MINUTES
Ordinary Council Meeting
17 November 2020
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
1 Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country
2 Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence
3 (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements
(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice
4 Applications for Leave of Absence
5 The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations
7 Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)
9.5 Place Plan Minor Annual Review
11.3 Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 September 2020 to 30 September 2020
11.4 Investment Report as at 30 September 2020
11.5 Financial Statements as at 30 September 2020
12.4 Council Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates for 2021
11.6 First Quarterly Budget Review [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED]
12.3 Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 20 October 2020
11.1 Outcome of advertising and adoption of amendments - Purchasing Policy
12.5 Updated project plans for 5 strategic projects in the Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24
11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED]
9.4 No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth - Two Grouped Dwellings
9.1 No. 67 (Lot: 63, D/P: 672) Mary Street, Highgate - Single House
10.1 Response to Petition - E-Permit Implementation Update
12.1 City of Vincent Advisory Groups [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED]
12.2 Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Progress Update
12.6 Advertising of new policy - Attendance at Events Policy
13 Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given
14 Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion)
15 Representation on Committees and Public Bodies
17 Confidential Items/Matters For Which the Meeting May be Closed
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
MINUTES OF City of Vincent
Ordinary Council
Meeting
E-MEETING AND AT
THE Administration and
Civic Centre
244 Vincent Street, Leederville
ON Tuesday, 17
November 2020 AT 6pm
PRESENT: Mayor Emma Cole Presiding Member
Cr Susan Gontaszewski South Ward
Cr Alex Castle North Ward
Cr Joanne Fotakis North Ward
Cr Dan Loden North Ward
Cr Joshua Topelberg South Ward
Cr Sally Smith North Ward
Cr Ashley Wallace South Ward
IN ATTENDANCE: David MacLennan Chief Executive Officer
Andrew Murphy Executive Director Infrastructure & Environment
Virginia Miltrup Executive Director Community & Business Services
Mark Fallows A/Executive Director Strategy &Development
Emily Williams A/Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance
Jay Naidoo Manager Development & Design
Vanisha Govender Executive Manager Financial Services Tara Gloster Manager Policy & Place
Wendy Barnard Council Liaison Officer
Public: Approximately 10 members of the public.
1 Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country
The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole declared the meeting open at 6.00pm and read the following Acknowledgement of Country statement:
“The City of Vincent would like to acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land, the Whadjuk people of the Noongar nation and pay our respects to Elders past, present and emerging”.
2 Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence
Cr Jonathan Hallett is an apology for this meeting.
3 (A) Public Question Time and Receiving of Public Statements
The following is a summary of questions and statements received at the meeting. This is not a verbatim record of questions and statements made at the meeting.
3.1 Mudji Nielsen of Tuart Hill – Item 11.6
· Spoke on behalf of the Rotary Club North Perth.
· Speaking in relation to the Hyde Park Fair 2021.
· Hyde Park Fair will run for the 24th year from 28 February – 1 March 2021.
· The Club is grateful for the City’s ongoing support.
· This event provides financial support for a range of projects including donating a range of white goods to victims of domestic abuse, drug awareness programs and blood banks.
· Also raised money for the stage which is in Hyde Park.
· 80% of survey respondents recognise the Fair as a City of Vincent event, and 95% of respondents believe that it is well managed and enjoyable event.
· Free entry for all, entertainment and food for budget conscious families.
· 200 stalls, demonstrations, free exercise classes, petting zoo and other entertainment.
· COVID safe event.
· Asks Council to continue financial support for this event.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Mr Nielsen for his comments.
3.2 Peter Arnoldi of North Perth – Item 9.2
· Lives 11m from the rear of Fibre Active Gym.
· Objects to the proposal.
· Noise management plan is not the solution, it will just extend the problem, not solve it.
· The issue is the roller door, the dropping of weights and the loud music.
· Asks Council to consider the residents when making their decision.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Mr Arnoldi for his comments.
3.3 Monique Arnoli of North Perth – Item 9.2
· Objects to the proposal.
· There are many gyms in the area.
· Already a parking issue in the area.
· Their houses were built before the gym took occupation.
· The noise has escalated since Mr Voon took over the warehouse.
· Queries if the vibration from the gym could disturb the asbestos fibres in the roof, causing asbestos dust to penetrate the gym.
· The commercial zone is Fitzgerald Street, the rear faces Eden Street, which is residential.
· Asks Council to consider residents in their decision.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Ms Arnoldi for her comments.
3.4 Sandra Anderson of North Perth – Item 9.2
· Owns the commercial building next door, has an adjoining wall.
· The vibration from the gym affects the office every day.
· The current mats are too thin.
· Asks Council to decline the application until the acoustic report has been completed.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Ms Anderson for her comments.
3.5 Dudley Maier of Highgate
Question 1
Answer to Sally Lake’s question on page 10 of agenda, (reproduced below for ease of reference):
[Sally Lake
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 9.6:
The key stakeholders relating to the new Haynes Reserve including the current tenants of the site were informed of the Council meeting agenda item.]
Who takes responsibility for providing this evasive answer? Were the 36 Committee members who made submissions notified before the meeting?
Question 2
Can you confirm that 10 Monmouth Street, shown in the Public Open Space Strategy, is local POS and that up until recently was shown on Intramaps as a reserve? Can you confirm that Intramaps was recently changed to show that the lot is vacant land. Who authorised this change?
Question 3
The audit log shows that items EA2019/7 and EA2019/8 concerning fraud prevention both have a high risk rating. Audit Committee minutes show that the CEO and Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance attended every Committee meeting this year. The log also shows that there has been no progress to date for these items. Does the CEO consider this lack of response to be acceptable and who is responsible for the lack of progress in this high risk area?
Question 4
Can you confirm that some of the changes to the Purchasing policy were not shown in tracked changes in the version that was presented to Council, and subsequently advertised for public comment? Specifically section 6.6. Can you confirm that the report to Council also did not identify or discuss these changes. If not, why not?
Question 5
Can you confirm that the unidentified changes to the last paragraph of section 6.6 is contrary to legislation and gives the CEO unlimited power to award contracts without going to tender. Who made and who approved this change to the section prior to it coming to Council?
Question 6
The changes to the Purchasing Policy approved by Council on 6 March 2018 were presented to the Audit Committee on 18 July 2017. Were the recently advertised changes to the policy provided to the Audit Committee for comment prior to advertising? If not, why not?
Question 7
Can you confirm that the community engagement project, which was commenced at the beginning of 2019, the only progress in the first 21 months has been to review information and work out what to do? Does the CEO consider this acceptable, and does the CEO see how the community could see this as reflecting the Administration’s lack of commitment to improve community engagement?
Question 8
Has the Fair Work Commission case brought by Mr Lincoln Stewart in 2016 been resolved? If so, when was it resolved? Did the City make any payments to Mr Stewart as a result of this case?
Question 9
On page 2 of Attachment 1 to Item 12.2 Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Progress, [Table 2 states that “Average household consumption decreased despite more time spent at home in 2019/20 (due to COVID-19). Requirements in the City’s Built Form Policy for better energy performance will have played some part in this.”]
Exactly which policy provisions are responsible for the reduction? Doesn’t the reduction simply reflect the 74% increases in solar capacity, which is a direct result of significantly reduced installation costs?
For our household, the introduction of e-permits has been a breeze, and Chris Dixon should be congratulated on his/her proactive, customer focus.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Mr Maier for his comments.
The following statement was submitted prior to the Meeting and Mr Gartner spoke to it at the meeting.
3.6 John Gartner, President of Forrest Park Croquet Club – Item 11.2 Property Management Framework – Council Meeting 17 November 2020
Summary
This paper covers the following issues:-
· Acknowledges the achievements realized to date in respect to facility maintenance.
· Proposes partnership amortisation for insurance excesses, bore maintenance costs and that the City of Vincent be responsible for organising all works on bores.
· Discusses achieving a City of Vincent modified GRV methodology to remove location bias in property specific rents.
· Demonstrates the unfair treatment of clubs based on whether they have exclusive or non-exclusive use of grounds.
· That the Matrix is inappropriate and should be removed.
These measures need to be incorporated into the Property Management Framework prior to its adoption by Council.
The recommendation that Council adopt the Property Management Framework raises concerns as follows:-
· That the framework shouldn’t be delegated to the CEO.
· Proposal to allow amendments to the Property Management Framework after Council has adopted the Framework shouldn’t be allowed. Council should have direct control over the Property Management Framework.
· The Property Management Policy requires transparency and equity but the Framework doesn’t adopt that principal.
These and numerous other issues make adopting the Property Management Framework unsafe by the City of Vincent.
Acknowledgement
I thank the Mayor, Emma Cole and City of Vincent staff for our meeting, the objective was to achieve a better outcome for clubs and organisations from this framework.
A substantial change occurred when the City decided to assume the long-term maintenance responsibilities for the facilities following that meeting. A subsequent meeting with city officials fine-tuned that responsibility.
Partnership
The City of Vincent through the Property Management framework adopts a style that is adversarial towards the clubs and organisations that use its facilities. The more appropriate style would be to acknowledge that clubs and organisations are partners with the City in contributing to the City of Vincent’s Strategic Community Plan. These clubs and organisations aren’t businesses in the same sense as development protagonists or other commercial operations.
The tone of the Framework documents is that it engenders unfairness to clubs and organisations. The draconian subsidy Matrix which penalizes clubs if they stray from a perceived ideal of council staff about what is beneficial to the city in relation to clubs and organization demonstrates that point. This submission will deal with that Matrix in more detail later in this document.
Property Management Framework Impacts on Clubs and Organisation
This framework doesn’t take into any consideration the effects of its impacts on clubs and organisation that use its facilities.
Clubs and organisations generally have very constrained budgets and can’t readily find funds to meet large unexpected financial events. I will illustrate through two examples.
Insurance Excesses. The framework clearly passes to clubs and organisations the insurance excesses should a claim be made under the city’s insurance policy. I understand the excess is $1000 per claim. While this is relatively small amount, the amount can be disruptive to a club or organisation. Clubs would have no real objection to paying the excess if they caused the claim, however many of the insurable events will be beyond their control and are really a community issue, i.e. vandalism and graffiti. Yet they will still be required to absorb the insurance excess charges from the city.
A more partnering approach would be for the City to amortise these likely insurance excesses into the rent.
Bore Maintenance. Changes incorporated into Bore Maintenance obligations which include the City being responsible for annual inspection and determining the schedule for maintenance and repair are provisionally welcomed as it makes compliance with licensing conditions easer for the City. However, the unknown costs of bore maintenance is being proposed to be handled on a case by case basis without Council oversight,
that is unwelcome. These costs are significant. The maintenance of the bore at Forrest Park Croquet Club about three years ago was around $13,000. That cost was incurred by the City prior to including the bore maintenance costs in the Forrest Park Croquet Club lease. Recently North Perth Tennis Club had an issue with its bore and had to seek the assistance of the City to assist with funding the bore repairs. I understand the costs were significant at around $15,000. Very few clubs can meet the expenses of $10,000 to $15,000 without assistance.
A more partnering approach would be for the City to amortise the costs across the clubs and organisations with bore maintenance responsibility.
Transferring bore maintenance to clubs and organisations moves responsibilities from a known level of competency and expertise into the unknown. Most clubs and organisations lack the technical competency to satisfactorily undertake the works. A more sensible approach is for the City to retain maintenance of the bore.
A more partnering approach would be for the City to arrange the repairs on behalf of the clubs and organisations with bore maintenance responsibility.
Use of Gross Rental Value to determine Rents (rewrite dependent on answers to questions)
The Framework uses the Gross Rental Value (GRV) as a basis of determining the rent for a facility. It is understood that the GRV used is for an adjacent property. That makes the rent a locality-based rent.
Clubs and organisations had little say on where they are located. In the case of Forrest Park Croquet Club, it was relocated there by an initiative of the City to replace a defunct Bowling Club 20 years ago.
This partly explains the discrepancy in rents for similar sized facilities. The GRV for Highgate Playgroup is evidently higher than for Mt Hawthorn Playgroup.
If the City persists with the GRV as proposed, then Clubs and organisations may essentially engage in aberrant behaviour by applying to the Valuer General to establish individual GRV’s for their facilities. It would only take one successful application to the Valuer General for other clubs and organisations to follow suit, throwing the Framework into disarray.
A more partnering approach, thereby treating all clubs and organisations using City facilities similarly would be to strike a single value for rent application. The suggestion made to City Officers was an average GRV for the City.
The Mayor’s suggestion of capping rents proposed at the Briefing meeting of last week cuts across the strategy contained within the Property Management Framework making it difficult to ensure fairness in future years.
Exclusive Use of facilities
City Officers have a view that a club or organization using a facility surround by a fence have exclusive use of that facility. On that basis, those clubs and organisations are expected to pay all the outgoing and operational costs (except the long-term building maintenance costs). Past arguments indicated that the City is saving a significant expenditure through this arrangement because it doesn’t have to fund the maintenance of grounds within these facilities. It would have to pay if the facilities were untenanted just to keep them presentable. In the case of Forrest Park Croquet Club that saving is estimated at about $6,000.
The primary need for fencing is to contain errant balls within the playing field. It’s secondary purpose is to restrict the public, especially the unruly public from damaging the playing surface. It isn’t about denying the rate payers of the City of Vincent access to the grounds. Essentially most clubs are more than welcoming for the public to enjoy the facilities they use.
In comparison, clubs with nonexclusive use of facilities, partially restrict the public access to the grounds. They do this by taking possession of the grounds and playing sports and other activities that are potentially injurious to the public. Hockey and cricket balls as examples hurt and other interactions cause collisions with players. The consequence is that for periods, rate payers of the City are excluded from the grounds. The exclusion period could amount to about 10 hours per week. On a similar basis, that exclusion applies a subsidy to clubs and organisations of about $4,000 per facilities, i.e. the hockey club and cricket club at Charles Veryard Oval would share that saving at about $2,000 each.
The Framework includes this inequity which doesn’t conform to the City Strategic Community Plan. It is therefore unfair.
Exclusive use by Forrest Park Croquet Club
In relation to Forrest Park Croquet Club, the club does not have complete control over access to its grounds. All access points to the grounds are excluded from its lease, the driveway and carpark are excluded from the lease. The main entrance gates are controlled Monday to Friday by City employees. The access gate to the playgroup is normally left open but is controlled principally by them. The playgroups grounds are generally open to the public as they are usually unlocked. The carpark is used by the Perth Soccer Club, by users of the playgroup and by City employees accessing the works depot. The Perth Soccer Club members use the playgroup gate to transit through the playgroup grounds to Forrest Park. One of the issues at Forrest Park Croquet Club is the management of rough sleepers. This all demonstrates that Forrest Park Croquet Club doesn’t have exclusive use of its grounds.
Matrix – Criteria for determining level of subsidy for Leases and Licences for not-for -profit organisations (re-write dependent on answers to questions)
Forrest Park Croquet Club maintains its objections to this Matrix, principally because it is subjective in its application. It also create work for City employees which can only be counter to a good partnering approach.
In response to questions by Councillors at last week’s Briefing meeting City staff indicated that most category 2 clubs would get the full discount. They also advised that all category 1 clubs also would get the discount. This essentially makes the need for the Matrix superfluous.
More specifically Forrest Park Croquet Club will detail its concerns about each of the criteria.
Criteria |
Concern |
Organisational Status and Structure |
This is a compliance issue. While Forrest Park Croquet Club would score 4, many other clubs might achieve a lesser score, but it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. |
Capacity to undertake range of administrative and management responsibilities |
Forrest Park Croquet Club would score 4, many other clubs might achieve a lesser score, but it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. |
Extent of service provided by organisation |
Forrest Park Croquet Club could score either 4,3, or 2, dependent on the viewpoint of the assessor. many other clubs might achieve different scores, but it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. |
Extent of Accessibility of facility to the Community |
Forrest Park Croquet Club could score either 4,3, or 2, dependent on the viewpoint of the assessor. many other clubs might achieve different scores, but it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. |
Social and Community Benefit |
Forrest Park Croquet Club doesn’t know how to assess its score for this criterion. It is unlikely to score highly, putting itself at a less advantage position in relation to lease negotiations with the City. Again, it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. |
Ability to Charge Fees and Raise Revenue |
Forrest Park Croquet Club may score poorly in this category, therefore subjecting it to potential rent increases in future years. Again, it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. |
Diversity, Access, Inclusion and Equity |
Forrest Park Croquet Club may score well on this category. However, its knowledge of members circumstances and preferences is limited and is irrelevant to running a croquet club. Again, it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee. Note that having men in the club may be assessed as a disadvantage. |
Link to Strategic Community Plan |
Forrest Park Croquet Club has difficulty in determining a score for this criterion for itself. Accordingly, the same would be true for the City. Again, it involves the City in detailed analysis of the lessee |
The point being made is that for the City of Vincent to have enough information to assess the criteria, it needs substantial information above what is currently collected by the City through the Community Group Health Check.
This is not a partnering arrangement, because it will force clubs and organisations to submit more detailed information than they need to run themselves. The imposition of obtaining detailed information from members of clubs and organization would be administratively a nightmare and have the potential to alienate potential members from the club, because intrusive information is being sought.
Council Meeting Agenda Item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework
Forrest Park Croquet Club notes that point 4 delegates the entering into leases, licenses and management agreements to the Chief Executive Officer. This is of concern in that it may make information about other clubs and organisations leases, licences or management agreements with the City of Vincent subject to commercial in confidence or other similar character which would preclude their disclosure to third parties, i.e. other clubs and organization. Making negotiation difficult and equity impossible to be seen to be achieved. It also prevents Council exercising oversight of the renewals.
Forrest Park Croquet Club notes that point 8 provides the City with the power to completely re-write the Framework without reference to the Council. This has the potential to change the entire Property Management Framework without any further reference back to Council.
Financial/Budget Implications indicates a modest change in revenue, however is silent on the cost change at the end of the 4-year transition period. It also doesn’t state any financial implications of the application of the Matrix which may raise fees considerably as the subsidy is reduced.
Property Management Policy – Attachment 5. This document includes the following objective:-
To ensure transparency and equity, all financial and in-kind subsidization by the City will be recognized where the City owned and managed properties are used to meet demonstrated community needs
As demonstrated above clubs are treated differently dependent on whether they have exclusive or non-exclusive use of grounds. Therefore the framework doesn’t comply with the Policy and therefore shouldn’t be adopted.
Conclusion
To improve the operation of the Property Management framework and make it more palatable to clubs, the cost of insurance excesses and bore maintenance costs should be amortised.
That the City of Vincent establish a single GRV value for all clubs to remove the locality bias with using individual GRVs.
That all category 2 clubs be treated equally by incorporating the subsidies provided to clubs with non-exclusive leases within the Framework.
Remove the Matrix from the Framework as it is unworkable and involves the City Administration in additional work obtaining the necessary information.
There should be no delegation to the CEO of any lease agreement made between Clubs and the City of Vincent.
No amendments should be allowed to the Framework by the City Administration without reference to Council.
The Property Management Policy and Framework are out of step in relation to equity and in-kind subsidization.
Sarah Wright from the Perth Soccer Club has endorsed Mr Gartner’s proposal.
The following statements were submitted prior to the Meeting and were read out by the A/Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance.
3.7 Richard Zielinski of West Perth – Item 9.2
Unfortunately I am unable to be here this evening as I am recovering from a hip replacement. I wish to reiterate my objection for the approval of and or extended operating hours for the Active Fibre Gym at 305 Fitzgerald Street West Perth.
This unbearable noise pollution and vibration that is occurring from the gyms activity next door on our building has to stop. We have pleaded with Council over the years and have written to Council on this matter which seems to fall on deaf ears.
This gym should not be operating in a commercial residential area. It should be operating in an industrial area as is there other gym in Embleton.
We now understand a Noise Strategy Plan has been submitted to Council by the Owners. What good is this going to be when they’ve shown over the past years they haven’t complied to any of the Council rules anyway .
Can I ask council who is going to monitor this noise strategy?
Who is going to be enforcing this should they be in breach?
Who’s going to follow up on noise and vibration breaches?
What penalties will be imposed?
Will they be able to continue trading when in breach ?
How many warnings will be given?
With the Constant continuance of the noise and vibration would they ever be closedown?
So Council can I have your positive responses to my questions above should you approve this resolution?
We have previously agreed with Council to have noise and vibration monitors on our Property which is adjacent to the gym. This has not happened. Council were supposed to be putting Noise and vibration monitors on our site on 18th September 2020. This was agreed with our existing tenants. No one turned up from Council on that day. It’s now been nearly two months since that date and I get a email last week asking me, do you have the email address of the tenant as we have been trying to contact him to arrange a suitable date for the sound monitoring. It’s amazing nearly 2 months go by and then a email just prior to this resolution being submitted for approval!
As ratepayers we are being unjustifiably ignored with a problem that no one seems to want to deal with. Please remember that they are dropping weights 60 to 80 kg from above their head onto the floor with very little padding.
This is not a matter of whether our premises in which we own and do work from is commercial or residential, it’s a matter of an acceptable and a bearable noise and vibration level.
The Council has taken one noise monitor reading which shows the decibels to be above residential noise standards. I believe this in itself vindicates the fact that there is a real problem.
Being commercial or residential we expect to have quietness and calm in our immediate environment. If at any stage we wish to move to a residential property which we are entitled to do, why should this be a problem if the gym is still operating?
Please do not go forward with this approval as we have endured too much for too long as it is.
The following is a summary of an additional statement received at the meeting, after the Mayor had closed public question time. The Mayor agreed that a further statement could be received. This is not a verbatim record of the statement made at the meeting.
3.8 Bjorn Voon of Mount Lawley – Item 9.2
· Owner of Fibre Active
· Small business owner
· Mats are 40mm thick and are doubled up
· Encourages Council to approve the application.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Mr Voon for his comments.
Administrations’ responses to the questions will be provided in the Agenda for the 15 December 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting.
There being no further speakers, Public Question Time closed at approximately 6.34pm.
(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
Nil
5 The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations
Council received the following deputation:
5.1 Vernon Gardam of Mount Lawley – Item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework
· Is aware that staff have been working with community stakeholders since the briefing last week.
· Referred to 10 March 2020 Briefing Agenda.
· Stated that there is a large variation in lease fees between Tennis Clubs.
· Referred to the assessment that Vincent cannot charge differing fees for the same facilities in the City.
· Felt that additional information should be included in the report.
· States that there is no uniformity in leases.
· Feels that the City should hold responsibility for maintenance of bores.
· Referred to budget and financial implications.
· States that there are problems with the matrix, one of which is that the assumption that clubs make a profit. There are also issues relating to privacy and confidentiality.
· Feels that the feedback from CEO’s consultation was no appropriate.
The Presiding Member, Emma Cole, thanked Mr Gardam for his involvement in this process over the years.
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Smith That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 20 October 2020 be confirmed.
carried Unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
7 Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)
The Presiding Member Emma Cole made the following announcement:
7.1 NAIDOC Week
NAIDOC Week has just been celebrated, and it was one of the best yet. This is partly due to the partnerships the City has with other organisations. The week included workshops, art, film and sport, including the AFL Carnival. They Mayor acknowledged the hard work of all involved.
7.2 Pride Fest
This year there is no Pride Parade or Pride Fair, but there are 45 events during a two week period. Although the format is different the spirit is strong.
8 Declarations of Interest
8.1 Cr Alex Castle declared an impartiality interest in Item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework. The extent of her interest is she is a social member of the North Perth Bowls Club.
8.2 Mayor Cole declared an impartiality interest in Item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework. The extent of her interest is she is a social member of the North Perth Bowls Club and her son is a junior member of the Floreat Athena Football Club.
8.3 Cr Sally Smith declared an impartiality interest in Item 11.2 Adoption of Property Management Framework. The extent of her interest is she is a social member of the North Perth Bowls Club.
8.4 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). The extent of his interest is that 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.
8.5 Cr Sally Smith declared an impartiality interest in Item 12.3 Reports and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 20 October 2020. The extent of her interest is her husband is a member of the Audit Committee.
The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, advised the meeting of:
(a) Items which are the subject of a question, comment or deputation from Members of the Public, being:
Items 9.2, 11.1, 11.2, 11.6, 12.3 12.5.
(b) Items which require an Absolute Majority decision which have not already been the subject of a public question/comment, being:
Items 12.1.
(c) Items which Council Members/Officers have declared a financial or proximity interest, being:
Items 9.2, 11.2, 12.3.
The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, requested Council Members to indicate:
(d) Items which Council Members wish to discuss which have not already been the subject of a public question/comment or require an absolute majority decision and the following was advised:
COUNCIL MEMBER |
ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED |
Cr Gontaszewski |
12.1 and 12.6 |
Cr Loden |
9.4 and 12.2 |
Cr Topelberg |
9.1 and 12.3 |
The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole therefore requested the Chief Executive Officer, David MacLennan, to advise the meeting of:
(e) Unopposed items which will be moved “En Bloc”, being:
Items 9.3, 9.5, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 12.4 and 12.79.3, 9.5, 11.3, 11.4, 11.5, 12.4 and 12.7
(f) Confidential Reports which will be considered behind closed doors, being:
Nil
The following Items were adopted unopposed and without discussion “En Bloc”, as recommended:
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.
|
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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.
|
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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:
|
|||||||||||||||
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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.
|
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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.
|
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
12.4 Council Briefing and Ordinary Meeting of Council dates for 2021 Attachments: Nil |
Recommendation: That Council ADOPTS the 2021 monthly cycle of Council Briefings and Ordinary Meetings of Council, consisting of: 1. Eleven (11) Council Briefings, commencing on Tuesday 9 February 2021; and 2. Eleven (11) Ordinary Meetings of Council, commencing on Tuesday 16 February 2021.
|
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Attachments: 1. Minutes Arts Advisory Group (AAG) 2 September 2020 ⇩ 2. Minutes of the Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting held on 8 October 2020 ⇩ 3. Minutes of the Mindarie Regional Council Meeting held on 22 October 2020 ⇩ 4. Minutes Children and Young People Advisory Group (CYPAG) 21 October 2020 ⇩ 5. Statistics for Development Services Applications as at end of October 2020 ⇩ 6. Register of Legal Action and Prosecutions Monthly - Confidential 7. Register of State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals - Progress report as at 28 October 2020 ⇩ 8. Register of Applications Referred to the MetroWest Development Assessment Panel - Current ⇩ 9. Register of Applications Referred to the Design Review Panel - Current ⇩ 10. Register of Petitions - Progress Report - October 2020 ⇩ 11. Register of Notices of Motion - Progress Report - October 2020 ⇩ 12. Register of Reports to be Actioned - Progress Report - October 2020 ⇩ 13. Minutes of Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group 3 September 2020 ⇩ 14. Minutes of Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group 29 October 2020 ⇩ |
Recommendation: That Council RECEIVES the Information Bulletin dated November 2020.
|
Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0) (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
|
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; 1. 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; 2. e) Pursuant to Section 6.16 of the Local Government Act 1995, ADOPTS the amendment of Fees and Charges for parklet fees; and 3. 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.
|
|
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted.
|
|
|
Amendment 1 Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis That the Recommendation be amended as follows:
Approved subject to:
(g) The reduction in the transfer to Special Purpose Reserve (Asset Sustainability) by $50,000 and the allocation of $50,000 to Operating Expenditure for Festivals and Events (January – June 2021).
REASON:
The City delayed the annual Expression of Interest for Festivals and Events Grant funding last financial year due to COVID-19 health restrictions. Given that WA is in Phase 4 of the COVID-19 Roadmap and that the City of Vincent has entered a recovery phase, it is important for events funding to resume as part of our economic rebound approach. Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
|
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis That the recommendation be added as follows: 2. REQUESTS Administration to prepare a report to Council outlining the self-supporting loan mechanism referred to as part of the loan to Perth Soccer Club for solar photovoltaic, prior to the release of funds for that project.
Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
|
Council Decision Item 11.6
That Council BY ABSOUTE MAJORITY APPROVES the following amendments to the 2020/2021 Annual Budget:
1 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.
(g) The reduction in the transfer to Special Purpose Reserve (Asset Sustainability) by $50,000 and the allocation of $50,000 to Operating Expenditure for Festivals and Events (January – June 2021).
2. REQUESTS Administration to prepare a report to Council outlining the self - supporting loan mechanism referred to as part of the loan to Perth Soccer Club for solar photovoltaic, prior to the release of funds for that project.
carried by Absolute Majority (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
|
At 7.15pm Cr Joshua Topelberg left the meeting
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.
|
Moved: Cr Loden, Seconded: Cr Castle That the recommendation be adopted. |
Council Decision Item 9.2 Moved: Cr Wallace, Seconded: Cr Fotakis That the motion be deferred. carried (5-2) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Cr Gontaszewski and Cr Castle (Cr Topelberg was absent from the Council Chamber and did not vote)
(Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
REASON:
Council requires the provision of an acoustic report that addresses noise and vibration from the applicant, and proposed measures in response to the recommendation therein. |
At 7:35 pm, Cr Joshua Topelberg returned to the meeting.
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
12.3 Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 20 October 2020 Attachments: 1. Audit Committee Meeting Minutes - 20 October 2020 ⇩ |
||||||||||||||
That Council: 1. RECEIVES this report from the Audit Committee meeting of 20 October 2020 and the minutes of that meeting at Attachment 1; 2. APPROVES the recommendations of the Audit Committee as follows: 2.1 RECEIVES the Office of the Auditor General’s draft Audit findings identified during the information systems (ICT) audit for the period 1 July 2019 – 30 June 2020;
2.2 NOTES that the 24 actions arising from the audit findings have been added to the City’s Audit Log, that two of the audit findings are significant and should be addressed promptly, and that the two significant audit findings have been added to the City’s Corporate Risk Register as high risks;
2.3 NOTES the status of the City’s Audit Log as at 8 October 2020 and that two high rated items in the Audit Log arising from the 2019 OAG Fraud Performance Audit - EA2019/7 and EA2019/8, are currently incomplete;
2.3 RECEIVES the City’s Corporate Risk Register as at 8 October 2020 and APPROVES the proposed risk management actions for the high and extreme risks, subject to the completion date for the ICT high risks being updated to 31 July 2021;
2.4 RECEIVES the Office of the Auditor General audit report - Working with Children Checks - Managing Compliance; and NOTES the City’s findings and actions as detailed in this report; 4. 2.5 RECEIVES the Western Australian Auditor General’s Report – Regulation of Consumer Food Safety by Local Government Entities; and NOTES the City’s findings and actions as detailed in this report; and
2.6 That the Audit Committee ADOPTS the meeting schedule for 2021 as follows:
|
||||||||||||||
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Loden That the recommendation be adopted. carried Unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
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.
|
Moved: Cr Loden, Seconded: Cr Smith That the recommendation be adopted. carried Unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
12.5 Updated project plans for 5 strategic projects in the Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24 Attachments: 1. Leederville Activity Centre Plan ⇩ 2. Marketing Plan and Communications Plan ⇩ 3. Community Engagement Framework ⇩ 4. Britannia North West Reserve Development Plan ⇩ 5. Beatty Park 2062 ⇩ |
Recommendation: That Council APPROVES the updated project plans for the following 5 Strategic Projects in the Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24: · Leederville Activity Centre Plan; · Beatty Park 2062; · Marketing Plan and Communications Plan; · Community Engagement Framework; and · Britannia Reserve West Development Plan.
|
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Loden That the recommendation be adopted. carried Unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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 ⇩ |
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.
|
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Fotakis That the recommendation be adopted.
|
Amendment 1 Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis That recommendation 8 be deleted as follows:
Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Topelberg That the recommendation be amended as follows: 2. ADOPTS the:
2.1 Property Management Framework at Attachment 4; Subject to; Adopts the Property Management Framework and Policy subject to:
Category 1 – Small Community Groups New Annual Fee as outlined in Attachment 9 being capped at $1000 (CPI indexed annually);
Category 1 – Small Community Groups – Playgroups – New Annual Fee as outlined in Attachment 9 being capped at $500 (CPI indexed annually);
Category 2 – Sports Clubs and Community Organisations as outlined in Attachment 9 being capped at $4,000 (CPI indexed annually); and
REASON:
The introduction of caps within Category 1 and 2 would provide some certainty and buffer against potential GRV fluctuations.
In relation to playgroups, all three continuing playgroups (excluding North Perth) have recently been refurbished and are in good condition. Highgate Playgroup appears to be an “outlier” of the GRV calculation approach and does have smallest area for exclusive outdoor use. All Playgroups have also recently needed to purchase additional insurance for non-playgroup activities (mostly parties) at a cost of around $750. Introducing a cap on playgroups within Category one brings more equity between these very similar facilities and services.
Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.
|
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Fotakis That a new Recommendation be inserted as follows:
8. REQUESTS that Administration apply the Community Benefit matrix to the leasing negotiations with Robertson Park Artists Studio in consideration of the current lease fee and the social and community benefit of maintaining an artist studio in the City of Vincent.
REASON:
Robertson Park Artists Studio is not a commercial operation and has been included in Category 3, alongside commercial entities, State and National Clubs, Associations and Community Organisations. Despite the Robertson Park Artists Studio not having Incorporated status, it would be a significant financial hardship for the Studio to change from the existing lease fee of $6,095.34 per annum subject to annual CPI review to a negotiated outcome based on GRV (currently $35,000). Whilst Council will ultimately determine the lease, this amendment would introduce the ability for Administration to apply the Community Benefit matrix criteria in an effort to ameliorate the impact of being included as a Category 3 tenant.
Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Council Decision Item 11.2 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; Subject to; Adopts the Property Management Framework and Policy subject to:
Category 1 – Small Community Groups New Annual Fee as outlined in Attachment 9 being capped at $1000 (CPI indexed annually);
Category 1 – Small Community Groups – Playgroups – New Annual Fee as outlined in Attachment 9 being capped at $500 (CPI indexed annually);
Category 2 – Sports Clubs and Community Organisations as outlined in Attachment 9 being capped at $4,000 (CPI indexed annually); 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. REQUESTS that Administration apply the Community Benefit matrix to the leasing negotiations with Robertson Park Artists Studio in consideration of the current lease fee and the social and community benefit of maintaining an artist studio in the City of Vincent.
carried by Absolute Majority (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
The Executive Director Community & Business Services thanked Vernon Gardam and John Gartner for their input into this process. The Mayor agreed and added her thanks for their engagement in the process.
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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.
|
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Loden That the recommendation be adopted. lost (0-8) For: Nil Against: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Loden 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 Two Grouped Dwellings at No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and associated advice notes:
1. Amended Plans Prior to the issue of a building permit, revised plans shall be submitted and approved by the City demonstrating the following: 1.1 The fixed window openings to Bed 1 and Bed 2 of Unit 2 shall be screened in accordance with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes; 2. Development Plans This approval is for two grouped dwellings as shown on the approved plans dated 26 October 2020. No other development forms part of this approval; 3. Boundary Walls The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the practical completion of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City. The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick, or material as otherwise approved, to the satisfaction of the City; 4. External Fixtures All external fixtures, such as television antennas (of a non-standard type), radio and other antennaes, satellite dishes, solar panels, external hot water heaters, air conditioners, meter boxes and the like, shall not be visible from the street or are to be integrated with the design of the building, to the satisfaction of the City; 5. Simultaneous Construction The following walls of the dwellings on proposed Lots 1 and 2 must be constructed simultaneously: 5.1 Proposed Lot 1: the ground floor and first floor wall abutting proposed Lot 2; and 5.2 Proposed Lot 2: the ground and first floor wall abutting proposed Lot 1 (see Advice Note 2); 6. Colours and Materials Schedule Prior to the lodgement of a building permit, a schedule detailing the colour and texture of the building materials, demonstrating that the proposed development complements the surrounding area, must be submitted to and approved by the Local Government. The development must be finished, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the schedule provided to and approved by the Local Government, prior to occupation of the development; 7. Visual Privacy Prior to occupation or use of the development, all privacy screening shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed‑to‑comply standards, to the satisfaction of the City; 8. Street Walls and Fences The proposed access gate to the western elevation of Unit 1 is required to open wholly within the subject lot; 9. Landscaping Plan 9.1 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 commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following: · The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants; · The provision of a minimum of 12 percent of the site area as deep soil zones, 3 percent as planting zones and 30 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and · Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and 9.2 All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 9.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers; 10. 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; 11. Sight Lines No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height shall be constructed within 1.5 metres of where: · walls, letterboxes or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site; or · driveway meets a public street; or · two streets intersect; 12. Parking and Access 12.1 The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1; 12.2 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 12.3 All new crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications. DETERMINATION ADVICE NOTES:
1. With reference to Condition 3, the owners of the subject land shall obtain the consent of the owners of relevant adjoining properties before entering those properties in order to make good the boundary walls;
2. In reference to Condition 5, simultaneous building permits for the grouped dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 are required.
3. With reference to Condition 7 Clause 5.4.1 C1.2 Visual Privacy requirements of the R codes states that screening devices such as obscure glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters are to be at least 1.6m in height, at least 75 percent obscure, permanently fixed, made of durable material and restrict view in the direction of the overlooking into any adjoining property;
4. With reference to Condition 9, the City encourages landscaping methods and species selection which do not rely on reticulation;
5. With reference to Condition 10, no further consideration shall be given to the disposal of stormwater ‘offsite’ without the submission of a geotechnical report from a qualified consultant. Should approval to dispose of stormwater ‘offsite’ be subsequently provided, detailed design drainage plans and associated calculations for the proposed stormwater disposal shall be lodged together with the building permit application working drawings;
6. A security bond for the sum of $2,000, shall be lodged with the City by the applicant, prior to the issue of a building permit. This bond will be held until all building/development works have been completed and any disturbance of, or damage to the City’s infrastructure in the Right of Way and the Verge along Deague Court, including verge trees, has been repaired/reinstated to the satisfaction of the City. An application for the refund of the security bond shall be made in writing. The bond is non-transferable;
7. The movement of all path users, with or without disabilities, within the road reserve, shall not be impeded in any way during the course of the building works. This area shall be maintained in a safe and trafficable condition and a continuous path of travel (minimum width 1.5 metres) shall be maintained for all users at all times during construction works. If the safety of the path is compromised resulting from either construction damage or as a result of a temporary obstruction appropriate warning signs (in accordance with AS1742.3) shall be erected. Should a continuous path not be able to be maintained, an ‘approved’ temporary pedestrian facility suitable for all path users shall be put in place. If there is a request to erect scaffolding, site fencing etc. or if building materials are required to be stored within the road reserve, once a formal request has been received, the matter will be assessed by the City and if considered appropriate a permit shall be issued by the City. No permit will be issued if the proposed encroachment into the road reserve is deemed to be inappropriate;
8. A Demolition Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any demolition works on the site;
9. This is a development approval issued under the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme only. It is not a building permit or an approval to commence or carry out development under any other law. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to obtain any other necessary approvals and to commence and carry out development in accordance with all other laws;
10. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of two years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect;
11. A further two years is added to the date by which the development shall be substantially commenced, pursuant to Schedule 4, Clause 4.2 of the Clause 78H Notice of Exemption from Planning Requirements During State of Emergency signed by the Minister for Planning on 8 April 2020; and
12. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination.
REASON:
The proposed development is considered to satisfactorily meet the terms of Policy 7.1.1 Built Form Policy and State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes.
|
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Smith That recommendation be 1 removed as follows, and the other recommendations are renumbered:
Amendment carried (5-3) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace, Against: Cr Topelberg, Cr Loden, Cr Fotakis (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Council Decision Item 9.4 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 Two Grouped Dwellings at No. 2 (Lot: 119; D/P: 12521) Deague Court, North Perth in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and associated advice notes:
1. Development Plans This approval is for two grouped dwellings as shown on the approved plans dated 26 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, meter boxes and the like, shall not be visible from the street or are to be integrated with the design of the building, to the satisfaction of the City; 4. Simultaneous Construction The following walls of the dwellings on proposed Lots 1 and 2 must be constructed simultaneously: a. Proposed Lot 1: the ground floor and first floor wall abutting proposed Lot 2; and b. Proposed Lot 2: the ground and first floor wall abutting proposed Lot 1 (see Advice Note 2); 5. Colours and Materials Schedule Prior to the lodgement of a building permit, a schedule detailing the colour and texture of the building materials, demonstrating that the proposed development complements the surrounding area, must be submitted to and approved by the Local Government. The development must be finished, and thereafter maintained, in accordance with the schedule provided to and approved by the Local Government, prior to occupation of the development; 6. Visual Privacy Prior to occupation or use of the development, all privacy screening shall be visually impermeable and is to comply in all respects with the requirements of Clause 5.4.1 of the Residential Design Codes (Visual Privacy) deemed‑to‑comply standards, to the satisfaction of the City; 7. Street Walls and Fences The proposed access gate to the western elevation of Unit 1 is required to open wholly within the subject lot; 8. Landscaping Plan a. 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 commencement of the development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100 and show the following: · The location and type of existing and proposed trees and plants; · The provision of a minimum of 12 percent of the site area as deep soil zones, 3 percent as planting zones and 30 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form; and · Areas to be irrigated or reticulated; and b. All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 9.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupation or use of the development and shall be maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers; 9. 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; 10. Sight Lines No walls, letterboxes or fences above 0.75 metres in height shall be constructed within 1.5 metres of where: · walls, letterboxes or fences adjoin vehicular access points to the site; or · driveway meets a public street; or · two streets intersect; 11. Parking and Access a. The layout and dimensions of all driveway(s) and parking area(s) shall be in accordance with AS2890.1; b. 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 c. All new crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications. DETERMINATION ADVICE NOTES:
1. With reference to Condition 3, the owners of the subject land shall obtain the consent of the owners of relevant adjoining properties before entering those properties in order to make good the boundary walls;
2. In reference to Condition 5, simultaneous building permits for the grouped dwellings on Lots 1 and 2 are required.
3. With reference to Condition 7 Clause 5.4.1 C1.2 Visual Privacy requirements of the R codes states that screening devices such as obscure glazing, timber screens, external blinds, window hoods and shutters are to be at least 1.6m in height, at least 75 percent obscure, permanently fixed, made of durable material and restrict view in the direction of the overlooking into any adjoining property;
4. With reference to Condition 9, the City encourages landscaping methods and species selection which do not rely on reticulation;
5. With reference to Condition 10, no further consideration shall be given to the disposal of stormwater ‘offsite’ without the submission of a geotechnical report from a qualified consultant. Should approval to dispose of stormwater ‘offsite’ be subsequently provided, detailed design drainage plans and associated calculations for the proposed stormwater disposal shall be lodged together with the building permit application working drawings;
6. A security bond for the sum of $2,000, shall be lodged with the City by the applicant, prior to the issue of a building permit. This bond will be held until all building/development works have been completed and any disturbance of, or damage to the City’s infrastructure in the Right of Way and the Verge along Deague Court, including verge trees, has been repaired/reinstated to the satisfaction of the City. An application for the refund of the security bond shall be made in writing. The bond is non-transferable;
7. The movement of all path users, with or without disabilities, within the road reserve, shall not be impeded in any way during the course of the building works. This area shall be maintained in a safe and trafficable condition and a continuous path of travel (minimum width 1.5 metres) shall be maintained for all users at all times during construction works. If the safety of the path is compromised resulting from either construction damage or as a result of a temporary obstruction appropriate warning signs (in accordance with AS1742.3) shall be erected. Should a continuous path not be able to be maintained, an ‘approved’ temporary pedestrian facility suitable for all path users shall be put in place. If there is a request to erect scaffolding, site fencing etc. or if building materials are required to be stored within the road reserve, once a formal request has been received, the matter will be assessed by the City and if considered appropriate a permit shall be issued by the City. No permit will be issued if the proposed encroachment into the road reserve is deemed to be inappropriate;
8. A Demolition Permit shall be obtained from the City prior to commencement of any demolition works on the site;
9. This is a development approval issued under the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme only. It is not a building permit or an approval to commence or carry out development under any other law. It is the responsibility of the applicant/owner to obtain any other necessary approvals and to commence and carry out development in accordance with all other laws;
10. If the development the subject of this approval is not substantially commenced within a period of two years, or another period specified in the approval after the date of determination, the approval will lapse and be of no further effect;
11. A further two years is added to the date by which the development shall be substantially commenced, pursuant to Schedule 4, Clause 4.2 of the Clause 78H Notice of Exemption from Planning Requirements During State of Emergency signed by the Minister for Planning on 8 April 2020; and
12. If an applicant or owner is aggrieved by this determination there is a right of review by the State Administrative Tribunal in accordance with the Planning and Development Act 2005 Part 14. An application must be made within 28 days of the determination.
carried UNANIMOUSLY (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace, Cr Topelberg, Cr Loden, Cr Fotakis (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
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.
|
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Loden That the recommendation be adopted. carried (6-2) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Cr Gontaszewski and Cr Topelberg (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
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.
|
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Castle That the recommendation be adopted. lost (0-8) For: Nil Against: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Castle That Council:
1. NOTES the request from petitioners to review the decision to introduce e-permits;
2. REAFFIRMS the decision to move towards e-permits to streamline administration and compliance activities associated with the implementation of the Parking Permit Policy and Parking Local Law;
3. NOTES and accepts the community concerns around disability access and suitability of the e-permit system where people don’t have reliable access to the internet or have a disability, access or inclusion barrier that would impact on the use of screen-based devices;
4. REQUESTS that the CEO ensures that varied requirements are made available for residents in these approved circumstances; and
5. REQUIRES administration to undertake consultation and seek feedback from the community on the implementation of e-permits and report back to Council by Feb 2021.
REASON:
This alternate recommendation would better relate back to the petition and reaffirm the intention of Council and Administration to move towards e-permits. Also specifically informing that a variation of requirements would be considered.
carried unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
12.1 City of Vincent Advisory Groups Attachments: 1. DRAFT Terms of Reference Children and Young People Advisory Group ⇩ 2. DRAFT Terms of Reference Arts Advisory Group ⇩ 3. DRAFT Terms of Reference Safer Vincent Advisory Group ⇩ 4. DRAFT Terms of Reference Sustainability and Transport Advisory Group ⇩ 5. Policy 4.2.12 - Advisory Groups ⇩ |
Recommendation: That Council APPROVES by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to: 1. ADOPT the Terms of References of the City’s Advisory Groups (at Attachments 1 to 4): 1.2 Children & Young People Advisory Group; 1.3 Safer Vincent Advisory Group; and 1.4 Sustainability & Transport Advisory Group (formerly Environmental Advisory Group and Urban Mobility Advisory Group). 2. APPOINT the following Elected Members as Council’s representatives on the Safer Vincent Advisory Group for a term expiring on 16 October 2021: 2.1 Safer Vincent Advisory Group (2 Elected Members): Members: 2.2 the Chair of the Advisory Group will be Cr ………………………….
|
Moved: Cr Fotakis, Seconded: Cr Gontaszewski That the recommendation be adopted.
|
Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Loden That the recommendation be amended as follows:
1. ADOPT the Terms of References of the City’s Advisory Groups (at Attachments 1 to 4): 1.1 Arts Advisory Group; 1.2 Children & Young People Advisory Group; 1.3 Safer Vincent Advisory Group subject to a representative from Noongar Outreach Services and representatives from homeless outreach services being included as Standing Members; and 1.4 Sustainability & Transport Advisory Group (formerly Environmental Advisory Group and Urban Mobility Advisory Group). REASON:
These organisations have invaluable ‘on ground’ knowledge and considerable expertise and would be a very welcome addition as Standing Members at the Safer Vincent Advisory Group. This forum will also ensure ongoing information sharing and a better coordinated response between all stakeholders.
Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Moved: Cr Fotakis, Seconded: Cr Smith That the recommendation be amended as follows: 1. ADOPT the Terms of References of the City’s Advisory Groups (at Attachments 1 to 4): 1.1 Arts Advisory Group, subject to the inclusion of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander representative being part of the membership as per the Arts Development Action Plan. REASON: To comply with the Arts Development Action Plan. Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Council Decision Item 12.1
That Council APPROVES by an ABSOLUTE MAJORITY to: 1. ADOPT the Terms of References of the City’s Advisory Groups (at Attachments 1 to 4): 1.1 Arts Advisory Group, subject to the inclusion of an Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander representative as per the Arts Development Action Plan; 1.2 Children & Young People Advisory Group; 1.5 Safer Vincent Advisory Group, subject to a representative from Noongar Outreach Services and a representative from homeless outreach services being included as Standing Members; and 1.4 Sustainability & Transport Advisory Group (formerly Environmental Advisory Group and Urban Mobility Advisory Group). 2. APPOINT the following Elected Members as Council’s representatives on the Safer Vincent Advisory Group for a term expiring on 16 October 2021: 2.1 Safer Vincent Advisory Group (2 Elected Members): Members: 2.2 the Chair of the Advisory Group will be Cr Wallace.
carried by Absolute Majority (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
12.2 Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 Progress Update Attachments: 1. Metrics: Progress towards SES targets ⇩ 2. Maps: Tree planting and eco-zoning ⇩ |
Recommendation: That Council NOTES: 1. the update on progress towards targets within Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019 – 2024; and 2. that 2019/20 metrics related to use of the City’s buildings were impacted by facility shut-downs caused by COVID-19, which have contributed to reduced electricity, gas and scheme water consumption at a number of sites.
|
Moved: Cr Loden, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted. carried Unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 17 November 2020
12.6 Advertising of new policy - Attendance at Events Policy Attachments: 1. Draft - Attendance at Events Policy (clean copy) ⇩ 2. Draft - Attendance at Events Policy (tracked version) ⇩ |
Recommendation: That Council: 1. APPROVES the proposed policy ‘Attendance at Events Policy’, at Attachment 1, for the purpose of advertising; 2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the proposed new policy in Recommendation 1. above and invite public comments for a period of at least 21 days; and 3. NOTES that at the conclusion of the public notice period any submissions received would be presented to Council for consideration.
|
Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Wallace That the recommendation be adopted.
|
Moved: Cr Wallace, Seconded: Cr Topelberg That the recommendation be amended as follows: That Council:
1. APPROVES the proposed policy ‘Attendance at Events Policy’, at Attachment 1, for the purpose of advertising, with the following change to item 8: “ … the Elected
Member must disclose this interest to the CEO or Presiding Member prior to
the
REASON:
To align with the Meeting Procedures Local Law, which takes precedence over policy.
Amendment carried (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.) |
Council Decision Item 12.6 That Council: 1. APPROVES the proposed policy ‘Attendance at Events Policy’, at Attachment 1, for the purpose of advertising, with the following change: “ … the Elected Member must disclose this interest to the CEO or Presiding Member prior to the matter being considered and be absent from, or seek Council approval for, participating in consideration of the item in accordance with the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law.
2. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the proposed new policy in Recommendation 1. above and invite public comments for a period of at least 21 days; and 3. NOTES that at the conclusion of the public notice period any submissions received would be presented to Council for consideration. carried Unanimously (8-0) For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg, Cr Smith and Cr Wallace Against: Nil (Cr Hallett was an apology for the Meeting.)
|
13 Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given
13.1 Open space designation for dog walking – Cr Gontaszewski.
13.2 Alternative permit issuing technology- Cr Gontaszewski.
14 Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion)
Nil
15 Representation on Committees and Public Bodies
Nil
Nil
17 Confidential Items/Matters For Which the Meeting May be Closed
Nil
18 Closure
There being no further business, the Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, declared the meeting closed at 8.56pm with the following persons present:
There being no further business, the Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, declared the meeting closed at 8.56pm with the following persons present:
PRESENT: Mayor Emma Cole Presiding Member
Cr Susan Gontaszewski South Ward
Cr Alex Castle North Ward
Cr Joanne Fotakis North Ward
Cr Dan Loden North Ward
Cr Joshua Topelberg South Ward
Cr Sally Smith North Ward
Cr Ashley Wallace South Ward
IN ATTENDANCE: David MacLennan Chief Executive Officer
Andrew Murphy Executive Director Infrastructure & Environment
Virginia Miltrup Executive Director Community & Business Services
Mark Fallows A/Executive Director Strategy &Development
Emily Williams A/Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance
Wendy Barnard Council Liaison Officer
Public: No members of the public.
These Minutes were confirmed by the Council as a true and accurate record of the Ordinary Meeting of the Council Meeting held on 17 November 2020.