 

Administration has continued to maintain a conservative budget approach during the first quarterly budget review, but at the same time has increased its budgeted revenue and expenditure to a more realistic estimate. The review period covered for this quarterly budget is July 2020 to September 2020.

 

During the preparation of the 2020/2021 annual budget, an allowance was made to carry-forward funds for incomplete capital projects from 2019/2020. The value of the carry forwards was based on estimates of expenditure that would be unspent as at 30 June 2020. The Annual Financial Statement for the year ended 30 June 2020 is in the process of being been finalised and audited, therefore the estimated funds available to be carried forward can now be updated.

Details:

The budget amendments from this review incorporates the following adjustments:

·       A net increase in the operating budget of $1,054,630 as per Attachments 1 and 2

·       A net movement in Special Purpose Reserves of $639,000 as per Attachments 3 and 4;

·       A net increase in the capital budget of $112,336 as per Attachment 5;

·       A net increase in the opening surplus of $1,132,110, and a forecast year end surplus at 30 June 2021 of $952,403, as per Attachment 3; and

·       Further budget amendments of $926,000 as detailed in Attachment 6.

 

An executive summary of the first quarter review outcomes is at Attachment 7.

 

Timing of Quarterly Budget Reviews

 

This financial year Administration will be performing quarterly budget reviews to ensure budget estimates are realistic and have allow agile decision making in a changing external environment. Quarterly budget reviews are planned as follows:

 

BUDGET REVIEW

PERIOD

OMC

First Budget Review

July 2020- Sept 2020

Nov 2020

Second Budget Review (Statutory mid-year review)

Oct 2020 - Dec 2020

March 2021

Third Budget Review

Jan 2020 -March 2020

May 2021

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Capital Expenditure

 

The 2020/2021 adopted budget included a capital expenditure program totalling $10,470,152 including carry forward funding of $1,335,364.

 

In most instances, the estimated expenditure and the available funds carried forward closely align to the actual outcome for 2019/2020. Overall, the capital expenditure for carry forward projects as at 30 June 2020 was over-estimated by $11,131 and the budget available in 2020/2021 for these projects should now be reduced accordingly. Further, additional capital amendments of $123,467 to capital expenditure is proposed for this budget review. The details of capital amendments are at Attachment 5.  

 

Some of the key capital budget amendments are summarised in the table below:

 

Description

Current Budget

Proposed Revised Budget

Difference

Comments

2020/21

2020/21

2020/21

$

$

$

Solar Photovoltaic Panel System Installation - Perth Soccer Club