Agenda of Ordinary Council Meeting

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

9.1 Development Application and Licence to locate a fence in the Gregson Street road reserve adjacent to No. 76 (Lot: 1; D/P: 52824) Newcastle Street, Perth

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Proposed License Area ⇩

2. Location Map - Gregson Street Road Reserve ⇩

3. Proposed Development Plans - Gregson Street Road Reserve ⇩

4. Determination Advice Notes ⇩

5. Images of Subject Site and Context ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES the City granting a licence to the owners of Eastgate Apartments, No. 76 Newcastle Street, Perth, Strata Plan 52824 (Applicant), for part of the Gregson Street road reserve abutting No. 76 Newcastle Street, as shown in Attachment 2, on the following key terms:

1.1 Term: 5 years with a 5 year option term;

1.2 Licence Area: 39m² (6.2m x 6.3m) of Gregson Street road reserve;

1.3 Licence fee: nil;

1.4 Permitted use: installation of a fence and gate with WAS Western Power approved lock (Installation) for the purpose of preventing entry onto the Licence Area except by relevant public authorities;

1.5 Cleaning: Applicant must, at its cost, keep the Installation clean and tidy at all times, including removing any graffiti, posters or unauthorised signage from the exterior of the Installation, and ensure any build up of debris or rubbish within the Licence Area is removed and disposed of;

1.6 Insurance: Applicant must ensure its public liability and property insurance extends to cover the Installation and (upon request) provide the City with a certificate of currency in respect to those policies;

1.7 Indemnity: Applicant to indemnify the City and the Minister for Lands against loss or damage to property or persons occurring as a result of the Installation, the licensee’s use of the Licence Area or the licensee failing to maintain the Installation in accordance with the terms of the licence;

1.8 Maintenance: Applicant must, at its cost, keep the Installation in good repair and condition including repairing damage or deterioration to the Installation;

1.9 Removal and make good: the Installation must be removed and the Licence Area made good by Applicant (to the City’s satisfaction) at the request of the City, Minister for Lands, utility service provider or a public authority or on the termination or earlier determination of the Licence;

1.10 Compensation: No compensation will be payable to the Applicant if the City, Minister for Lands, utility service provider or a public authority make a request in accordance with recommendation 1.9 above; and

1.11 WAS lock: the Applicant must provide the City and Western Power with working copies of the WAS keys and must, at all times, retain a set of keys to allow access to the Licence Area at the request of a service provider or public authority. If, at any time, the lock on the Installation must be replaced, the Applicant must, at its cost, arrange the replacement of the lock and provide copies of the new keys to the City and Western Power;

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

3. In accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for the proposed Alterations and Additions to Mixed Use Development within the Gregson Street road reserve adjacent to No. 76 Newcastle Street, Perth in accordance with the plans provided within Attachment 3, and subject to the following conditions and Advice Notes included in Attachment 4:

3.1 This approval is for Alterations and Additions to Mixed Use Development as shown on the approved plans dated 20 November 2020. No other development forms part of this approval; and

3.2 Other than the structures which forms part form this approval, no other permanent structure, improvement or fixture within the road reserve area is permitted without prior written approval of the City.

Purpose of Report:

To consider granting a licence to the owners of Eastgate Apartments, No. 76 Newcastle Street, Perth, Strata Plan 52824 (Applicant) and an application for development approval for Alterations and Additions to Mixed Use Development for the construction of a fence with locked gate (Installation) across a portion of the Gregson Street road reserve adjoining No. 76 Newcastle Street, Perth, as shown in Attachment 3.

PROPOSAL:

The Applicant proposes to erect a fence with gate across a portion of the Gregson Street road reserve. The fence would enclose a portion of the road reserve which is currently bound on three sides by the adjoining mixed use building at No. 76 Newcastle Street, Perth, creating an alcove. The alcove is currently subject to reports of anti-social behaviour, such as drug use, and poses a risk to the actual and perceived safety of pedestrians and residents. The proposed fence is sought to enclose this alcove to the street to remove the opportunities for anti-social behaviour and concealment by blocking access to the space.

As the Applicant is proposing to locate a permanent structure within a road reserve it is necessary for the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) to sign the development application as the “landowner.” DPLH’s signing of the Development Application is subject to the City, who is responsible for the care, control and management of the road reserve, to enter into an appropriate tenure (land use) arrangement with the Applicant. The City proposes a licence with the Applicant, which will indemnify the City and Minister for Lands against any damage or loss arising in connection with the use of the Licence Area, and require that the Applicant maintain the Licence Area to the City’s satisfaction.

The proposed fence is to run parallel with the adjacent pedestrian footpath and would enclose the portion of this road reserve as a safety measure. The fence is 6 metres in length, has a maximum height of 1.8 metres and is visually permeable. Vertical slats are proposed to remove ability to climb the fence. The fence is to be constructed of powder coated aluminium in a dark grey (Woodland Grey) as shown in Attachment 3. This is generally consistent with the construction of the existing pedestrian gate and the vehicular access gate on the same elevation of the adjoining mixed use development (refer to Attachment 3).

The subject portion of the road reserve is currently occupied by Western Power infrastructure associated with the mixed use development located on the adjoining land (No. 76 Newcastle Street, Perth). The land within this portion of road reserve has dimensions of 6 metres by 6 metres and a total area of 38.9 square metres.

A locked gate is to be included in the fence to permit access to Western Power and strata management as required. A copy of the proposed development plans are included at Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:	State of Western Australia (road reserve). City has care, control and management of this road reserve.
Applicant:	Owners of Eastgate Apartments
Date of Application:	11 November 2020
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: No zoning – Road Reserve R Code: N/A
Built Form Area:	N/A
Existing Land Use:	Road Reserve
Proposed Use Class:	N/A
Lot Area:	N/A
Right of Way (ROW):	N/A
Heritage List:	N/A

The subject site is a 6 metre x 6 metre portion of road reserve created at time of subdivision for Western Power infrastructure associated with the adjoining mixed use development.

The subject site is bound by the three storey mixed use development at No. 76 Newcastle Street to the north, south and west and Gregson Street to the east. Further east, across Gregson Street, is a four storey mixed use development at No. 150 Stirling Street, Perth. Gregson Street forms the secondary street for both adjoining developments. A location plan is included as Attachment 2.

All properties adjacent to the subject site are zoned Mixed Use R100 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and are within the Activity Centre Built Form Area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 Built Form (Built Form Policy).

The City’s crime and drug statistics confirm needle collection within the site, and reports of theft on Gregson Street and anti-social behaviour associated with adjacent Newcastle Street and nearby Weld Square. The City’s records includes reports of:

· Two thefts on Gregson Street (one incident each in February and May 2020); and

· 14 syringe removal requests from behind the transformer boxes since 2017, with three of these requests made in 2020.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The provisions of the City’s Built Form Policy do not extend to reserves. In assessing the application for development approval on land located on road reserve, the City is to have due regard to relevant matters as stipulated under the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 Schedule 2 Clause 67 - Matters to be considered by local government. An assessment against the relevant matters is discussed in the Comments section of this report.

The City does not have any adopted local planning policies that relate to development on road reserves.

The City’s draft Development on City Owned and Managed Land Policy (Draft Policy) is silent on private development/installation of this nature on a road reserve. However, as the installation is for the purpose of reducing anti-social and criminal behaviour and the licence terms reflect the requirements of the Draft Policy (including indemnifying the City and Minister for Lands) Administration supports the grant of the licence on the terms set out in Recommendation 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

In accordance with section 3.58 of the Local Government Act 1995 (LGA) and Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 (Regulations), the licence meets the requirements of an exempt disposition (Regulation 30(2)(a)). Local public notice of the proposed licence is not necessary.

The development application does not require advertising. The application does not propose any departures from the relevant planning framework which could reasonably be considered to have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties or the surrounding streetscape. In accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Consultation, the proposed amendments would not have a significant impact on the community, or the economy, lifestyle, amenity and/or environment of any member of the community or community group.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: No

Legal/Policy:

· Land Administration Act 1997;

· Local Government Act 1995;

· Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996;

· Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996;

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Section 55(2) of the Land Administration Act 1997 places responsibility for the care, control and management of road reserves (within the district of the City) with the City.

Regulation 17 of the Local Government (Uniform Local Provisions) Regulations 1996 provides:

· that the City may grant permission to a person to construct a specified thing on, over, or under a public thoroughfare or public place that is local government property; and

· specifies the requirements for the permission to be granted.

Section 3.58 of the LGA sets out the process for disposing of City owned and managed property. Section 3.58(5) provides for exceptions as set out in the Reg. 30 of the Regulations, as follows:

(2) a disposition of land is an exempt disposition if –

(a) the land is disposed of to an owner of adjoining land (in this paragraph called the transferee) and –

(i) its market value is less than $5,000; and

(ii) the local government does not consider that ownership of the land would be of significant benefit to anyone other than the transferee.

Planning and Development Act 2005

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

Draft Development on City Owned Land Policy

The City’s draft Development on City Owned and Managed Land Policy (Draft Policy) was approved by Council for the purposes of advertising at its 28 July 2020 Ordinary Meeting. The Draft Policy is not a given due regard status under Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. This is because the status of the Draft Policy is not yet ‘seriously entertained’, as it has not received final support from Council and it is not certain or imminent in coming into effect in the form that it was advertised in. Notwithstanding this, the proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the Draft Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The development application has been referred to Council to allow for the development of the land to be considered in conjunction with the application for licence approval.

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk for Council to enter into a licence for part of the road reserve where the licence addresses the risk to the City in respect to the proposed Installation.

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Thriving Places

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

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

An assessment of the proposed fence has been undertaken against Schedule 2, Part 9, Clause 67 (Matters to be Considered by Local Government) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015. The matters relevant to this application include:

m) The compatibility of the development with its setting including the relationship of the development to development on adjoining land or on other land in the locality including, but not limited to, the likely effect of the height, bulk, scale, orientation and appearance of the development.

n) The amenity of the locality including the following -

(i) environmental impacts of the development;

(ii) the character of the locality; and

(iii) social impacts of the development.

Assessment of the proposed fence located in the road reserve against these relevant matters is provided below:

· The design of the fence, having regard to its scale and appearance, would be compatible with the streetscape character and that of the adjoining mixed use developments. Gregson Street has a reduced level of visual amenity, as it is characterised by blank walls and vehicular/garaging access at street level with balconies and windows on upper floors. The proposal would improve the character of the immediate locality by screening unsightly service infrastructure from view of Gregson Street.

· The alcove (subject portion of road reserve) has a 6 metre wide opening to Gregson Street and a depth of six 6 metres, as depicted in Attachment 5. The alcove is partially occupied by the Western Power infrastructure which is comprised of solid metal structures which occupy a total of approximately 3 metres in width by 1.5 metres in height (Attachment 5). Opportunities for concealment exist behind the Western Power infrastructure and within the alcove itself, particularly at night. The area is poorly lit and provides a low level of visibility from the street which undermines actual and perceived safety in the immediate area, particularly for pedestrians. The nature of Gregson Street in primarily providing for garaging of adjoining developments and does not serve as the main pedestrian entrances to these buildings. There are also no balconies or major openings from the adjoining development that directly overlooks the alcove area. This means that there is low level of passive surveillance of this area. The fence would create a barrier to this alcove to prevent access from Gregson Street and would deter the anti-social behaviour which has been known to occur on this portion of road reserve;

· The design of the fence is intended to prevent it from being climbed and to restrict it from concealment opportunities. The fence has a maximum height of 1.8 metres and is designed to be visually permeable with vertical slats to prevent a person getting a foot hold to climb over. The slats will have gaps of a minimum of 50 millimetres between to retain visibility. The proposal would result in an improvement to the amenity of the area having regard to visual amenity and pedestrian safety;

· The enhanced actual and perceived safety of the immediate area is anticipated to improve, having regard for social impacts through deterring anti-social behaviour and reducing opportunity for anti-social or illegal activity to occur. In this regard the proposal responds to the Western Australian Planning Commission’s Designing out Crime Planning Guidelines by:

· Restricting public access to an area around the Western Power infrastructure which currently presents as a congregation and entrapment area;

· The fence has been designed to be visually permeable, providing opportunities for surveillance. The use of vertical slats restricts the ability for the fence to be easily climbed; and

· Although the area is public for the purposes of Western Power being able to access its infrastructure, the fence assists to delineate between the public realm and this servicing space. The strata owner has consulted with Western Power, who has advised that it is supportive of the proposed fence, provided that a Western Australian Services (WAS) lock is provided so that it can access the infrastructure as required. A WAS lock is a lock commonly used throughout the State in similar situations where access is to be permitted only to the relevant parties such as the landowner and services provider. The provision of a WAS lock and the submission of a key to the City of Vincent and to Western Power forms one of the conditions of the licence.

The proposed fence located in the road reserve meets the relevant matters to be considered by local government, would not result in any adverse impact to the adjoining properties or surrounding area, and would result in an improved safety outcome for the street and surrounding residents.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

9.3 No. 12 (Lot: 6; D/P: 2360) Florence Street, West Perth - Proposed Four Grouped Dwellings

Ward: South

Attachments: 1. Consultation and Location Map ⇩

2. Development Plans ⇩

3. Applicant's Supporting Documents ⇩

4. Advertised Plans (Superseded) ⇩

5. Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response ⇩

6. Summary of Submissions - Applicant's Response ⇩

7. Determination Advice Notes ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for four Grouped Dwellings at No. 12 (Lot: 6; D/P: 2360) Florence Street, West Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and the associated advice notes in Attachment 7:

1. Development Plans

This approval is for four new Grouped Dwellings as shown on the approved plans dated 27 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. Stormwater

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

4. 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;

5. 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;

6. Landscaping

6.1 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 development. The plan shall be drawn to a scale of 1:100, prepared generally in accordance with the landscaping plans SK01-C and SK02-C dated 2 October 2020 and show the following:

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

· Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

· Minimum deep soil area of 12 percent and tree canopy coverage of 30 percent of the site area;

· The inclusion of additional landscaping treatment between the ‘Visitor Bay’ and Florence Street to screen hardstand and parking areas, to the City’s satisfaction;

· The inclusion of additional landscaping treatment between the ‘Visitor Bay’ and Unit 1 dwelling to provide increased privacy whilst maintaining street surveillance from this outdoor area, to the City’s satisfaction; and

· The ‘permeable paving’ shown on a portion of the ‘Visitor Bay’ being removed and replaced with hardstand; and

6.2 All works shown in the detailed landscaping plans 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;

7. Visual Privacy

Prior to occupancy or use of the development, privacy screening shall be installed as shown on the approved plans and on top of new fill and retained levels along the northern and eastern lot boundaries. 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 provisions, to the satisfaction of the City;

8. Sight lines

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

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

8.2 a driveway meets a public street; or

8.3 two streets intersect; unless otherwise approved by the City of Vincent;

9. Car Parking and Access

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

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

9.3 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 store rooms, where provided;

9.4 Prior to the first occupation of the development, redundant or “blind” crossovers shall be removed and the verge and kerb made good to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant/owner’s full expense; and

All new crossovers to lots are subject to a separate application to be approved by the City. All new crossovers shall be constructed in accordance with the City’s Standard Crossover Specifications and

10. Prior to the commencement of the development (including demolition and/or forward works), a Construction Management Plan that details how the construction of the development will be managed to minimise the impact on the surrounding area shall be lodged with and approved by the City. The Construction Management Plan is required to address, but is not limited to, the following matters:

· The delivery of and delivery times for materials and equipment to the site;

· Storage of materials and equipment on site;

· Parking arrangements for contractors and sub-contractors;

· The impact on traffic movement;

· Dilapidation report of nearby surrounding properties (including 14 Florence Street);

· Construction times; and

· Notification to affected land owners;

The management plan shall be complied with for the duration of the construction of the development.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for four Grouped Dwellings at No. 12 Florence Street, West Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes the demolition of the existing dwelling at the subject site, and the construction of four three storey Grouped Dwellings in a battle-axe lot configuration fronting Florence Street.

The proposed dwellings have similar floor plans comprising:

· Double garages with vehicle access from a communal leg along the south of the site;

· Games rooms, outdoor living areas, bathrooms and laundries located on the ground floor;

· Primary living areas, ensuites, bedrooms and outdoor living terraces located on the first floor; and

· Bedrooms, studies and bathrooms located within the loft.

Pedestrian access is provided directly from Florence Street for Unit 1 and via the communal access leg for Units 2, 3 and 4. One visitor parking bay is provided in common property within the street setback area.

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

Background:

Landowner:	Xscope Pty Ltd
Applicant:	Daniel Lomma Design
Date of Application:	23 June 2020
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Zone: Residential R Code: R50
Built Form Area:	Residential
Existing Land Use:	Single Dwelling
Proposed Use Class:	Grouped Dwelling
Lot Area:	1,020m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	No

The subject site is bound by Florence Street to the west, three single and two storey grouped dwellings to the south, a three storey apartment complex of 54 dwellings to the rear, a Federation style bungalow house listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory to the north, and vacant land with a current development approval for 11 two storey Grouped Dwellings to the north and north-east accessed by Sheridan Lane. A location plan is included as Attachment 1 and contextual analysis included in the applicant’s urban design study as Attachment 3.

The subject site and surrounding properties are zoned Residential R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) with the exception of the rear adjoining apartment complex subject to an R80 density code.

The subject site and surrounding properties are within the Residential Built Form Area and have a permitted building height of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The rear adjoining apartment site is subject to a three storey height limit under the Built Form Policy.

Nearby the subject site are properties subject to the City’s Policy No. 7.5.15 – Heritage and Character Retention areas. To the north-east of the site are 15 properties in the Janet Street Heritage Area and to the south-west and south-east of the site is the Carr Street Character Retention Area of approximately 37 properties, which includes four listed as Heritage on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory. Immediately adjoining the subject site to the north is a Federation style bungalow house listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory.

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the State Government’s State Planning Policy 7.3 Residential Design Codes Volume 1 (R Codes Volume 1), and the City’s Built Form Policy and Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management - Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties (Heritage Management Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Deemed-to-Comply/Acceptable Development	Requires the Discretion of Council
Street Setback		ü
Lot Boundary Setbacks/Boundary Walls		ü
Open Space		ü
Building Height/Storeys		ü
Setback of Garages and Carports	ü
Garage Width	ü
Street Surveillance	ü
Street Walls and Fences	ü
Outdoor Living Areas	ü
Landscaping	ü
Parking & Access	ü
Site Works/Retaining Walls		ü
Visual Privacy		ü
Solar Access	ü
Essential Facilities	ü
External Fixtures	ü
Environmentally Sustainable Design		ü
Urban Design Study		ü
Heritage Management Policy		ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.1

Walls on upper floors setback a minimum of 2.0 metres behind the ground floor predominant building line.

The first floor is setback 0.67 metres behind the ground floor games/guest room predominant building line.

Lot Boundary Setbacks / Boundary Walls
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.1.3 Lot Boundary Setbacks North boundary: Units 1 to 4 - First floor living room recesses: 1.2 metres Unit 1 - Loft bed 2: 4.6 metres Units 2 and 3 - Loft bed 3 & study: 4.8 metres	Units 1 to 4 - First floor living room recesses: 1.0 metres Unit 1 - Loft bed 2: 4.58 metres Units 2 and 3 - Loft bed 3 & study: 4.58 metres
Boundary Walls Average wall height permitted: 3.0 metres Maximum wall height permitted: 3.5 metres	Units 3 and 4 - Store and laundry: 3.3 metre average wall height and 3.7 metre maximum wall height Unit 2 - Ground floor store: 3.25 metre average boundary wall height
Open Space
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.1.4 40% open space for each dwelling site	Units 2 and 3: 38.0% open space
Building Height
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
Built Form Policy Volume 1 Clause 5.3 Permitted building height: · Two storeys · External wall height: 7.0 metres where the roof is concealed; and 6.0 metres where the roof is exposed above. · Roof pitch: 9.0 metres.	Units 1 to 4: Three storeys Unit 1 – Loft: Maximum external wall height of 9.5 metres and roof pitch height of 10.5 metres Units 2 and 3 – Loft: Maximum external wall height of 10.2 metres and roof pitch of 11.0 metres Unit 4 - Maximum external wall height of 9.3 metres and roof pitch of 11.1 metres
Site Works/Retaining Walls
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.3.7 and 5.3.8 Fill and retaining greater than 0.5 metres above natural ground level setback in accordance with Tables 2a/2b.	Eastern boundary: Unit 4 – Courtyard: Maximum height of fill and retaining 0.66 metres with a nil setback
Visual Privacy
Deemed-to-Comply Standard	Proposal
R Codes Volume 1 Clause 5.4.1 Visual setback distances from: · Major openings to bedrooms and studies: 4.5 metres · Major openings to other habitable rooms including kitchens and living rooms: 6.0 metres · Unenclosed outdoor active habitable spaces: 7.5 metres	Southern boundary: Units 1 to 4 - Kitchen: 4.0 metre setback Unit 1 - Study: 4.08 metre setback Northern boundary: Unit 4 - Ground floor courtyard: 2.6 metre setback Unit 4 - First floor terrace: 1.5 metre setback Unit 4 - First floor living: 2.8 metre setback Eastern boundary: Unit 4 - Ground floor courtyard: nil setback Unit 4 - First floor terrace: 1.7 metre setback
Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties
Acceptable Development Standard	Proposal
Heritage Management Policy New development adjacent to heritage listed places shall have: · Equivalent setback and/or is no less than that of the heritage building; · Side setbacks reflect that of the heritage building; and · Height that is compatible with the heritage building. Staggering the building is an acceptable method to achieve this.	Front Setback Unit 1: Ground and first floor setback 1.8 metres and 1.0 metre respectively forward of the heritage dwelling proper to the north. The overall development is 0.7 metres behind the verandah of the heritage dwelling. Side Setback Units 2 to 4: Stores located on northern boundary Building Height Unit 1: The maximum external wall height is 4.7 metres and roof height is 2.5 metres higher.

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Scheme) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days from 7 October 2020 to 20 October 2020. The method of consultation included notice on the City’s website and 233 letters mailed to all owners and occupiers of the properties within a 75 metre radius from the subject site, as shown in Attachment 1.

At the conclusion of the consultation period a total of 15 submissions were received, 13 objecting to the proposal and two in support. The submissions raised the following concerns:

· The proposed development does not fit within the established character context of the streetscape, and the built form does not reflect the existing Federation character;

· The three storey building height is non-compliant with the Built Form Policy and is excessive for the site and area context;

· The proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and would have detrimental overshadowing and bulk impacts on adjoining the dwellings;

· The proposal would result in reduced visual privacy from overlooking, particularly from Unit 4 to the north-east into future dwelling kitchen and outdoor living area approved at No. 26 Sheridan Lane, and generally towards the dwellings at No. 10 Florence Street;

· The proposal would result in increased traffic and parking congestion in the street;

· The proposed visitor parking in the front setback does not positively respond to the predominate streetscape features; and

· The proposed development does not comply and therefore should not be supported.

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

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

The applicant submitted amended plans to address some of the concerns raised during the community consultation period and comments from the Design Review Panel (DRP) Chair. These changes related to modifying the Unit 1 street façade to better reflect built features of the streetscape and reducing the mass and bulk of Unit 4 where it terminates the communal access leg and adjacent to the southern side boundary.

Submitters have been notified that amended plans were provided. These amended plans were not readvertised to invite further comments. This is because Council reporting timeframes would not allow for this and also the changes made do not result in any additional departures to previously advertised deemed‑to-comply standards thereby not triggering the need to undertake further public consultation under the City’s Community Consultation Policy.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: Yes

The proposal was reviewed on two occasions by the DRP prior to the application being lodged. The proposal was referred to the Chair of the DRP on a further two occasions following lodgement.

Following lodgement of the application, the proposal was first referred back to the DRP Chair during the public consultation. These plans referred to the DRP are included in Attachment 4. The following key comments were provided by the DRP chair, which also reference previous DRP advice made during pre-lodgement:

· The proposal does not retain the front façade of the existing house which is an acceptable outcome given retention of the existing façade would not add value based on the current design envelope and layout;

· The visitor car parking bay location negatively impacts the visual approach to the dwelling and compromises some greater landscaping opportunity, however constraints within the design layout for re-location is acknowledged. Notwithstanding this, the lack of high front fencing is a positive outcome;

· The alignment of the upper loft setback behind the lower levels at the street positively responds to the adjoining single storey character dwellings;

· Landscaping including tree canopy coverage has increased, particularly along the driveway and noting a new large tree within the front setback;

· Reducing the length and height of the boundary wall on the northern boundary would be positive. The ground level Unit 4 corridor space is quite inefficient so it looks like this could be achieved;

· Increasing the Unit 4 first floor and loft level eastern and southern setbacks would be a positive (even if they are compliant). In general, the overshadowing of the site to the south does seem to align with the built form on the adjacent site. Information on how the overshadowing relates to the openings and outdoor spaces of this development would be helpful;

· The angled loft style roof forms are sympathetic in terms of massing but it still looks overdeveloped at the rear which to me indicates three levels at the rear may not be appropriate; and

· The aerial perspective shows the loft massing of Unit 4 located right in the south eastern corner of the site. This area generally appears quite tight. Shifting this Unit 4 loft massing in a west direction closer to the centre of the site could be an option which may improve the issue.

The applicant submitted amended plans and additional information in response to the comments received from the DRP Chair and community consultation. Key changes reflected in these amended plans and additional information include:

· Modifying the Unit 4 loft wall and roof alignment to reduce building height by 0.7 metre along the southern elevation;

· Modifying the architectural language of the street façade of Unit 1 by:

o Reducing the thickness of the ground floor porch and eave banding;

o Incorporating narrow vertical windows in the upper floors;

o Incorporating a narrow vertical feature of brickwork adjacent to the communal driveway encompassing the Unit 1 laundry and bath 1 shower wall; and

o Upper floor windows provided with a re-interpreted traditional window awning in a contemporary form; and

· Providing additional contextual assessment of surrounding property developments, including a vertical overshadowing diagram illustrating the shadow effect on the established grouped dwellings to the south.

The applicant did not make any modifications to the location of the visitor bay located within the front setback area.

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

The DRP Chair reviewed the amended plans and advised that the changes improved key concerns regarding contextual analysis informing the street presentation of Unit 1 and impacts associated with mass and visual privacy from Unit 4. A summary of the DRP Chair’s comments is as follows:

· The streetscape façade and architectural language has improved throughout the process and is supported. Hit and miss feature brickwork has been introduced which is a strong part of the surrounding context and character. The proposed lighter colours are generally more sympathetic to the character of the area than the previous darker colours, and the upper level (loft floor) is setback significantly behind the lower levels;

· Additional windows overlooking the streetscape have been introduced providing increased passive surveillance of the streetscape. The front window proportions have changed from a horizontal to a vertical emphasis which references the windows on surrounding character houses;

· Improvements have been made to reducing the massing and bulk of Unit 4 at the rear portion of the development, including increasing the upper level setback to the south side;

· Based on the use of pitched roof forms to the rear loft levels and overshadowing diagrams the proposal has demonstrated design strategies to minimise the impact on adjacent neighbours and the impact on adjoining properties is minimal;

· The applicant has now provided overshadowing diagrams illustrating the impact on the adjoining neighbours to the south is comparable to a compliant building height and setback of 1.5 metres; and

· The applicant has provided greater surrounding context which includes a mixture of existing and future housing, which have reduced concerns relating to the impact on the future grouped dwelling development to the north.

The below table demonstrates how the proposal has progressed through the DRP process in accordance with the Ten Principles of Good Design.

Design Review Progress
	Supported
	Pending further attention
	Not supported
	No comment provided
		DRP 1 04/09/2019	DRP 2 11/12/2019	Referral to DRP Chair 08/10/2020	Referral to DRP Chair 05/11/2020
Principle 1 – Context & Character
Principle 2 – Landscape Quality
Principle 3 – Built Form and Scale
Principle 4 – Functionality & Built Quality
Principle 5 – Sustainability
Principle 6 – Amenity
Principle 7 – Legibility
Principle 8 – Safety
Principle 9 – Community
Principle 10 – Aesthetics

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

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

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

· Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plans; and

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

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Delegated Authority Register as the delegation does not extend to applications for development approval that propose a height of three storeys or more and do not meet the applicable Building Height deemed-to-comply standard. The application has also received more than five objections during the City’s community consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

The City has assessed the application against the environmentally sustainable design provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form. These provisions are informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024, which requires new developments to demonstrate best practice in respect to reductions in energy, water and waste and improving urban greening.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Street Setback

The Built Form Policy deemed-to-comply standard requires walls on upper floors to have a minimum setback of 2.0 metres behind the ground floor predominant building line from Florence Street. The first floor is setback 0.67 metre behind the predominant building line of the ground floor.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the contemporary design does not fit within the established character context of the streetscape.

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

· The ground floor setback satisfies the deemed-to-comply street setback requirement of 6.5 metres and the upper floor setbacks are stepped to reduce the perception of building bulk from the upper floor walls. The ground floor is proposed to be setback 6.7 metres, with the first floor and loft setback 7.3 metres and 11.5 metres respectively;

· The stepping of setbacks has effectively responded to the immediate adjoining development context of the heritage dwelling to the north at No. 14 Florence Street. The proposed building setback from Unit 1 to Florence Street is behind the verandah alignment of the adjoining heritage dwelling. To reduce visible bulk and scale, the proposed first floor walk in robe as viewed from Florence Street is in alignment with the adjoining heritage dwelling face. Further, the Unit 1 bed 1 wall is setback 3.2 metres from the northern side boundary to reduce bulk and dominance of the heritage dwelling;

· Open space between the proposed development and the grouped dwellings on the southern adjoining property responds positively to the established street setback and development context. This is due to the location of the 4.0 metres wide communal access leg of the subject site coupled with the 3.0 metres wide communal access leg of the adjoining property. This minimum separation distance of 7.0 metres between dwellings significantly reduces the bulk and scale of the development as viewed from the streetscape and adjoining property to the south;

· The street presentation has incorporated features that positively responds and contributes to the character and context of the established streetscape, as follows:

o The front window proportions provide a vertical emphasis which references the windows of surrounding character houses. The street facing window awnings have re-interpreted traditional feature awnings found broadly in the area without faux imitation and in respect to the contemporary design;

o The overall light colour palette positively responds to predominate light colours featured in the streetscape. Hit and miss feature brickwork provides a varied material and texture finish responding to existing development in the street, particularly No. 4b Florence Street; and

o The use of white masonry banding along the porch and eave of the street façade responds to the masonry fence feature of the heritage building to the north, specifically the masonry finish, white colour and wall thickness. Further, the masonry banding feature clearly distinguishes the ground floor from the first floor, with the first floor setback behind the porch and eave banding minimising the visual bulk;

· The proposed setback is suitable to accommodate the following site planning considerations:

o Adequate landscaping is provided in the street setback area to soften the visual impact of development which includes three medium sized and one large tree contributing towards 58.7 percent of the street setback area being provided with tree canopy coverage;

o Power meter boxes are setback 6.0 metres from the street boundary and located along the southern boundary. These utilities are visually softened by trees and a landscaped garden bed as viewed from Florence Street;

o The development satisfies the deemed-to-comply requirements of the R Codes Volume 1 in respect to car parking, with double garages proposed for each dwelling and one uncovered visitor bay provided within the front setback area. Whilst this visitor car bay does contribute additional hardstand within the front setback area, car parking within the front setback is a feature of this locality. There is car parking within the street setback area at No.’s 4a, 4b, 6, 8, 10A, 11, 21, 24, 38, 40 49 and 51 Florence Street. The car bay is uncovered to reduce any perception of building bulk and the dwelling maintains clear sightlines to provide surveillance of and connectivity with the street; and

o A condition of approval is recommended to provide additional landscaping treatment between the proposed visitor bay and Florence Street, and between the low rendered brick wall in the front setback area of Unit 1 and the proposed visitor bay. This is to reduce the visual impact of hardstand area and parked vehicle in the front setback area as viewed from the street. This is also to protect the amenity and privacy of the Unit 1 occupants through landscape design together with the physical separation between the proposed visitor bay and the Unit 1 games/guest wall which is 2.7 metres, whilst still maintaining street surveillance from this outdoor area of Unit 1 to the front setback area and to the street. Within a detailed landscape plan a suitable species around the visitor bay will be required and may result in a reconfiguration of the existing low walls to achieve a high quality outcome. Permeable paving annotated in the visitor bay of the landscape concept plans is not supported given vehicle parking in this location would result in significant shade limiting grass growth. The proposed ‘grass crete’ spaces on either side of the visitor bay are necessary for sufficient vehicle manoeuvring and should perform satisfactorily due to access to natural sunlight; and

· The DRP chair is supportive of the Unit 1 presentation to Florence Street, commending the integration of character and context from the streetscape and use of stepping upper floor walls to break up bulk and scale.

Building Height

The Built Form Policy specifies a deemed-to-comply building height of two storeys, including an external wall height of 6.0 metres where a roof is visible above, 7.0 metres for an external wall that has a concealed roof and 9.0 metres to the roof pitch. The proposed development is three storeys in height with the third floor referenced as a loft on the plans.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the building height, particularly the third storey loft, and its design not fitting in the established context and character of the streetscape, which is predominantly single storey.

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

· The loft floors have been located and designed so as to not dominate and detract from the streetscape and adjoining properties. The loft has a significant street setback of 11.5 metres from Florence Street and is located behind the floors below, specifically 4.73 metres behind the ground floor and 4.1 metres behind the first floor. The southern side elevation of the dwellings have external wall heights between 7.0 and 7.5 metres before pitching to the roof form to give the impression of two storeys as viewed from the south, with the third floor being contained within the roof;

· The Unit 1 loft as viewed from the north does not dominate the adjoining heritage dwelling due to the development context and articulated setbacks provided. The loft sits 2.9 metres behind the adjoining property dwelling. Whilst this existing heritage dwelling on the adjoining property is single storey, its highest point of the roof pitch sits at the bed 3 window sill height of the Unit 1 loft. This demonstrates that the proposed development is not significantly out of proportion with the building height envelope of the existing adjoining heritage dwelling. This building height envelope is depicted with a dotted line on the northern elevation of the development plans included as Attachment 2;

· The northern side setback to loft walls and articulated design reduce the impacts of bulk and scale. The setbacks of the loft from the northern boundary vary between 3.4 metres and 4.5 metres, and are located between 2.0 and 3.0 metres behind the predominate setback line of the lower levels;

· The building envelopes of the lofts are provided with separations of 5.8 metres between Unit 1 and Unit 2, and 12.1 metres between Units 3 and 4 to break up building bulk;

· The setbacks of the lofts to the southern boundary reduce bulk and overshadowing. Units 1 to 3 are setback between 3.9 metres to 5.3 metres from the southern boundary, while Unit 4 is setback 1.85 metres. These setbacks have sought to offset the loft overshadowing to the south by achieving an overshadowing extent equal or lesser than that of the deemed-to-comply two storey wall height with a permitted 1.5 metre setback to the southern boundary. Vertical overshadowing diagrams provided by the applicant are included in Attachment 3. The overshadowing diagrams illustrate two ground floor lounge room windows of No. 10A Florence Street and two ground floor lounge room windows of No. 10B Florence Street would be impacted by shadow cast. The majority of north facing windows of No. 10B Florence Street are not affected by overshadowing and will allow for sufficient direct sunlight into the living spaces of the dwelling. This is demonstrated in the applicant’s overshadowing perspectives on page 11 of Attachment 3. Similarly, No. 10A Florence Street has a large north facing dining window that would not be impacted by shadow cast from the loft, which would allow for direct sunlight into this primary living space of the dwelling;

· Notwithstanding the two storey height limit under the Built Form Policy, there are a number of established three storey dwellings in the surrounding area, including at No’s. 4 and 37-43 Florence Street, and No’s. 76A, 76B, 76C. 78A. 78B and 82 Carr Street. There is also a three storey apartment building at No. 147-159 Charles Street adjoining the subject site to the rear of a similar wall and roof height to the proposal; and

· The proposed ground floor finished levels of the dwellings closely respond to the natural topography of the site with departures kept to a minimum. The greatest extent of retaining and fill is 0.66 metres in height along the rear eastern boundary. The impact of this would be minor as discussed further below under Site Works and Retaining Walls.

Lot Boundary Setbacks

Boundary Setbacks

Reduced setbacks to the deemed-to-comply standards in R Codes Volume 1 are proposed to the northern boundary from living room recesses for each dwelling on the first floor, loft bed 2 of Unit 1, and loft bed 3 and study of Units 2 and 3.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the proposal is an overdevelopment of the site and imposes detrimental building bulk on adjoining properties.

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

· The living room ‘TV recesses’/projections are limited in length and area to reduce impacts associated with building bulk. These building projections are isolated wall areas between 3.0 to 3.3 metres height from the first floor levels and 3.2 to 4.1 metres width. The projections are spaced across the elevation with walls and windows recessed between to break up bulk, and to provide articulation and sufficient light and ventilation to the dwellings;

· The living room projections sit above the windows of the adjoining property dwelling limiting visible bulk from these adjacent windows and maintaining ventilation;

· The orientation of the site results in setbacks to the northern boundary having no direct sunlight restriction and overshadowing of the adjoining property dwelling;

· The loft window openings are designed to improve solar and ventilation access. A mix of major openings and highlight windows are used facing north and south with appropriate awnings for solar moderation, and are operable to improve cross-ventilation; and

· The loft walls are designed and articulated with significant setbacks, separation and windows to reduce impacts associated with bulk and ventilation restriction. No single loft wall length exceeds 9.0 metres, using indentations, awnings, and windows to break up bulk. The lofts are also provided with adequate separations between proposed Units to further mitigate bulk and scale impacts.

Boundary Walls

North

The deemed-to-comply standard of the R Codes Volume 1 requires buildings on the boundary to be no higher than a maximum of 3.5 metres and an average of 3.0 metres. The proposed Units 3 and 4 store and laundry boundary wall is a maximum height of 3.7 metres and an average height of 3.3 metres, while the Unit 2 store is proposed with an average height of 3.25 metres.

The proposed boundary wall heights satisfy the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy and the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· Minimal and short lengths of boundary wall are used to reduce impacts associated with bulk and ventilation restriction. Cumulative boundary wall lengths of 15.5 metres are limited to the northern side boundary, in lieu of being permitted for 39.0 metres length up to two side boundaries. This is intended to reduce the impacts of building bulk. The boundary wall sections are also provided with adequate separation to provide relief from bulk and scale. In these sections are proposed two landscaped courtyards which provide for enhanced amenity between properties, including light and ventilation access; and

· The heights of the boundary walls are similar to established and approved wall heights on the adjoining property to the north. The established dwelling to the north has a wall height 0.1 metre to 0.4 metre higher than the proposed Unit 2 store boundary wall, and is setback 0.7 metre from the boundary wall with a small non-major window opening. The Unit 2 store boundary wall would have no detrimental visual bulk or ventilation restriction on the adjacent portion of the dwelling on the adjoining property to the north. Adjacent to the proposed boundary wall of Units 3 and 4 is a vacant site with approval for 11 grouped dwellings, which has blank walls on the boundary of 3.2 metres height and some minor recess portions connecting to ground floor garages. Having regard to this current and future development context there would be minimal impact resulting from the additional height sought for the proposed boundary walls.

Open Space

The R Codes Volume 1 deemed-to-comply standard requires a minimum of 40 percent open space provision for each proposed dwelling. Units 2 and 3 have open space of 38.0 percent each.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that the proposal is overdevelopment of the site.

The proposed open space satisfies the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· Open space averaged across all of the proposed dwelling sites is 41%, indicating that the overall development footprint is consistent with the R Codes Volume 1 deemed-to-comply standards for the R40 density;

· The street facing Unit 1 is complaint with open space and primary street setback for the predominant ground floor building line deemed-to-comply requirements. This would ensure that the development provides adequate open space and separation to the street, respecting and contributing to the existing and desired streetscape character;

· The development provides for a total landscaped deep soil area of 17.8 percent and tree canopy coverage of 30.5 percent, which meets the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Built Form Policy. The development has been designed to contribute to an attractive setting for the building and streetscape;

· The central courtyard and terrace designs of the dwellings reduce bulk, provides adequate space for outdoor pursuits and increases natural light access. These open areas provide significant breaks in the middle of the building footprint along the northern boundary reducing actual and perceived bulk from the adjoining property and provides ventilation for building openings. The courtyards and terraces are north facing for optimal access to sunlight to habitable spaces; and

· Essential fixtures and facilities are provided for in side setbacks to the northern boundary for Units 2 and 3, including bin storage, clothes drying and air-conditioning units, which are not visible from the proposed outdoor and internal living areas.

Visual Privacy

The R Codes Volume 1 deemed-to-comply standards stipulate visual privacy setbacks or screening where major openings or active habitable spaces overlook adjoining residential properties. The development proposes reduced privacy setbacks to the kitchen of Units 1 to 4 and study of Unit 1 along the southern boundary, and the courtyard and terrace of Unit 4 along the northern and eastern boundaries.

Administration received submissions during community consultation that raised concerns that overlooking from the development detrimentally impacts resident privacy to the south and future dwellings to the north including outdoor living and kitchen areas.

The visual privacy setbacks satisfy the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

Southern boundary (Kitchen of Units 1 – 4 and Study of Unit 1)

· The required 6.0 metres and 4.5 metres cone of vision from the kitchen and study windows, respectively, fall over the vehicle access leg of the subject site and adjoining property. The nearest adjoining property dwelling and windows are of No. 10A Florence Street at ground level. Given the kitchen and study are on first floor levels and have benches 0.8 metre in depth to the wall, overlooking is indirect and at an effective distance of 8.5 metres to the adjoining 10A Florence Street property dwelling. This effective visual setback and indirect angle results in no detrimental loss in visual privacy; and

· Trees located along the southern boundary would visually obscure overlooking through maturity, specifically there are 21 Pyrus Calleryana trees spaced 2.4 metres apart along the southern boundary. The tree species Pyrus Calleryana can grow approximately 8.0 to 10.0 metres in height with a canopy diameter of approximately 2.0 to 4.0 metres. Given the number, height and spread of these trees, there will be substantial screening to further assist in the prevention of any overlooking and to enhance privacy at tree maturity.

Northern boundary (Courtyard and Terrace of Unit 4)

· Considering the layout of the future new dwellings to the north, there would be no detrimental visual overlooking of sensitive areas, including major openings to habitable rooms and outdoor living areas. The building footprint of approved dwellings to the north are shown in the development floor and site plans (refer to Attachment 2). Directly adjacent and immediately overlooked walls of these future dwellings are boundary walls and highlight windows. Open space that would be overlooked is a future common property area with one visitor car parking bay perpendicular to the subject site boundary, two bicycle parking bays and a small seat and BBQ space of dimensions 2.3 metres width by 5.5 metres length running perpendicular to the visitor bay. These spaces are not considered to be private and sensitive to visual overlooking given the space is expected to be used by visitors and occupants of the site predominately for parking purposes. The BBQ and seating area appears limited in its ability for active use given the minimum width dimension and the abutting visitor car parking bay location;

· Indirect overlooking from the courtyard would affects a portion of the top of the kitchen window of a future dwelling to the adjoining northern property. The portion of the kitchen window that would be impacted is above 2.1 metres in height measured from the ground level of the adjoining property. This accounts for the ground level difference and the adjoining property being 0.4 metres below the subject site as well as the construction of a standard 1.8 metre high dividing fence and perpendicular wall face of the kitchen which reduces the extent of overlooking. The kitchen opening affected by overlooking sit perpendicular to the subject site and are subject to acute angled indirect overlooking. The top of the kitchen window sill sits near the top of a future dividing fence given the level difference proposed between properties, and for this reason overlooking from the ground floor courtyard can be mitigated by a dividing fence. Similarly overlooking of a future outdoor living area of the adjoining property is predominately mitigated by the dividing fence and a 1.4 metre high screen around the outdoor living area;

· Indirect overlooking from the first floor terrace cone of vision affects a 0.2 square metre area of landscaped space of a future dwelling. The acute angle and small cone of vision projection into the landscaped area associated with the outdoor living area results in limited detrimental impact to privacy for this future dwelling; and

· Indirect overlooking from the first floor terrace cone of vision affects a kitchen window of a future dwelling which sits perpendicular to the subject site boundary. The adjoining property development sits 0.4 metre lower than the subject site creating an acute angle of overlooking from the terrace and provides for a new top of dividing fence level matching the top of the affected kitchen window. These features mitigate the majority of overlooking from the terrace area to the future kitchen window. Further, the kitchen window of this dwelling is directly adjacent to a common property visitor car parking bay of this site. Overlooking of this window from future visitors and occupants at the site will occur whilst using the visitor car parking bay.

Eastern boundary (Courtyard and Terrace of Unit 4)

· Direct overlooking falls over a vacant site on the northern portion of No. 19 Sheridan Lane, which has planning approval for 11 grouped dwellings. The approved development at this adjoining site along the eastern boundary has blank walls on the boundary and setback; and

· Adjacent to the southern portion of the eastern boundary on the adjoining property is a communal swimming pool area forming part of an existing apartment complex at No. 147-159 Charles Street. A 2.0 metre length of screening is provided along the eastern portion of the terrace to mitigate direct overlooking of this area. Views towards the communal pool area from the remainder of the terrace would be restricted by a double storey boundary wall forming part of the approved development at No. 19 Sheridan Lane, although this has yet to be constructed.

Site Works and Retaining Walls

The deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes Volume 1 requires fill and retaining walls greater than 0.5 metres in height to be setback a minimum of 1 metre from a lot boundary. Unit 4 fill and retaining is proposed to a maximum height of 0.66 metres and setback nil from the eastern boundary.

The proposed fill and retaining to the eastern boundary satisfies the design principles of the R Codes Volume 1 for the following reasons:

· The fill and retaining is minimal in extent and adjoins a vacant site. The fill and retaining where it is greater than 0.5 metres height affects a 6.5 metre length of the eastern boundary. An approved development directly adjoining the fill and retaining wall location on the vacant site is a building on the boundary with an effective height of approximately 2.0 metres above the proposed fill and retaining level;

· The proposed fill and retaining levels of Unit 4 have been nominated responding to a balance of natural ground levels between the northern and southern boundaries. The north of the courtyard area is stepped down to respond to the natural ground level to reduce fill and retaining. The natural ground level at the southern boundary reflects the proposed fill and retaining level within 0.3 metres; and

· The retaining and fill levels create useable and functional spaces around Unit 4 which provides access, landscaping, bin storage and clothes drying.

Environmentally Sustainable Design

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

· The site planning has optimised the northern aspect of the site for direct sunlight into habitable and active spaces for enhanced solar passive design, specifically using central courtyards and terraces, and north facing windows of games, bedrooms and primary living areas. Winter and summer solar angles provided demonstrate solar passive design in the Urban Design Study in Attachment 3;

· Use of suitable new and reused materials within the design for enhanced environmental performance, including reuse of existing building materials through salvaging of the existing dwelling red face bricks, use of light weight building materials in the first floor and loft floor, metal roofing and wall cladding provided with a solar absorptance value of 0.4;

· Using upper floor building projections over lower floors, eaves, screens and awnings to provide shading of north, west and east facing glazing;

· Cross ventilation for dwelling spaces is effectively demonstrated in the applicant’s supporting documents in Attachment 3. Ceiling fans are proposed in all living and bedroom areas and operable windows used to aid ventilation. Primary living spaces are designed with the ability to be isolated to limit the volume required to heat or cool a space, reducing energy demands and cost; and

· Rooftop solar photovoltaic is able to be installed on the flat roof sections above each living room. Conduit pre‐lay and panel roof space is provided such that solar photovoltaic can be either installed during construction or readily fitted after completion.

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

Urban Design Study

Clause 5.12 of the Built Form Policy provides local housing objectives which require proposed development to be informed by an urban design study. The applicant’s urban design study is included as Attachment 3 and details the key built form references and details of the streetscape and surrounding area considered within the proposal, including the following:

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

· Contemporary Colorbond wall and roof cladding;

· Use of light colours in external walls and roofing complementing established traditional and contemporary development;

· White masonry banding in the façade;

· Articulated wall setbacks and loft forms; and

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

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

Development Adjacent to Heritage Listed Buildings

The development site is adjacent to a heritage listed Federation bungalow at No. 14 Florence Street that is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory and subject to provisions under the City’s Heritage Management Policy.

The proposed development satisfies the applicable performance criteria of the Heritage Management Policy for the following reasons:

· The development uses staggering and significant side setbacks to maintain the view and vista to the adjacent heritage building. Where projecting forward of the heritage dwelling façade, between 1.0 and 1.8 metres, the ground floor games/guest room has a side setback of 2.5 metres and first floor bed 1 setback of 3.2 metres. This staggering using generous side setbacks maintains a view angle greater than 45 degrees from the heritage building façade to Florence Street;

· The visually prominent bullnose verandah feature of the heritage building is 0.7 metres forward of the proposed development;

· The development has incorporated contemporary architectural features which have not attempted to mimic the style of the heritage building, rather complement its significance. The development has incorporated traditional style window sizes, a light colour palette including white masonry and a contemporary take on a traditional window awning;

· The development has incorporated staggering of setbacks to upper floors to ensure the scale and mass of the development respects the heritage building. Detailed in the Street Setback comments in this report, the loft is setback 2.9 metres behind the adjoining heritage dwelling face. Similarly, side setbacks are of the loft level is staggered between 2.0 metres and 2.6 metres behind the ground and first floor levels that are 1.5 metres setback from the lot boundary. These setbacks along the northern elevation are greater than the lot boundary setbacks of the adjacent heritage building; and

· The proposed development has side setbacks greater than 1.0 metre with the exception of a short store boundary wall adjacent to the heritage building. The heritage building has a continuous side setback of 0.7 metres along the shared boundary. The store boundary wall is 4.0 metres in length and is setback 22.3 metres from the Florence Street boundary, and would not be visually prominent as viewed from the street.

With respect to the proposed development adjoining a heritage property at No. 14 Florence Street, recommended Condition 10 requires the preparation of a construction management plan. This condition has been imposed consistent with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.23 – Construction Management Plans, as the proposal is for the construction of a multiple storey development with buildings on the boundary and located adjoining a heritage listed property. The construction management plan will include the need to prepare dilapidation reports for surrounding properties, including the heritage building at No. 14 Florence Street.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

9.4 Nos. 95-117 (Lot: 300; D/P: 1791) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn - Proposed Signage

Ward: North

Attachments: 1. Location Map ⇩

2. Development Plans ⇩

3. Applicant's Supporting Documentation ⇩

4. Previous Development Approval ⇩

5. 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 proposed Signage at Nos. 95‑117 (Lot: 300; D/P: 1791) Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 5:

1. This approval is for Signage as shown on the approved plans dated 9 November 2020. No other development forms part of this approval;

2. The signage is not permitted to be illuminated, electronic or programmable, to the satisfaction of the City;

3. The signage shall not advertise gambling, drugs, fast food, tobacco or alcohol related products, services or trademarks, electoral or political material, adult entertainment material or other graphics/wording deemed offensive or discriminatory, to the satisfaction of the City; and

4. All signage shall be kept in a good state of repair, safe, non-climbable, and free from graffiti for the duration of its display on-site, to the satisfaction of the City.

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for signage for the purposes of displaying club logos and sponsors. The signs are proposed to be installed on the fascia of the existing pavilion at Menzies Park, Nos. 95-117 Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The subject site is located at Nos. 95-117 Egina Street, Mount Hawthorn (Menzies Park) as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1.

The application proposes the installation of five signs on the fascia of the existing pavilion at the subject site. Details of the proposed signage are as follows:

· One sign showing the logo of the University Cricket Club (Cricket Club). It is proposed to be 1.45 metres in height and 1.7 metres in width;

· A total of four signs showing the sponsors of the local sporting clubs. Two of these sponsor signs were previously approved. Each sign is proposed to be 0.51 metres in height and 1.95 metres in width. The sponsor signs would change depending on the sporting club and the sponsors for the season; and

· The existing sign for the Mount Hawthorn Cardinals Junior Football Club (Football Club) logo would remain.

The sponsor signs would be classified as ‘billboard’ signage under Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising (Signage Policy) as they advertise businesses not located on the site. The definition of a billboard sign under the Signage Policy is as follows:

"Billboard" means a sign erected for the purpose of advertising products or services which are not being offered on a site on which the sign is erected.

The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 2. The applicant’s supporting documentation including a sign strategy and written justification is included as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:	City of Vincent
Applicant:	University Cricket Club (PSCA) Inc
Date of Application:	15 October 2020
Zoning:	MRS: Urban LPS2: Reserve - Public Open Space
Built Form Area:	N/A - Reserve
Existing Land Use:	Public Open Space
Proposed Use Class:	Public Open Space – Signage Addition
Lot Area:	23430.3m²
Right of Way (ROW):	No
Heritage List:	Yes

The subject site is bound by Purslowe Street to the north, Egina Street to the east, Berryman Street to the south and East Street to the west.

The subject site is reserved for Public Open Space under the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The surrounding properties are all zoned Residential R30 under LPS2. They are all within the Residential Built Form Area under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy (Built Form Policy).

The subject site is on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as ‘Menzies Park’ and is listed as Management Category B – Conservation Recommended.

The subject site is classified as a Sports Space under the City’s Public Open Space Strategy.

Previous Approval

On 18 November 2011, the Football Club lodged a development application seeking approval for signage. This included the logo for the Football Club and two signs for the club’s sponsors. The application was approved on 2 December 2011.

The previous approval 2 December 2011 Delegated Approval Notice and previously approved development plans are included as Attachment 4.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2, Signage Policy and Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties (Heritage Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

Planning Element	Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply	Requires the Discretion of Council
Signage		ü
Heritage Management		ü

Detailed Assessment

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

Signage

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

Part 2(i) – Standards Common to all Signs

The total signage area is not to exceed 10 per cent of the total area of the building wall in which that signage is located.

The total signage area is 13.8% of the total area of the pavilion façade.

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

Part 3(iii) – Bill Posting and Billboards

Billboards and the structures of a similar or identical type are not permitted within the City of Vincent.

The application proposes the installation of billboard signs on the subject site for the purposes of displaying sponsors of the local sporting clubs.

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising

Part 4 – Standards Common to Signs on Heritage Buildings

ii) New Signs are to:

a) not dominate a Heritage Place. Instead, signs should be placed where they would have traditionally been placed, and should be limited to a level consistent with traditional coverage.

The application proposes the signs to be placed on the roof of the existing pavilion where they have been traditionally placed. The traditional level of coverage was three signs with a total area of 9 square metres. The proposed level of coverage is six signs with a total area of 13.5 square metres.

Heritage Management

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management

Acceptable Development

A2.7 – Signage to comply with 'Standards Common to Signs on Heritage Buildings' provisions in the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising.

The signage does not comply with ‘Standards Common to Signs on Heritage Buildings’ provisions as the proposal increases the level of signage that would traditionally exist.

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The application has been reviewed against the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation (Community Consultation Policy) and it was determined that the proposal did not require advertising for the following reasons:

· The location of the proposed signage is consistent with existing signage associated with the football club on the pavilion roof;

· It is reasonably expected that Menzies Park would contain signage associated with local sporting clubs as the park is classified as a Sports Space under the City’s Public Open Space Strategy; and

· The proposed signage would not have a significant impact on the community, or the economy, lifestyle, amenity and/or environment of any member of the community or community group. The proposed signage would be located a significant distance from adjoining residential properties and the streetscape.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP: No

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2;

· Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation;

· Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising; and

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

Planning and Development Act 2005

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

Signage Policy

The Notice of Motion at the 20 October 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting amended the Signage Policy to exclude billboard signage from being able to be considered against the principles for variations to standards.

Notwithstanding this and as per Schedule 2, Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, the local government in considering an application for development approval is to have due regard for matters in the consideration of applications for planning approval. This includes the following:

· any local planning policy for the Scheme area; and

· in the case of land reserved under this Scheme, the objectives for the reserve and the additional and permitted uses identified in this Scheme for the reserve.

The appropriateness of the proposed billboard (sponsor) signage has been considered against the objective of the Signage Policy and the objectives for land reserved as Public Open Space under LPS2.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

This matter is being referred to Council in accordance with the City’s Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments as the delegation does not extend to the approval of applications for a billboard sign.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following deliverables of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

18.2 – Support the implementation of alcohol and or smoke free environments including festivals, events, activities and or clubs; and

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

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Signage

The application proposes the total signage area to be 13.8 per cent of the total area of the pavilion façade in lieu of the permitted 10 per cent under the Signage Policy.

The Heritage Policy states that new signs should be limited to a level consistent with traditional coverage. The application proposes signage on a heritage place and proposes to increase the level of signage coverage from the traditional level of coverage.

The Signage Policy provides that where a particular standard or provision is unreasonable or undesirable in the particular circumstances of the application, the City may use its discretion to waive or vary a standard having regard to the following relevant principles for variations to standards:

“Appropriateness of Setting:

a) The scale and design of the proposed signage is appropriate to the building and the architectural detailing to which it relates;

b) The scale and design of the proposed signage is compatible with existing surrounding development and is appropriate to the general nature of land use in the area;

c) The proposed signage does not dominate the streetscape;

d) The proposed signage does not block important views, obscure architectural detailing or is not detrimental to the amenity of nearby properties; and

e) The proposed signage does not result in the destruction of important elements of the building fabric.

Consolidation of Signs:

a) Rationalisation of signs is necessary where signs have been installed in an ad-hoc manner over an extended period of time; or

b) Where several businesses are located in close proximity to one another and form part of a shopping centre or similar commercial aggregation.”

The proposal is consistent with these principles and is supported for the following reasons:

· The Cricket Club sign and each of the sponsor signs comply with the individual standards for created roof signs under the Signage Policy, including the size standard of three square metres. The Cricket Club sign would have an area of 2.5 square metres and each sponsor sign would have an area one square metre;

· The total area and number of signs on the pavilion façade is appropriate, with each sporting club currently using the park having space for their own logo and name, along with a maximum of four club sponsors. Sufficient space is provided on either side of the signage on the pavilion fascia to ensure that there is not a proliferation of signage and that the signage does not dominate the pavilion façade or heritage place;

· The signage would be located on the south-west fascia of the existing pavilion. In this direction the signage would be located a minimum of 110 metres from the nearest street and 130 metres from the nearest residential properties. The signage would also be fixed and not digital, moving or illuminated. This ensures that it will not block important views, dominate the streetscape or be detrimental to the amenity of nearby properties; and

· The pavilion was built in 2005/2006 and is not included on the statement of significance for the Menzies Park heritage listing. The signage would be located on a solid metal sheeting fascia of the existing pavilion which does not have any architectural detailing and is not an important element of the building fabric. The signage would also be readily removable. This ensures that it will respect and not detract from the existing pavilion.

Billboard Signage

The application proposes signage displaying sponsors of the local sporting clubs. These signs are classified as billboard signage under the Signage Policy which is not permitted, as they would advertise products or services which are not offered on the subject site.

In considering the acceptability of the proposed signage, the City is required to have due regard for the objective of the Signage Policy and the objectives for land reserved as Public Open Space under LPS2.

The objective of the Signage Policy is:

“To ensure that the display of advertisements on properties does not adversely impact upon the amenity of the surrounding areas while providing appropriate exposure of activities or services.”

The objectives of land reserved as Public Open Space under LPS2 are:

“To set aside areas for public open space, particularly those established under the Planning and Development Act 2005 s. 152.

To provide for a range of active and passive recreation uses such as recreation buildings and courts and associated car parking and drainage.”

The proposal is consistent with these objectives and is supported for the following reasons:

· Menzies Park is classified as a Sports Space under the City’s Public Open Space Strategy. It is reasonably expected that the park would contain signage associated with local sporting clubs, including for sponsors. Other examples of Sport Spaces in the City which contain signage advertising sponsors of local sporting clubs are Dorrien Gardens, Leederville Oval and Litis Stadium, as well as Menzies Park itself with existing signage;

· The signage is for sponsors of the local sporting clubs using Menzies Park. This is in support of and associated with the use of the park as a space for active recreation;

· There would be a total of four sponsor signs at any one time. Two of these sponsor signs were previously approved. The signage would also be fixed and replaced seasonally, it would not be digital, moving or illuminated. This ensures that appropriate exposure of the sponsors are provided without adversely impacting on the amenity of surrounding areas;

· Each sponsor sign would have an area of one square metre, is contained within the fascia of the existing pavilion and is compliant with the sign-specific standards for created roof signs under the Signage Policy. This ensures that the signage does not detract from the existing building and does not block important views or dominate Menzies Park and surrounding area; and

· For the reasons outlined above, approval of the proposed sponsor signage would not set an undesirable precedent for billboard signage on private properties due to their limited size, non-digital nature, distance from the street and adjoining properties, and location on land reserved for Public Open Space. As outlined in the applicant’s written justification, the sponsor signage would provide revenue for the sporting clubs to assist them in delivering community support and services. It would not be providing revenue for a private organisation for their own benefit.

Heritage

The application proposes signage that does not comply with ‘Standards Common to Signs on Heritage Buildings’ provisions. The Heritage Policy provides criteria for acceptable development which states that signage on heritage places is to comply with these provisions.

The subject site is listed on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory as ‘Menzies Park’ and is listed as Management Category B – Conservation Recommended. The statement of significance is as follows:

“Menzies Park was created in the 1940s to make up for a deficit in public open space in the area of Mount Hawthorn, south of Scarborough Beach Road, in recognition of planning standards promoted by the City Beautiful movement under the leadership of W E Bold, the long standing Town Clerk of the City of Perth.”

The Heritage Policy states that new development is to meet the following performance criteria:

“P1 - Development is to comply with the statement of significance and zones of significance outlined in Heritage Assessment, Heritage Impact Statement and/or Place Record Form.

P2 - Alterations and additions to places of heritage value should be respectful of and compatible with existing fabric and should not alter or obscure fabric that contributes to the significance of the place.

P3 - To ensure the cultural heritage significance of a place is conserved and the majority of the significant parts of the heritage place and their relationship to the setting within the heritage place should be retained.”

The proposal is consistent with the performance criteria of the Heritage Policy and is supported for the following reasons:

· The pavilion was built in 2005/2006 and is not included on the statement of significance for the Menzies Park heritage listing. The building does not contribute to the cultural significance of the heritage place. The signage would be located on a solid metal sheeting fascia of the existing pavilion which does not have any architectural detailing and is not an important element of the building fabric. The signage would also be readily removable and require minimal alteration to the existing building. This ensures that it would respect and not detract from the existing pavilion;

· The signage would be simply designed and readily distinguishable as new work, ensuring that it is compatible with the existing fabric; and

· The signage would be compatible with the social and historical value of Menzies Park as public open space used for sporting and recreation activities. This is because the signage is associated with local sporting clubs which lease and use the park for these activities.

Future Management

The two sporting clubs which currently use Menzies Park are the Football Club and the Cricket Club. Both clubs have provided an undertaking to the City that they will install their sponsor signs at the start of the season and remove them at the end of the season. The respective sporting seasons of both clubs do not overlap. The Football Club’s season begins in April and finishes in September, the Cricket Club’s season begins in October and finishes in March the following year. An advice note has been recommended to advise the sporting clubs that they are to comply with the terms of their existing legal agreements with the City for the use of the Menzies Park.

The development plans do not show specific content for the four proposed sponsor signs. This is to allow each sporting club to put up their own sponsors during their season and to allow them to change their sponsors from season to season without needing further development approval from the City. To manage the content of the signs Conditions 2 and 3 have been recommended to prevent the signage from being digital or advertising material that is inappropriate or not in accordance with the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025. This would ensure that the sponsor signage will not detract from Menzies Park and its heritage significance, and would not adversely affect the streetscape and adjoining properties.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

9.5 Northbridge Entertainment Precinct - Amendment No. 41 to City of Perth City Planning Scheme No. 2

Attachments: 1. Amendment No. 41 including Option B ⇩

2. Noise Modelling – Amendment No. 41 & Option B ⇩

3. City of Vincent Draft Submission - Amendment No. 41 to the City of Perth City Planning Scheme No. 2 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. ENDORSES the City’s submission on Amendment No. 41 to City of Perth, City Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 4; and

2. NOTES that Administration will forward the submission to the City of Perth.

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the City’s submission on Amendment No. 41 to the City of Perth, City Planning Scheme No. 2 (CPS2).

Background:

The City of Perth, at its Special Council Meeting on 4 December 2019, resolved to initiate Amendment No. 41 to the CPS2 to create a Special Control Area (SCA) and establish the Northbridge Special Entertainment Precinct (SEP).

Amendment No. 41 proposes changes to the CPS2 which involves:

· The creation of a Special Entertainment Precinct which contains a Core Entertainment Area and Frame Entertainment Area, as drafted here;

· Adoption of precinct-wide design and construction standards for new residential development, entertainment venues and short-stay accommodation to reduce the impact on health and amenity of residents;

· Capping maximum noise levels at 95dB in the Core Entertainment Area and 79dB in the Frame Entertainment Area. There would be a grandfather clause for existing entertainment venues in the Frame Area to emit 90dB; and

· In the event of a noise complaint lodged regarding alleged unreasonable noise, sound levels would be measured at the venue instead of at the receiving premises (i.e. residence where a complaint is made from).

The proposed scheme amendment would also trigger amendments to the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997 (the Noise Regulations), which would enable entertainment venues to apply for a Venue Approval to operate at the Scheme levels.

The State Government has given approval for the City of Perth to advertise Amendment No. 41. The Western Australia Planning Commission (WAPC) issued their approval on 3 February 2020 and the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) on 6 April 2020.

Consultation was undertaken earlier this year on a state-wide approach which involved the following two papers:

1. WAPC Draft Position Statement: Special Entertainment Precincts; and

2. Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) ‘Managing Amplified Music Noise in Entertainment Precincts’ Consultation Paper.

The City of Vincent’s submissions were endorsed at the Ordinary Meeting of Council on 11 February 2020 and contained the following wording:

“The City supports the intent of the reforms to establish special entertainment precincts in Western Australia proposed by the State Government. The changes have particular relevance to Vincent given the City’s strong desire to have a vibrant 24-hour city, the prevalence of existing entertainment music venues in our Town Centres, along with the City’s strategic desire to see an increase in residential accommodation within these areas. The Leederville Town Centre and the Jazz Precinct planned as part of the Arts Development Plan 2018-2020 are opportune areas where a SCA could be considered.

The issue at hand is inherently complex and impacts both an important local industry and residents. Changes to the Noise Regulations should be balanced to ensure it is supported by extensive scientific research to ensure the wellbeing of affected residents is not unduly compromised.”

In response to the consultation the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) and DWER have worked collaboratively to refine the reforms. This included DWER commissioning Lloyd George Acoustics to produce a ‘Low Frequency Music Noise Prediction’ report. This report highlights that City of Vincent properties would be impacted by the proposed scheme amendment in the City of Perth.

Outcomes of consultation resulted in DPLH providing ‘Option B’ for the City of Perth to consider. At their Ordinary Meeting of Council on 29 September 2020 the City of Perth resolved to undertake public consultation of Amendment No. 41 including an alternative Option B. A visual summary of the two options are detailed in Attachment 1.

Details:

Option B contains an expanded Core Entertainment Area, a transition area between the Core and Frame, and a reduction in the capped maximum noise level to 90dB in the Core Entertainment Area. The provisions to allow for existing entertainment venues in the Frame Area to emit noise at Core Area levels, would be deleted from the scheme.

Both proposals, being Amendment No. 41 and ‘Option B’, would impact City of Vincent properties as demonstrated in the noise modelling scenarios shown in Attachment 2. This attachment shows a 67db contour line for both Amendment No. 41 (blue dashed line) and Option B (yellow dashed line), which predicts the properties that could be affected by unreasonable noise from the respective proposal. Up to 3,500 residents/owners in Vincent could be affected by Amendment No. 41. The impact of Option B would affect less properties as the Core Area has a lower capped maximum sound level.

Existing noise sensitive receivers in the City

Amendment No. 41 and Option B both propose to permit the emission of sound levels in excess of the assigned levels of the Noise Regulations.

DWER has advised some Vincent residents could receive higher sound levels than the noise modelling shown in Attachment 3, given the typical construction of single dwellings in this area is not consistent with the assumptions the modelling was based on. For example, the assumed glazing on apartments in the City of Perth is 10.38mm glass while some City of Vincent properties are more likely to be constructed with glazing of 6.38mm or less.

Retro-fitting sound attenuation measures to existing noise-sensitive premises may assist in protecting the health and amenity of the resident but would impose a cost on the building owner. This could also present an issue for properties included on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory which may not have the ability to be upgraded to attenuate the noise. This is because there would be limitations on structural modifications that could be made to a heritage listed dwelling or building, not consistent with the attenuation measures required to achieve effective noise transmission loss.

The City’s submissions in response to the two State consultation papers in February 2020 sought guidance and feedback from the WAPC and DWER on how this may be adequately addressed. The City is continuing to liaise with relevant agencies to address concerns on behalf of existing residences, as a formal response has not yet been provided.

Administration considers that imposing a cost on the receiver to attenuate to a ‘new level of acceptable noise’ (as would likely be the case should a scheme amendment progress) is contradictory to a principle of the Environmental Protection Act 1986 where the ‘polluter pays’. This is “those who generate pollution and waste should bear the cost of containment, avoidance or abatement”.

A limitation of the ‘Low Frequency Music Noise Prediction’ report outlined above is that it has only modelled existing venues within the precinct and does not predict ‘worst case scenario’ given new venues can enter the SCA and emit noise. It does not consider cumulative noise of new noise sources.

Impact on new development

As part of the Northbridge Entertainment Precinct proposal, DWER engaged acoustic consultants Gabriels Hearne Farrell in 2019 to prepare a report to evaluate the design and construction implications for new development within the scheme area. The report – ‘Evaluation of Residential Building Attenuation’, surmises that the effective limit for emission of sound in a SCA should be 70dB at 125Hz and 79db at 63Hz (low frequency noise). This provides for the protection of the health and amenity of new noise sensitive receivers, whilst maintaining technical and economic feasibility in the design and construction of new buildings. The proposed ‘Core’ of Amendment No. 41 and Option B both exceed this level. This has effectively ruled out new noise sensitive development in the Core.

Depending on the outcome of the CPS2 scheme amendment, additional construction requirements to attenuate low frequency (bass) noise may be required for City of Vincent properties, potentially increasing construction costs of new development by more than 7 percent. Without implementing such controls, noise sensitive developments in Vincent may receive sound levels in excess of those consistent with the protection of health and amenity. Controls may come in the form of an amendment to the City of Vincent’s Local Planning Scheme and/or development of a local planning policy to ensure new development in impacted areas have suitable development control.

Amendments to the Noise Regulations

Proposed amendments to the Noise Regulations have not yet been released by DWER. This is required to enable an amendment of this nature to the City of Perth CPS2 to take effect. It is likely to see the inclusion of a ‘Venue Approval’ for which entertainment premises within an SCA could apply. Permitted sound levels for those approvals would be set consistent with those in the Scheme. Entertainment premises that hold a Venue Approval would then be exempt from the requirement to comply with the assigned levels of the Noise Regulations.

This would have a flow on effect to the way noise complaints against entertainment venues in a SCA are investigated. It would see compliance being measured at the noise emitter, rather than what the current practice is, by measuring at the receiver. If the measured levels are compliant at the venue (within the City of Perth SCA), no further action would be required even if the levels are higher than the assigned levels set for the noise receiving premises (which may be in Vincent).

Submission to City of Perth

Administration has prepared a submission included as Attachment 3. The submission indicates the City’s support for the amendment, only with the modifications that are detailed in Option B.

Amendment No. 41 without modifications would affect significantly more residents, including many who live in heritage listed properties which could not be attenuated from noise.

Consultation/Advertising:

The City of Perth is advertising Amendment No. 41 to CPS2 from 23 October 2020 to 23 December 2020. Officers at the City of Perth sought advice from Administration regarding advertising to residents of the City of Vincent impacted by the proposal.

Administration advised that it was most suitable to advertise to all properties within the 67dB contour (blue dashed line as shown in Attachment 3). All properties within this catchment were sent correspondence by the City of Perth seeking their feedback on the scheme amendment.

The City of Perth has a dedicated page on their ‘Engage Perth’ platform. There is also a dedicated page on the Vincent website, linking to Engage Perth. The City has not yet been contacted by affected residents.

Legal/Policy:

· Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

· Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997;

· City of Perth – City Planning Scheme No. 2;

· City of Vincent – Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

· Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to provide a submission to inform the outcome of Amendment No. 41 to City of Perth, CPS2.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Connected Community

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

Thriving Places

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

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Management of noise is a public health issue which is addressed in the Health Protection pillar of the Public Health Plan 2020-2025. The objective of this pillar is to deliver evidence based health protection services and programs for our community.

The City would liaise with other stakeholders to ensure future changes are supported by evidence to protect public health.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Administration supports the modifications detailed in Option B of Amendment No. 41, on the basis that Amendment No. 41 without modification would affect significantly more Vincent residents. Once a decision is made by the City of Perth, the final determination on the CPS2 scheme amendment would be made by the Minister for Planning.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

9.8 Beatty Park 2062 - Project Update

Attachments: 1. Beatty Park 2062 - Project Site Boundary ⇩

2. BPLC Register of Key Documents 2016-2018 ⇩

3. Beatty Park 2062 - Project Implementation Update 2018/19-2020/21 ⇩

4. Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy Communications Plan ⇩

5. Beatty Park 2062 - Project Plan 2020/21 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the:

1. Beatty Park 2062 project implementation update included as Attachment 3; and

2. Beatty Park 2062 project is guided by the monthly Beatty Park 2062 Project Steering Committee meetings and the Communications Plan and Project Plan included as Attachments 4 and 5.

Purpose of Report:

To provide an overview and update of the Beatty Park 2062 project.

Background:

The site being considered for the purposes of the Beatty Park 2062 project includes Beatty Park Leisure Centre (BPLC) and Beatty Park which is a State Registered heritage place (Register No. 3553) located on Reserve 885, Lot 1618 (No. 220) Vincent Street, North Perth. The project site, as defined in Attachment 1, is Crown land vested to the City for the purpose of recreation. A Management Order provides the City with the power to lease this land for a period not exceeding 21 years, subject to the Minister for Lands consent. The site is classified as a Class A reserve which has the highest degree of protection. The Class A classification is used solely to protect areas of high conservation or high community value. Any amendments to Class A reserves require advertising and the tabling of any proposal, to facilitate amendments, in both Houses of Parliament.

BPLC was constructed in 1962 as a purpose built aquatic facility for the VII^th British Empire and Commonwealth Games. Major upgrades to BPLC were completed in 1994 and 2013. The 2013 upgrade followed an extended planning process including the preparation of a needs analysis and feasibility study for the ‘Future Redevelopment of the Beatty Park Leisure Centre’ in 2004 which was updated 2006. Redevelopment concept plans were then developed in late 2008.

In September 2010, Council approved revised concept plans and the following staged redevelopment:

· Stage 1 May 2011 – October 2012

New extension, geothermal energy system, new 50 metre outdoor pool, plant room and associated equipment upgrade;

· Stage 2: 2012 – 2013 financial year

Car park upgrade, associated landscaping and refurbishment of existing gymnasiums;

· Stage 3: 2013 – 2014 financial year

New outdoor learners' pool, replacement of the indoor water slide, spa area renovation and upgrade of dive pool; and

· Stage 4: 2014 – 2015 financial year

Upgrade grandstand/heritage works.

On 9 November 2010, Council approved the tender for the Provision of Consultant Services – Beatty Park Leisure Centre Redevelopment and on 23 August 2011, Council approved the construction tenders and ‘Stage 1’ works.

Stage 1 was completed in March 2013, at a cost of approximately $17.5 million, and included substantial alterations and additions including the reconstruction of the external pool, pool plant and major upgrade to the entry and gym facilities. Since completion of Stage 1, no further stages have been implemented.

In 2015, the visual distinction between the condition of the original 1962 building elements including the grandstand and façade, and those of the latter stages, was identified as a potential issue. To gain a better understanding of the structural and material condition of the remaining 1962 portion of the facility, and to identify any additional information required in order to make informed decisions about the best long term direction for BPLC, a range of investigative projects and reports were commissioned in 2016, 2017 and 2018, as outlined in Attachment 2.

On 26 June 2018 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council adopted the Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 (CBP), including:

Title of Works	Description of Works	Budget Impact
6.5 Beatty Park Leisure Centre Options Project	Development of options to resolve known and yet to be identified issues related to BPLC, inclusive of heritage, structural and business model solution development.	$200,000
6.6 Beatty Park Leisure Centre Structural and Condition Upgrade.	Prepare and implement BPLC structural and condition upgrades through consideration of heritage, asset management, commercial development options, business performance and community values.	TBD

The CBP noted that the full budget implications of the BPLC Structural and Condition Upgrade were yet to be determined and would be informed by the BPLC – Options Project. To ensure renewal works did not conflict with any findings from the BPLC – Options Project, the City completed various renewal works associated with the pool operating plant in 2018 and 2019 and did not undertake renewal works relating to the 1962 portion of the facility.

On 28 July 2020 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council adopted the 2020/21 Annual Budget including an amount of $2.93 million for the five BPLC Upgrade maintenance and renewal projects listed below.

1. Indoor passive pool tiling.

2. Indoor passive pool filtration.

3. Change room renewal to the northern elevation, and other indoor passive pool improvements.

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

5. Critical maintained to the grandstand as identified in the BPLC 1962 Grandstand Structural Assessment Report.

On 18 August 2020 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council adopted the Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) for the period 2020/21 – 2029/30. The LTFP is the high-level strategic document that aligns community aspirations, strategic intent and organisational capacity. It guides the City’s approach to delivering infrastructure and services to the community and demonstrates commitment to managing operations in a responsible and sustainable manner, by projecting the City’s financial position over a ten-year period using a series of realistic financial assumptions.

The BPLC – Options Project was excluded from the LTFP calculations due to the ongoing planning associated with the project and the fact that timelines and funding models were yet to be assigned. Although the LTFP did not factor in the potential costs associated with the project, the project was acknowledged in the LTFP narrative, and will be included in a future iteration of the LTFP, should a clear direction for the project and detailed cost estimates for this direction be determined.

In September 2020, the City received $270,557 Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program funding for essential BPLC Upgrade works and on 15 September 2020 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council adopted the City of Vincent Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24, including:

Title of Works	Description of Works	Funding
22 Beatty Park 2062	Development of a long-term approach to preserve and protect the history and heritage of the 1962 grandstand and other major elements of the site.	ü
23 Beatty Park Leisure Centre Upgrade	Planning, development and implementation of a project scheduled to conduct overdue renewal to the facility.	$2,930,000
24 Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy	Develop a financially sustainable strategic approach to City Assets.	ü

The BPLC – Options Project, previously listed as CBP No 6.5, was renamed ‘Beatty Park 2062’, in reference to the centenary of the VII^th British Empire and Commonwealth Games and development of BPLC.

The BPLC Structural and Condition Upgrade, previously listed as CBP No. 6.6, was renamed BPLC Upgrade. A new initiative, CBP No. 24 Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy (AMSS), was listed as works to be complete over the next four years which would directly impact the Beatty Park 2062 and BPLC Upgrade projects.

The effective management of assets is crucial to the sustainable delivery of the City’s services. The City holds a large portfolio of long-lived assets, including BPLC, and the City’s asset renewal demand currently exceeds the City’s ability to fully resource asset renewal investment. In line with the CBP, the City is preparing the AMSS to outline how the City’s asset portfolio will meet the service needs of the community as well as ensure future funding needs are identified well in advance.

The draft AMSS explores the City’s asset management challenges and considers Beatty Park 2062, as a case study, within the broader context of the City’s assets. On 15 December 2020 at its Ordinary Meeting, Council will consider the draft AMSS for advertising. If endorsed for advertising, the outcomes of advertising and final adopted AMSS will inform the future direction of the Beatty Park 2062 project.

To guide the development of an improvement plan for the long term future of BPLC, inclusive of heritage, structural and business model solutions, the City initiated the Beatty Park 2062 project and established the Beatty Park 2062 Project Steering Committee (PSC) in February 2019.

The PSC includes representatives from the City, the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries (DLGSC) and the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage (DPLH) Heritage Services. Working collaboratively with DLGSC and DPLH Heritage Services, the City is seeking to determine an agreed approach to preserve the cultural heritage significance of the 1962 grandstand, and other major elements of the site, whilst balancing stakeholder expectations, community satisfaction and complex site constraints.

In February 2019, an Investment Logic Mapping process was undertaken in consultation with DPLH and DLGSC. This process helped to identify the problems and benefits associated with the Beatty Park 2062 site and the gaps in information required to make informed decisions about the future of the site. Three priority problems were determined by the PSC as part of the Investment Logic Mapping process including:

· Extended closure of BPLC following critical asset failure would cause widespread disruption to community and commercial activities;

· Excluding youth, seniors and people with impaired mobility from sports and recreation services impedes meaningful lifelong participation; and

· Further neglect of the heritage listed grandstand would result in the loss of a valued part of Perth’s history.

In seeking to sensitively resolve and address the problems identified above, as well as explore options to improve the general utilisation of the site to better cater for the needs of the community, the PSC determined additional information relating to the structural integrity of BPLC should be sought to inform any future solutions.

In June 2019, a site tour of BPLC was undertaken with representatives from the Heritage Council and City’s Design Review Panel and in July 2019, the City engaged consultants to prepare a structural assessment report for the 1962 portion of BPLC inclusive of materials investigation, façade condition and adaptability assessments.

The assessments found that the current material health and base building structure to be in a reasonable state and determined the scope for the extension of material life for the next 50 years to be good. The BPLC 1962 Grandstand Structural Assessment Report was completed in December 2019 and confirmed Building Code compliance issues would significantly limit future use of the grandstand without significant investment and adaptation.

In order to determine what improvements could be delivered at responsible cost, the consultants brief required the review of all previous bodies of work and the estimated cost of full or partial retention of the grandstand.

The report concluded that the façade retention and base building works required to retain the entire grandstand for a future 50 years, with no adaptive works and limited functionality, to be the order of $7.5 million. The cost to retain individual wings of the grandstand ranged from $4.45 million to $6.5 million. These scenarios were costed to better understand the structural integrity of the grandstand as a single construction and as separate wings.

On 17 March 2020, the Structural Assessment Report findings and associated costings were presented to DPLH Heritage Services, DPLH Land Management Metropolitan & Peel, DLGSC and Development WA to inform discussions around the future development feasibility of the Beatty Park 2062 site. The meeting concluded that the site constraints were too high and available unconstrained developable land in the area too small to suggest a positive business case could be prepared.

Given the estimated building retention costs, a strong partnership with the State and Federal Governments was essential for a long term solution for this site.

To date, the implementation of the Beatty Park 2062 project has resulted in a total expenditure of $71,278. The expenditure has occurred over both the 2018/19 and 2019/20 financial year as follows:

2018/19 Investment Logic Mapping $6,897

2019/20 Assessment and Design Documentation for Plant Room Slab Deterioration Mitigation $3,850

2019/20 Façade Condition Assessment & Report $6,300

2019/20 Materials Investigation Assessment & Report $17,731

2019/20 Structural Assessment Report & Order of Magnitude $36,500

Total Project Expenditure $71,278

An amount of $100,000 is listed in this financial year to undertake risk related renewal works at BPLC and this will allow for the box gutter in the stand to be renewed. An amount of $250,000 has been identified as being required in both 21/22 and 22/23 to continue the grandstand works deemed urgent to prevent water ingress as identified in the structural engineers report. The total amount required ($600,000) is more than the $350,000 estimate to allow for unforeseen works that are likely to be required once the structure is exposed. These amounts will be subject to the annual budget process and approval.

Details:

Project Implementation

The implementation of the Beatty Park 2062 project is documented in Attachment 3.

On 20 October 2020, Council approved the Beatty Park Upgrade Business Case as part of the delivery of the BPLC Upgrade project. In line with the business case and as part of the BPLC Upgrade project, the City will deliver $3.1 million in essential BPLC maintenance and major renewal works in 2020/21. These works include the critical maintenance of the grandstand identified in the Structural Assessment Report, commissioned as part of the Beatty Park 2062 project.

The PSC continues to meet monthly to guide the Beatty Park 2062 project. The AMSS Communications Plan (Communications Plan) has been developed to guide project communications moving forward. The Communications Plan is included as Attachment 4 and relates to both the AMSS and Beatty Park 2062 project communications. The Beatty Park 2062 project is discussed as a case study within the AMSS and the communications relating to Beatty Park 2062 will be presented within the broader context of the City’s asset management and sustainability.

Future project milestones will be determined by the PSC and informed by the implementation of the Communications Plan and outcomes of the draft AMSS advertising. The Beatty Park 2062 Project Plan, included as Attachment 5, will be updated accordingly and presented monthly at Council Workshops and quarterly at Council Meetings.

Advocacy

Since 1962, BPLC has become an icon in the Western Australian community as one of the most popular and identifiable aquatic facilities in the State. It was the first purpose built aquatic centre in Western Australia and nearly 1 million people visit the facility each year. For BPLC to continue to meet the needs of the community, it requires significant investment.

The City is committed to ongoing and extension advocacy to garner support for the Beatty Park 2062 project and investment in the site. The City has advocated to State and Federal Government Ministers and Members of Parliament. A snapshot of previous advocacy activities is outlined below:

· On March 2019, the City met with and wrote to Mr Patrick Gorman MP, Federal Member for Perth noting the regional heritage significance of BPLC and the significant capital funding any structural and condition upgrades and site improvements would require;

· On 29 May 2020, the City wrote to Hon Michael McCormack MP, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Infrastructure, Transport & Regional Development, thanking the Federal Government for the $270,557 Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program funding received and seeking additional funding for the essential structural works to retain and make safe the grandstand for public use and enjoyment; and

· In August 2020 the City wrote to Premier Mark McGowan MLA, requesting support for investment in BPLC.

· On 29 September 2020, the City briefed the Hon Mick Murray MLA, Minister for Sport and Recreation and John Carey MLA, on the Beatty Park 2062 project including the Structural Assessment Report findings and essential structural works to make the grandstand safe for public enjoyment.

· On 27 November 2020, the City wrote to Senator Dean Smith, seeking support to advocate to the Federal Government for assistance to protect and preserve Beatty Park Leisure Centre.

The City has prepared a Beatty Park 2062 Advocacy Agenda (Advocacy Agenda) which will be a living document, updated quarterly. The Advocacy Agenda will guide the City’s advocacy for State and Federal Government support as well as identify opportunities to source alternative funding contributions.

Consultation/Advertising:

A detailed Communications Plan outlining the City’s approach to communications and community engagement around city asset management moving forward is included as Attachment 4.

Legal/Policy:

Nil.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to note an update on the project.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

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

Connected Community

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

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

Innovative and Accountable

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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Increased physical activity

Reduced exposure to environmental health risks

Increased mental health and wellbeing

Financial/Budget Implications:

To date, the implementation of the Beatty Park 2062 project has resulted in a total expenditure of $71,278.

As part of the 2020/21 first quarterly budget review, an amount of $15,000 was allocated to the project. Should this amount be exhausted in the 2020/21 financial year, a total of $86,278 will have funded the implementation of the Beatty Park 2062 project from 2018/19 to 2020/21.

The effective management of the City’s assets is crucial to the sustainable delivery of the City’s services. In order to sustainably plan for the future of BPLC and Beatty Park, the City needs to understand the current and ongoing maintenance and renewal costs associated with the site. The Beatty Park 2062 project is being delivered to enable the City to better understand these on-going costs, as well as current and future community needs and expectations. The delivery of the project will enable the City to make informed decisions regarding the future of the Beatty Park and will contribute to the City’s sound financial management and asset sustainability. Actual costs of the Beatty Park 2062 project are to be incorporated into the LTFP, once determined.

Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
Respondents must, as a minimum, provide the following information: 1. Relevant Experience a) Tenderer Shall Provide Evidence of Full Main Roads Accreditation b) Tenderer to provide details of experience and expertise in providing relevant services to Local Government and/or similar organisations.	40%
2. Resources a) Provide evidence that the tenderer has the required plant, equipment and appropriately skilled staff to undertake the works the City requires.	40%
3. Demonstrated Understanding a) Tenderer to demonstrate they understand the scope of works required by providing: i) the process for delivering the services, ii) identify potential issues/risks and how these will be mitigated; and iii) proposed methodology for delivering services on time	20%

Title	Role
Manager Engineering	Voting
Depot Operations Supervisor	Voting
Coordinator Engineering Operations	Voting
Procurement & Contracts Officer	Non-voting

Company	Qualitative Score/100	Ranking
Advanced Traffic Management Pty Ltd	90	1
Contra-Flow Pty Ltd	86	2
Overwatch Traffic Services Pty Ltd	82	3

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

10.2 Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030

Attachments: 1. Draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030 ⇩

2. Asset Management Discussion Paper ⇩

3. Asset Management & Sustainability Strategy - Communications Plan ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES the draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030 at Attachment 1 and the Asset Management Discussion Paper at Attachment 2 for advertising for a period of 42 days in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

2. NOTES:

2.1 a further report will be presented to an Ordinary Meeting of Council detailing any submissions received during the public comment period and proposed modifications;

2.2 the draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030 and Asset Management Discussion Paper will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication; and

2.3 the draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030 and Asset Management Discussion Paper will be advertised in accordance with the Asset Management and Sustainability Communications Plan included at Attachment 3.

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider approving the draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030 (AMSS) and Asset Management Discussion Paper for public comment.

Background:

The Innovative and Accountable Priority of the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028 (SCP) identifies the need to ensure that the City’s resources and assets are planned and managed in an efficient and sustainable manner.

‘Asset management’ is the process of balancing the needs of the community with financial and environmental responsibilities. Asset management generally involves the day-to-day operation and maintenance of assets as well as construction, acquisition, upgrading, renewal, sale and demolition.

The City’s current Asset Management Strategy 2010-2020 outlines how the local government’s asset portfolio will meet the service delivery needs of its communities now and into the future. As the Strategy is now 10 years old, it does not reflect the most up-to-date information on the status of the asset portfolio and financial planning to maintain these assets in the future.

Desktop research

The City began the process of reviewing the Asset Management Strategy by undertaking a series of investigations to identify the weaknesses and opportunities associated with the existing asset portfolio and the long-term planning required to maintain those assets and plan for future projects. This investigation included a desktop analysis of:

· The City of Vincent Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028

· The City of Vincent Corporate Business Plan 2020/2021-2023/2024

· The City of Vincent Asset Management Strategy 2010-2020

· The City of Vincent Asset Management Plans (Building, Recreation/Parks and Transport) developed by Talis consultants (last updated in 2019)

· The City of Vincent Long Term Financial Plan 2020/21-2029/30 (LTFP)

· The City of Vincent Public Open Space Strategy 2018

· The City of Vincent Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 (draft)

· The Department of Local Government Sports and Cultural Industries Integrated Planning and Reporting: Asset Management Guidelines (Sep 2016)

· Other LGA Asset Management Strategies

· The City of Vincent Audit Committee Report on Asset Sustainability ratio risk (June 2020)

· The City of Vincent Capital Works Program 2020/21-2023/24

· The City of Vincent Property Management Framework 2020

· Other relevant Council Reports

The outcomes of the desktop research and analysis were used to identify key issues in asset management at the City. These key issues included:

· Significant service deficiencies for some of the City’s long-lived assets that require substantial renewal funding to keep them safe for use;

· A recent shortfall in meeting asset sustainability ratio benchmarking targets, indicating that the City may be underinvesting in renewal and replacement of its asset base;

· The provision of master plans and development plans that have not been factored into long-term financial planning;

· Insufficient lifecycle costing for current and future assets;

· A need to prioritise and update engagement with the community on service levels and performance of the City’s assets; and

· A need to update and implement future asset demand planning that accounts for population forecasting and demographic trends.

Details:

The draft AMSS is proposed to replace the existing Asset Management Strategy and will address the key issues identified during the desktop research. The draft AMSS and draft Asset Management Discussion Paper support the provision of an asset portfolio that provides high-quality services to the community and will meet the community’s future asset demand while ensuring financial sustainability.

Vision and Objectives

The SCP articulates the community’s vision and aspirations for the future. The following outcome under the SCP Innovative and Accountable Priority sets the vision of the draft AMSS and draft Asset Management Discussion Paper:

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

This vision is supported by the four key objectives to support asset sustainability goals:

1. Having enough funds to keep our assets up-to-date;

· Improving the City’s asset sustainability ratio to ensure that assets are being kept up-to-date as they degrade over time.

2. Keeping our historical assets safe for use;

· Planning for the significant aged condition of some of the City’s assets that are in urgent need of attention to keep them safe for users.

3. Planning for the future of our assets;

· Ensuring that several master plans and development plans that are proposed to be implemented over the course of the AMSS are considered as part of an asset hierarchy and are accounted for in long-term financial planning.

· Ensuring that all new substantial capital works projects include lifecycle costs as part of detailed cost estimates before endorsement is considered.

4. Making sure we have the assets we need now and in the future;

· Keeping assets up-to-date in response to current and changing community needs.

Structure of the Draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy

The draft AMSS includes guidance for decisions around the planning, management and provision of the City’s assets. The draft AMSS is structured as follows:

· Alignment with Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework.

· A summary of relevant statistics and analysis on the City’s population and demographic profile (current and future) and discussion on how this impacts levels of service.

· A summary of current assets and their value and key identified service performance deficiencies of assets.

· A summary of the three key assets classes discussed in the draft AMSS (Buildings, Parks/Recreation and Transport) and explanation of expenditure on the key asset classes.

· An explanation of the recent negative trend in the City’s asset sustainability ratio and targets to address this shortfall.

· A summary of current financial position and recommended financial scenarios for future long-term financial planning (from LTFP).

· An explanation of current rationalisation program of works and future Asset Prioritisation Plan.

· Implementation Plan to detail action items with deliverables and timelines for achievement.

Structure of the Draft Asset Management Discussion Paper

The Asset Management Discussion Paper is intended to accompany the draft AMSS by highlighting the key points to inform community engagement exercises. The information in the Asset Management Discussion Paper is the same information found in the draft AMSS and contains no new or additional information.

The draft Asset Management Discussion Paper is focused on three key elements:

1. A summary of the four key objectives with identification of how challenges will be addressed.

2. Relevant case studies that speak to the four objectives.

3. The Implementation Plan.

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation will be undertaken in accordance with the Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy Communications Plan included at Attachment 3. The first step will be to undertake a workshop in March 2021 with a new community panel, followed by a 42 day public consultation period. Results of community consultation will aim to be reported back to Council in June or July 2021, depending on the number of submissions.

Legal/Policy:

During the 2019-2020 audit the Office of the Auditor General (OAG) noted the adverse trend for the past three years in the asset sustainability ratios when considering the basic standard set by Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries.

During budget setting, Council has focused its attention on ensuring capital spend is biased toward renewal instead of new expenditure. Consequently, the asset sustainability ratio has improved since last year, from 0.30 to 0.45. Additionally, the City has implemented the following initiatives in 2020:

· Budget prioritisation for capital projects for renewal instead of new;

· Prepared a 4-year capital works program 2020/21-2023/24;

· Adopted the 2020/21-2029/30 Long Term Financial Plan (LTFP) which reflects that the projected asset sustainability ratio will reach the benchmark ratio by 2024/25 (noting that the accounting of HBF Park will impact this projection).

The draft AMSS is part of the Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework as recommended in the Department of Local Government Sports and Cultural Industries Integrated Planning and Reporting: Asset Management Guidelines (Sep 2016).

Risk Management Implications

Low/Medium: There is an increased public safety risk and increased risk of community concern regarding an extended period of underinvestment in maintaining the City’s assets which has resulted in a downward trend in the City’s Asset Sustainability Ratio.

Strategic Implications:

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

Enhanced Environment

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

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

Accessible City

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

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

Connected Community

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

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

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

Sensitive Design

Our built form character and heritage is protected and enhanced.

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

Sustainable Energy Use

Sustainable Transport

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

Increased mental health and wellbeing

Increased physical activity

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Financial/Budget Implications:

The total cost of the standalone project items included in the Implementation Plan is $187,000. Following advertising, if adopted, the actions within the AMSS Implementation Plan, will be further detailed and included in the City’s annual budget and Long Term Financial Plan.

Comments:

A critical issue that the City currently faces is that asset renewal demand exceeds the City’s ability to fully resource asset renewal investment. The draft AMSS is designed to set out our challenges, help identify priorities and assist in mapping out the opportunities for better asset management for a sustainable future.

The draft AMSS is intended to guide the management of the City’s asset portfolio over the next ten years with regular review of progress of the implementation plan.

Focus will be on the overriding principle of renew over new so that the City will be in a better position to manage risks within available funding. This means prioritising renewal projects above new, expansion or upgrade projects, where possible. This will ensure the ongoing management of high-quality and safe assets that can be used well into the future.

The intent is to enable a more strategic approach to the management of the asset portfolio as an overarching vision and guide for the City’s asset related policies and works. The draft AMSS is not likely to remain static.

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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

10.3 North Perth Traffic Report

Attachments: 1. Proposed Extension of Median Island ⇩

2. Proposed Location of Slow Points ⇩

3. Transport Study Presentation North Perth ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the analysis on the potential impact of a partial road closure at the intersection of View and Fitzgerald Streets, North Perth, specifically banning the right turn into and out of View Street;

2. APPROVES a 12 month trial of the above by extending the Fitzgerald Street median island through the intersection, as shown on Plan 3611-CP Attachment 1;

3. NOTES that the consultation with the residents and businesses will take place in February 2021, in the area bounded by Angove, Charles, Vincent and Fitzgerald Streets on the installation of mid-block traffic calming measures in (Attachment 2):

3.1 Alma Road, between Camelia and Persimmon Streets

3.2 Camelia Street, between Vincent and Claverton Streets

3.3 Claverton Street, between Camelia and Alfonso Streets

3.4 Alfonso Street, between Calverton and Vincent Streets; and

3.5 Leake Street, between Grosvenor and Chelmsford;

4. RECEIVES a further report at the conclusion of the public consultation in March 2021; and

5. INFORMS the petitioners of the Council’s decision.

Purpose of Report:

To seek Council’s approval to conduct a trial, for a period of 12 months, of the closure of the median in Fitzgerald Street, intersection of View Street, to prevent the right turn into and out of View Street, based upon the conclusions of the report by the independent Traffic Engineering Consultants engaged by the City to undertake a traffic and road safety assessment for the area bounded by Vincent, Fitzgerald, Angove and Charles Streets. Further, to consult with the residents and businesses of the aforementioned area seeking feedback during the trial closure as well as proposed traffic calming measures in Alma Road, Camelia, Claverton, Alfonso and Leake Streets.

Background:

At its Ordinary Meeting of Council held on 1 May 2018 a 42 signature petition was tabled outlining residents’ concerns about the speed, volume, composition and origins of traffic using the local road network bounded by Leake, Vincent, Charles and View Streets, resulting in several reports, a public forum and a number of discussions at the (now defunct) Urban Mobility Advisory Group (UMAG).

As part of the planning process the City engaged the services of an independent traffic engineering consultancy to assess the City’s proposed response in respect of the staging the introduction of traffic calming measures within the precinct.

In addition, the City was at the time, finalising plans for the construction of the ‘North Perth Common’ in View Street, adjacent the North Perth Plaza.

In light of timing of the development the consulting traffic engineer was also asked to consider the impact of preventing the right turn movement into and out of View Street (to Fitzgerald Street) by closing the gap between the median islands in Fitzgerald Street, as a possible future enhancement of the North Perth Common.

The North Perth Common subsequently opened on 15 June 2019 at a well-attended community event.

However the City has, and continues, to receive feedback from the community that both the traffic volumes and speed are inappropriate for a ‘shared space’.

The closure of the median is a relatively low cost change that will have an immediate and positive impact. Additionally, the City’s Policy and Place Team is investigating possible staged changes to the North Perth Common to improve its function and activation. An urban design concept for the View Street Car Park is scheduled to be completed in the 2021/22 financial year, which will further consider North Perth Common and how these spaces can work together to enhance the vibrancy of the Town Centre.

North Perth Common will continue to have active and passive programming to encourage people to come into the space and linger longer. The Native Plant Sale and Young Makers Christmas Market both returned to North Perth Common this year, and elements such as art easels, lighting, and Christmas decorations have been added to maintain the passive activation of the space.

Details:

Engagement of an Independent Traffic Engineering Consultant

To ensure that the City was not limiting its options and to take a more a ‘holistic’ approach to the precinct and to address the residents’ concerns GTA Consultants (Traffic Engineers) were engaged to undertake an independent traffic and road safety assessment for the area bounded by Vincent, Fitzgerald, Angove and Charles Streets.

GTA were provided with the previous Council reports and UMAG minutes as well full access to the City’s traffic data and MRWA/Police accident data. While they were not asked specifically to form an opinion of an appropriate 85% speed* they were advised that the one of the major concerns held by residents was that an 85% speed in the order of 50kph was excessive, irrespective of it being the current urban speed limit.

*the maximum speed at which 85% of the traffic travels.

Consultant’s Report

GTA submitted their report to the City in mid-May 2019 (Attachment 3) and presented an overview of their findings to the UMAG at its meeting 27 May 2019.

The report considered a ‘short term’ or priority intervention strategy, as summarised below, as well as a suggested longer term strategy.

The short term strategy recommended a number of mid-block slow points to reduce the speed at those locations where the 85% speed is near, or exceeds, 50 kmh, as listed in the recommendation.

The longer term strategy, in addition to the above measures, was based around a series of raised plateau’s at strategic intersections, in particular in Leake Street, and a possible ‘diagonal road closure’ at Alma Road and Leake Street. In addition, the report suggested that entry statements be considered at each entrance to those access roads that intersect with a District Distributor/Boundary Road.

The longer term strategy was seen as being dependent upon the outcome of the 40 kmh Speed Trial in the area to the south of Vincent Street. The premise being that if the trial proves successful the 40 kmh speed limit, if supported by Council, Main Roads WA and Road Safety Commission, it could be extended across the entire City of Vincent.

This goal has now been incorporated into the draft Accessible City Strategy to be implemented by 2023, and as such subject to the broader Community Consultation.

View and Fitzgerald Street Intersection- partial closure

As part of the study the Traffic Consultants modelled the operations of the intersections of Fitzgerald Street and Alma Road and Fitzgerald Street and Angove Street to assess the potential redistribution of traffic as a result of restricting the turning movements at the View Street and Fitzgerald Street intersection to left-in left-out only (LILO).

As part of the assessment process visual traffic counts were undertaken on a weekday morning (7:30-8:30 AM) and again in the afternoon (4:30-5:30) peak period for the intersection of Fitzgerald Street and View Street. Approximately 45 vehicles per hour were observed turning right from Fitzgerald Street into View Street in peak periods whilst approximately 12 vehicles turned right from View Street into Fitzgerald Street.

Two scenarios were tested:

· All the redistributed right turn vehicles that are currently turning right into and out of View Street utilise the signalised intersection of Fitzgerald Street and Angove Street.

· All the redistributed right turn vehicles that currently turn right from Fitzgerald Street into View Street turn right at the intersection of Fitzgerald Street and Alma Road.

Note: The level of service concept describes the quality of traffic service in terms of six levels, designated A to F, with level of service A (LOS A) representing the best operating condition (i.e. at or close to free flowing), and level of service F (LOS F) the worst (i.e. forced flow). More specifically:

A	Excellent
B	Very Good
C	Good
D	Acceptable
E	Poor
F	Very Poor

Scenario 1

All the redistributed right turn vehicles that currently turning right into and out of View Street utilise the signalised intersection of Fitzgerald St and Angove Street.

In the morning peak the intersection of Angove and Fitzgerald Streets currently operates with a Level of Service (LoS) D, with the redistributed traffic the LoS is not expected to change.

In the afternoon peak the intersection currently operates with a LoS B, with the redistributed traffic the LoS is not expected to change.

Impact

Based on the above measures, the impacts of all the redistributed traffic utilising the intersection of Fitzgerald and Angove Streets is considered acceptable.

Scenario 2

All the redistributed right turn vehicles that currently turn right from Fitzgerald Street into View Street turn right at the intersection of Fitzgerald Street and Alma Road.

In the morning peak the intersection of Alma Road and Fitzgerald Street currently operates with a LoS A for the critical right turn from Fitzgerald Street. With the redistributed traffic the LoS is not expected to change.

In the afternoon peak the intersection currently operates with a LoS D for the critical right turn from Fitzgerald Street, with the redistributed traffic the LoS in not expected to change.

Impact

Based on the above measures, the impacts of all the redistributed traffic utilising the intersection of Fitzgerald Street and Alma Road is considered acceptable.

Analysis

The conclusion drawn is that even if all of the redistributed traffic were to use Angove Street, although unlikely, it would not have a major impact upon the level of service of the intersection and therefore would not be a deterrent to peak hour traffic using Angove Street in preference to using Alma Road.

In respect of all of the redistributed traffic using Alma Road, again unlikely, it is not a direct route to Charles Street, as is Angove and View Streets, and in the morning would be more prone blockages and congestion on Charles Street queuing back to/beyond Alma Road in the AM peak. Further, a significant percentage of the traffic using View Street in the peak periods is accessing Bourke Street (to and from Loftus and Oxford Streets) and as such there is no benefit in using Alma Road as an alternative. Similarly in the afternoon PM peak the right turn into Alma Road from Fitzgerald Street is often difficult due to the constant flow and queuing of outward bound traffic on Fitzgerald Street.

Therefore it could be expected that if there were an impact upon Alma Road it would more likely be outside the peak periods and that it would be limited.

Further, with the closure of View Street during construction of the North Perth Common a majority of the redistributed through traffic was drawn to Angove Street, while a significant percentage of local traffic, predominately patrons of the North Perth Plaza, either used Alma Road or View Street via the City’s and Rosemount Hotel carpark (to and from Angove Street).

Note: Traffic data was collected in the relevant streets in August 2018, before the ‘Common’ commenced, and again in June 2019 during construction (when View Street was blocked), November 2020 and, if the partial closure is approved, in February/March 2021 after school resumes.

Traffic Accidents

For the 5 year period 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2019 there were 14 reported accidents at the intersection of View and Fitzgerald Street. Closing the median would have eliminated 7 of the 14 (50%) all of which were classified as ‘major property damage’.

Further, the location within the precinct with the most traffic accidents was the 90°angled parking adjacent the North Perth Plaza. There were 28 accidents at this location of which 21 could be directly attributed to vehicles either entering or exiting the parking bays or ‘rear enders’ as drivers stopped as a result of the activity.

Therefore it could be expected that not only would the partial closure of the Fitzgerald / View intersection significantly reduce traffic volumes through the ‘Common’ but also result in a significant reduction in traffic accidents in this locality.

Cost Implications

As part of the 2020/21 budget $50,000 has been carried over from the 2019/20 budget to install traffic calming measures within the nominated area. Further community consultation, and therefore any works, were deferred due to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The cost of a single lane slow point, where no widening is required, is in the order $8,000 inclusive of vegetation. An Oval Slow Point, as suggested by GTA, requires localised widening and is upwards of $12,000+, dependent upon services. Raised intersection plateaus, similar to that at the intersection of Fairfield Street and Anzac Road in Mt Hawthorn, cost in the order of $15,000/$25,000, and again dependent upon services. Entry statements, where the road is narrowed with landscaped nibs and a speed hump installed, such as at the intersection of Strathcona and Newcastle Streets, West Perth, is in the order of $15,000, excluding service relocations.

Therefore given a budget of $50,000 the City would able to install a combination of ‘single lane slow points’ and ‘oval slow points’ at the five locations identified by GTA but not the raised plateaus as suggested in Leake Street.

The estimated cost to trial the partial closure of View and Fitzgerald Streets intersection is $10,000 (50% of which is for on-going traffic control during installation and maintenance). The works could be funded from the City’s Minor Traffic Management Improvement Program budget.

Current Council Decision

At its Ordinary Meeting of 18 September 2018 Council approved the installation of two single lane slow points in Claverton and Leake Streets and to this time the decision has not been rescinded. The current recommendation is to consult on the two aforementioned mid-block slow points with additional three in Alma Road, Alfonso and Camelia Streets respectively.

Consultation/Advertising:

The matter has twice been considered by the UMAG as well as at a Public Forum held at the North Perth Town Hall on Monday 12 November 2018.

Legal/Policy:

All of the roads within and bounding the precinct, other than Charles Street, as discussed in this report, come under the care, control and management of the City.

Risk Management Implications

Low/Medium: as the study has shown that, other than the specified two locations, the speeds and volumes within the study area are within the operating criteria for the respective streets in accordance with their classification.

Strategic Implications:

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

Accessible City

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

Sustainable Transport

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Financial/Budget Implications:

The 2020/21 budget includes an allocation of $50,000 with which to undertake traffic calming within the study area. A combination of three single lane slow points and two oval slow points would utilise the majority of the budget allocation.

The estimated cost to trial the partial closure of View and Fitzgerald Streets intersection is $10,000. Whilst currently not funded the works could be funded from the City’s Minor Traffic Management Improvement Program budget.

Comments:

The installation of the recommended slow points will enable the City to compare the effectiveness of ‘hard’ traffic calming measures versus that of signage only as installed in the 40kmh Speed Trial area south of Vincent Street. Further, if the 40kmh trial proves successful it is envisaged, and now a cornerstone of the Accessible City Strategy, that the entire City of Vincent will become a designated a 40kmh speed zone by 2023, potentially reducing the need for additional traffic measures and the resultant loss of resident amenity in the future.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

10.4 Leederville Laneway Upgrade

Attachments: 1. Leederville Laneway Concept ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. RECIEVES the report on the Leederville Laneway Upgrade Project and;

1.1 APPROVES IN PRINCIPLE the Leederville Laneway Upgrade concept plans;

1.2 NOTES the Administration’s method of calculation for the City’s possible contribution of $155,808 towards the cost of the works based upon the infrastructure for which the City would be responsible in future;

1.3 AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to negotiate with the developer(s) the City’s contribution, and any other details that may arise, including that of minor miscellaneous infrastructure; and

1.4 NOTES that the final negotiated contribution amount will be included in the mid-year budget review process for consideration by Council; and

2. APPROVES BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the allocation of additional funds of $132,308 within the 2020/21 Annual Budget for this project.

Purpose of Report:

To provide Council with the basis to determine a possible contribution towards the cost of the Leederville Laneway Upgrade Project, as proposed by the proponents, Hesperia Property Developments.

Background

On 3 September 2020, the Metropolitan West Joint Development Assessment Panel (JDAP) approved the FJM - ABN development at 742 Newcastle Street, Leederville.

Further, the Leederville Hotel, which includes the ‘Garden’, and which is also part of the FJM property portfolio, is to be refurbished with the construction of a new bar, shop, and kiosks opening onto the lane-way that separates the two developments.

Hesperia (formerly Fini and Linc Property Developments) acting on behalf of the developer is looking to integrate the two developments by creating an activated and vibrant laneway and are seeking both the City’s input and a financial contribution to the proposed works.

Details:

The Leederville Hotel laneway concept and current cost estimate is at Attachment 1.

The total initial estimated cost for the project has been revised down from $431,362 to $369,937 (-$61,425), inclusive of civil and paving works, landscaping, artwork, lights & branding. Hesperia has been seeking a 50% contribution from the City for the total cost ($184,968.50).

FJM had previously indicated they were willing to contribute $179,000 toward the project, which increases by $5,968.50, to $184,968.50, based upon the 50/50 funding model.

Administration supports the overall concept but has been seeking clarification from Hesperia about some cost elements such as branding and security which would not normally be shared infrastructure costs for a local government contribution for such a project.

The core infrastructure to which the City would contribute include drainage, paving and street lighting.

Administration has requested Hesperia to review the cost estimates and delete those costs that are not relevant to any City contribution. This has not occurred at the time of preparing this report.

Drainage

Prior to the ABN development the area adjacent the lane-way on the northern side was hotel car park - an open expanse of bitumen. In winter, if there was an above average storm event the run-off from the lane-way would flow into the car park unconstrained with little consequence. By approving the development this is no longer a viable option and to mitigate the associated risk the drainage system within the lane-way had to be substantially upgraded.

The works had to be undertaken early in the project while the site was accessible and was largely completed by the developer in September.

The revised costs as provided to the City in November indicated that the in ground costs for the drainage was in the order of $60,828, excluding any design costs, typically 10-15%.

Having reviewed the design and taking into consideration the costs for the City to have undertaken the works, the potential scheduling conflicts (working around the builders within a constrained) and associated risks, a $66,911 contribution (inclusive of 10% for design and supervision) would be appropriate.

Paving

The estimate for the paving, using the same inter-locking pavers as the Leederville Village Square, is in the order of $78,025, inclusive of the easements either side of the lane-way abutting the respective developments.

Note: this excludes the paving in the private Right of Way along the rear of the properties fronting Oxford Street as this is an agreement between the builder and property owners.

On the basis the City is responsible for approx. 60% of the total area (as the width of the lane-way varies the length of the subject area) a contribution of $51,497 (inclusive of 10% for design and supervision) would be appropriate.

Lighting

This is the most difficult of the three ‘core infrastructure’ items to quantify as the level of expectation, and the technology proposed, exceeds standard street lighting.

Typically the City would install 4 x single outreach LED lights on 4.5m poles. If the Western Power standard was adopted it would be powder coated tapered steel poles requiring a power supply (unmetered supply – UMS) from Oxford Street and service cable (open trench the length of the lane-way). An estimated cost would be in the order of $35,000+. However, Western Power would then be responsible for any future maintenance.

Alternatively the City could apply for a UMS (in the order of $10,000) and install its own cabling and standard lighting (assuming it would be decorative), again in the order of $35,000.

In both the above scenarios the location of the poles is likely to be problematic. The poles can’t be hard-up against the façade of a building, further constraining a narrow space. If located on the northern side of the lane-way, and given the overhang of the ABN building, the poles would have to be no taller than 3.8m reducing their effectiveness, and potentially requiring an additional pole to meet the standards (AS1158) for road way lighting.

Hesperia is proposing catenary lighting as a better outcome. LED luminaries strung across the lane-way on fine steel cables serve both a decorative and functional purpose. Cost wise it is very similar to the options above ($34,000).

The developers have indicated that if the Council were to approve the catenary lighting the power supply would be from either of the buildings (ABN or Leederville Hotel) with a sub-meter for the electrical costs being on-charged to the City. While this is not unreasonable it’s the long term maintenance and replacement of the lights that may be a future burden upon the City. Therefore a negotiated management agreement would be required if the catenary lights are installed.

The catenary lighting would be a much better public realm outcome visually and aesthetically for both the City and the respective developments. As with drainage and paving a 10% design and supervision fee is not unreasonable, increasing the City’s contribution to the order of $37,400.

Included in the design component would a requirement that it meets the Australian Standard 1158 for public lighting.

Comment

Based upon the above rationale and calculation the City’s recommended total contribution would be $155,808, which is $29,160.50 less than Hesperia was seeking.

Given that $23,500 has already been budgeted to resurface the dedicated portion of the lane-way in 2020/21 the additional impost, if approved, on the City’s budget will be $132,308 (and if agreed with the developer(s)).

Consultation/Advertising:

Due to the works commencing in March, it is proposed that following Council authorisation for the City to contribute funding to the laneway the following affected properties are informed of the works:

· Oxford Street, between Vincent and Newcastle;

· Newcastle Street, between Oxford and Carr;

· Carr Place, between Newcastle and Loftus; and

· Vincent Street, between Oxford and Loftus.

This will include information about the restricted access: stating access changes to the laneway and how this will impact properties throughout the works and when the works are completed. On-site signage will support in providing clear messaging around the final access outcome. This will align with Clause 12 in the City’s Policy No. 4.1.05 – Community Consultation Appendix 2.

The City has also been collaborating with the developers to engage the local community in a competition to name the new laneway. The proposed competition is scheduled to launch on 18 January 2021, and will be open for submissions for 32 days during which time each submission will be vetted in accordance with Policy No. 2.2.8 – Laneways and Rights of Ways, and Landgate’s Road Name Request Form. Shortlisted names will then be available for 14 days of community consultation. Administration has reviewed the developers marketing and communications plan, as well as the competition guidelines, and agrees that the level of communication and consultation is appropriate to satisfy the City’s Road Naming Procedure and Landgate guidelines.

Legal/Policy:

The ‘Leederville Lane-way’, from Oxford Street to the eastern extent of the ABN development, is a dedicated road and comes under the care and control of the City. As such the City is responsible for the stormwater, the road surface and street lighting, with the minimum standard of each specified in the relevant Australian Standard.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to make an appropriate contribution to shared infrastructure costs for this project.

Strategic Implications:

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

Thriving Places

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

Sustainable Transport

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

Increased mental health and wellbeing

Financial/Budget Implications:

Based upon the above rationale and calculation the City’s total contribution is $155,808, of which $23,500 has already been budgeted in 2020/21. The additional impost, if approved, on the City’s budget will be $132,308.

The City forecasted an opening surplus of $1,615,763 for the 2020/21 budget however after the completion of the 2019/20 financial audit the surplus has now been confirmed as $ 2,122,499. This has resulted in an additional budgeted surplus of $506,736. The proposed additional $132,308 would be funded from this surplus.

Comments:

The drainage works have recently been completed in the laneway to enable the ABN building to proceed as per the construction schedule and in preparation for the development of the laneway precinct.

The proposed laneway concept submitted by Hesperia is of a very high quality in terms of design and project management capability for delivery on scope, timeframes and budget.

The laneway proposal would provide Leederville with a unique and high quality laneway experience and complement the Village Square project undertaken by the City in partnership with Leederville Connect. The activated laneway proposal could form a major part of the Vincent Rebound Plan to bring visitors and shoppers into the Town Centre.

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

10.6 Urban Road Safety Program Pilot - Implementation of Mini Roundabouts

Attachments: 1. Plan 3612-CP ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. NOTES the proposed implementation of the Urban Road Safety Program pilot project within the area bounded by Raglan Road, Hyde, Vincent and Fitzgerald Streets, North Perth/Mt Lawley in March 2021;

2. APPROVES IN-PRINCIPLE subject to public consultation, the installation of the nine ‘mini roundabouts’ within the aforementioned area, as shown on Plan 3612-CP, Attachment 1;

3. APPROVES the inclusion of the pilot project in the City’s 2020/21 Capital Works Program to commence works in March/April 2021, subject to public consultation;

4. NOTES that the City will consult with the residents and businesses within the area bounded by Raglan Road, Hyde, Vincent and Fitzgerald Streets;

5. NOTES that the pilot project will be fully funded by Main Roads WA; and

6. RECIEVES a further report at the conclusion of the public consultation.

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of Main Roads WA invitation for the City to participate in its new Urban Road Safety Program by accommodating a ‘mini roundabout’ pilot project in the precinct bounded by Raglan Road, Fitzgerald, Vincent, Hyde Streets, North Perth/Mt Lawley.

Background:

Urban Road Safety Program

Early in 2020 Main Roads WA approached the City to discuss a new road safety initiative, the Urban Road Safety Program (URSP), and to gauge the level of interest of the City to participate in the program to implement a ‘mini roundabout’ pilot project, to be funded by Main Roads.

The aim of the URSP is to:

‘Implement low cost road safety treatments on an area-wide or at least, whole of street basis that will target high casualty and/or high-risk locations’.

The URSP will treat intersections on an area wide approach that have crash risks, but are ineligible for Black Spot funding. The URSP will take a proactive area wide or whole-of-street approach, applying many similar treatments at once, using low-cost standard designs. This will allow for treatment of risks throughout suburbs and neighbourhoods.

The URSP has been in development by Main Roads through-out this year and was recently announced by the Hon Minister for Transport and Planning with details on the funding arrangements. The Minister announced the pilot projects for the City of Vincent and City of Stirling on 23 August 2020.

The URSP has been allocated $16m over four years, $1m in 2020/21 for the pilot projects, and the $5m per year for the following three years (to 2023/24), after which the future of the program will be reviewed. The maximum funding is $250,000 per location or area.

In conjunction with Main Roads, the precinct bounded by Raglan Road, Fitzgerald, Vincent and Hyde Streets, North Perth/Mt Lawley was selected for a pilot project comprising a series of mini-roundabouts (nine in total).

This project was based upon research undertaken by Monash University in Victoria, Main Roads accidents data (April 2014 to April 2019), with project scoping and design by GHD Consultants Perth office.

The high level description of the North Perth Project in Main Roads proposal is:

‘North Perth is an inner urban suburb, just north of Hyde Park. Several intersections within this area have had severe crashes, even though all of the streets are minor local access roads. This area offers a unique opportunity to install innovative mini roundabout treatments within a defined local neighbourhood. The mini-roundabouts will have domed centre islands that can be driven over where vehicle movement may be restricted. If successful, this pilot will allow mini-roundabouts to be installed at local intersections throughout the metropolitan area.’

Details:

The intention of the Urban Road Safety Program is to provide the opportunity for Local Government to proactively apply low cost traffic management treatments to local-local intersections, and roads, on an area wide or whole-of-street basis to reduce the likelihood of fatalities and/or serious injury traffic accidents.

There are over 51,000 intersections within the metropolitan area, of which in excess of 4,500 have had casualty crashes in the past five years (Main Roads Crash Data; April 2014 to April 2019). The majority of these (over 3,500) are on local-local* intersections under the control of local governments, most of which do not meet the criteria for upgrade funding under current road safety programs (such as Black Spot).

*residential access roads.

Having identified this ‘gap’ Main Roads has embarked upon a program to develop, manage and approve a range of low cost safety treatments that are easily applied to residential or commercial urban environments in the Perth metropolitan area where casualty crashes are more frequent or likely to occur. Low cost safety treatments that reduce the risk and severity of crashes for all road users are to be installed on an area-wide or whole-of-street basis and treatment options will include mini roundabouts, pedestrian crossings facilities, raised safety platforms, speed humps, and other minor road design improvements. Main Roads will coordinate the URSP with the identification of possible project areas and treatment locations based on work recently completed by Main Roads’ Road Safety Branch. Potential locations will then be discussed with the respective Local Government prior to Main Roads agreeing to fund any subsequent treatments.

The URSP aims to reduce crashes by applying treatments to sites with a proven crash history (responsive site selection), and sites with similar context to those that have reported crashes (proactive site selection). Simultaneously selecting intersections to respond to and proactively prevent crash risks will yield significant benefit through local areas. By treating many intersections at once, construction costs will be lower.

When applied consistently in an area, intersection treatments also reinforce a low-speed, high amenity local streetscape which promotes careful and courteous road user behaviours. This proactive and reactive approach is based on existing Main Roads WA and Road Safety Commission policies.

These include:

· Main Roads WA Policy and Guidelines for Speed Zoning. The Policy and Guidelines requires road and intersection designs which reinforce safe travel speeds.

· Road Safety Commission Local Area Speed Management Blueprint. The Blueprint provides guidance for how local roads can be treated to mediate road user speeds, reducing crash risks.

Safe Systems

The URSP is also based upon applying the Safe Systems* principles, which aim to prevent all road users from being seriously injured or killed in any crash. Safe Systems thinking recognises that all road users can make mistakes and accordingly, advocates that all elements of road systems should be designed to be forgiving when these mistakes happen. The aim of Safe Systems is to coordinate elements of the road transport system to minimise crash impact forces people experience (to below the known limits of the human body) when errors occur. The threshold impact speeds which severe outcomes are likely to occur for different collision types vary depending upon impact zone and the level of exposure of the people involved. For example, a head on crash between two vehicles of similar size and mass it is about 70km/h, whereas a vehicle hitting a cyclist or pedestrian the critical impact speed threshold is in the order of 30km/h. Obviously there are many variables that can influence the outcome.

Crash Type - Critical Impact Speed Threshold

For local roads, reducing impact speeds to below 30 km/h helps to ensure the safety of people who are walking, cycling, and riding motorcycles. Therefore, it is vital to achieve these lower impacts speeds at intersections to ensure improved safety outcomes for all road users.

Current design principles create a more forgiving road environment and this combined with slower travel speeds is achieving great results in reducing the number and severity of crashes, however many existing local roads which were designed many decades ago are not in line with “Safe System” design principles, which the URSP provides the opportunity to proactively address.

*Road Safety Commission. 2020 The Safe System.

North Perth Pilot Project

One of the innovations of the program, in the Western Australian context, is the introduction of mini roundabouts, which have not been used in a series before. There are a number of examples where a mini roundabout has been used in the Perth Metropolitan Area in isolation, i.e. City of Joondalup in Whitfords.

Mini roundabouts typically have a 3.0m diameter, whereas a standard roundabout has a 6.0m diameter, which generally eliminates the need for road widening, thereby significantly reducing construction costs.

The primary treatment selection criteria for the URSP is that:

· They maintain movement in all directions.

· They can generally be installed without major intersection / road modifications or civil works.

· They are easily recognised and understood by road users.

· They allowed for a consistent application across a local area.

It should be noted that while the precinct (within the designated area) has had numerous traffic accidents within the five year study period the majority have been at the lower end of the scale, i.e. property damage. The precinct was nominated as both a responsive site selection and a proactive site selection pilot based upon the traditional ‘grid pattern’ road network and the over representation (of a grid network) in right angled accidents. The mini roundabouts are seen as an effective, low cost means, of treating those intersections that have had traffic accidents and reducing the likelihood of serious accidents across the precinct.

A typical mini roundabout as installed by the City of Monash in Monash,

Metropolitan Melbourne, Victoria

Plan view of the above

Comparison study with the 40 kmh Speed Zone Trial

This area was selected as it enables a direct comparison with the results of the 40 kmh Speed Zone Trial, both in respect of speeds and accidents, currently being conducted in the area south of Vincent Street.

Whilst the feedback for the 40 kmh Speed Zone Trial has generally been positive a recurring comment has been the need for additional traffic calming devices to control the speed, along with a greater Police presence.

Note: the City is currently collecting base-line traffic data for the streets within the pilot project area.

Possible reduction in the posted speed limit to 40 kmh

Given that the standard 50 kmh Urban Speed Limit applies within the pilot project area, and to ensure that any direct comparison is based upon the same premise*, Main Roads has advised that they will consider, through the pilot program, making the area a 40 kmh Speed Zone in conjunction with the introduction of the URSP “mini-roundabouts” project.

Further:

‘They may be particularly appropriate in locations with significant bus or heavy vehicle traffic, or in grid-based local road networks.

As can be seen above, the Monash University Study has shown that the mini roundabouts, of which some 40+ have been installed in the City of Monash in Metropolitan Melbourne, have proven very successful in reducing both the severity and volume of accidents at typical suburban 4-way intersections, as is the intention for the nine intersections within the ‘pilot’ project area.

Cost Implications

The design of the mini roundabout, typically a diameter of 3.0m, is intended to eliminate the need to widen the intersections, as is usually required for a traditional 6.0m diameter roundabout. If widening can be avoided the estimate estimated cost per mini roundabout is in $25,000, inclusive of the line-marking.

The mini roundabout is essentially ‘dome’, 50mm on the outer edge rising to approx. 100mm in the centre. Light vehicles, cars, SUV’s etc. will be forced to slow down and go around the roundabout whereas large or heavy vehicles, such as the rubbish trucks, can safely mount the roundabout, again at a lower speed. Because there is no planting or obstruction in the centre of the roundabout all four legs have an unobstructed view of approaching traffic.

Therefore the nine intersections within the project area would cost in the order of $225,000 to construct, which having met the criteria, would be fully funded by Main Roads (to a maximum of $250,000).

Consultation/Advertising:

Residents and businesses will be consulted regarding the proposal in accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy 4.1.5

Legal/Policy:

All of the roads within, and bounding the precinct, as discussed in this report, come under the care, control and management of the City.

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council as the proposed treatments, mini-roundabouts, should lead to a reduction in both the number and severity of traffic accidents within the precinct as well as a reduction in traffic speeds resulting in an improved level of amenity for residents.

Strategic Implications:

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

Accessible City

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

Sustainable Transport

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping with the following priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025:

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Financial/Budget Implications:

The works, estimated to cost $225,000, would be fully funded by Main Roads WA.

Comments:

The URSP provides the City the opportunity to participate in an innovative road safety program that will lead to a number of beneficial outcomes for the local community at no direct financial cost to the City for the capital works.

If the ‘mini roundabout’ pilot project is approved, and proves successful, it will likely lead to a greater acceptance and adoption of the URSP by Local Government across the metropolitan area.

Administration is seeking Council’s approval to consult with the residents and businesses within the project area and will present a further report to Council on the outcome in March 2021.

Title	Role
Manager Beatty Park Leisure Centre	Voting
Coordinator City Buildings	Voting
Officer Projects City Buildings	Voting
Aquatic Consultant – Geoff Ninnes Fong & Partners	Voting
Procurement and Contracts Officer	Non-Voting

Company	Qualitative Score/100	Ranking
Trisleys Hydraulic Services	78	1
Commercial Aquatics Australia	67	2
Tropical Pools	27	3

Title	Role
Manager Beatty Park Leisure Centre	Voting
Coordinator City Buildings	Voting
Officer Projects City Buildings	Voting
Aquatic Consultant – Geoff Ninnes Fong & Partners	Voting
Procurement and Contracts Officer	Non-Voting

Company	Qualitative Score/100	Ranking
All Class Tiling Pty Ltd	87	1
Safeway Building Renovations Pty Ltd	76	2
Commercial Aquatics Australia	72	3
Tropical Pools	32	4

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

11.7 Investment Report as at 31 October 2020

Attachments: 1. Investment Report as at 31 October 2020 ⇩

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Statistics for the month ended 31 October 2020 as detailed in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s Investments as at 31 October 2020 and the interest amounts earned year to date.

Background:

The City’s surplus funds are invested in bank term deposits for various terms to facilitate maximum investment returns in accordance to the City’s Investment Policy (No. 1.2.4).

Details of the investments are included in Attachment 1 and outline the following information:

· Investment performance and policy compliance charts;

· Investment portfolio data;

· Investment interest earnings; and

· Current investment holdings.

Details:

Summary of Key Investment decisions

· Administration invested $13,925,728 in October 2020. This was triggered by the reduction in interest rates from 0.65% to 0.45% for monies held in the Online Saver account.

· A 7% improvement in the portfolio exposure to financial institutions with ‘no current record of funding fossil fuels’ compared to last month. There is scope for further improvement however financial institutions in this category are still not providing competitive rates with a reduced appetite for additional investments. This is impacting the City’s ability to provide investment preference to these organisations.

Investment Status

As at 31 October 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $37,495,284. Interest bearing term deposits account for $34,251,899 and the remaining $3,243,385 is held in a non-interest bearing account.

Overall investment activity has decreased compared to last year due to low interest rates being offered by financial institutions. Furthermore, it is anticipated that interest rates will decrease further in the short to medium term to aid the economy in its recovery.

The following table shows funds under management for the previous and current year: -

Month	2019/20		2020/21
Ended	Total funds held	Total term deposits	Total funds held	Total term deposits
July	$32,209,493	$26,105,854	$21,740,955	$17,906,824
August	$49,641,327	$44,977,692	$26,788,392	$16,238,861
September	$44,876,698	$41,017,535	$38,460,372	$23,921,321
October	$46,846,286	$37,782,515	$37,495,284	$34,251,899
November	$46,118,236	$36,123,083
December	$38,557,295	$34,633,796
January	$37,915,806	$33,773,707
February	$35,377,640	$33,681,961
March	$33,969,162	$28,466,025
April	$30,832,893	$25,975,451
May	$28,935,398	$22,319,031
June	$25,079,463	$17,565,310

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 31 October 2020 is:

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment	Budget Adopted	Budget YTD	Actual YTD	% of FY Budget
Municipal	$230,000	$76,668	$18,160	23.69%
Reserve	$180,205	$60,068	$38,924	64.80%
Subtotal	$410,205	$136,736	$57,084	41.75%
Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*	$0	$0	$26,277	0.00%
Total	$410,205	$136,736	$83,361	60.96%

*Interest estimates for Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust were not included in the 2020/21 Budget as actual interest earned is restricted.

The City has a weighted average interest rate of 0.66% for current investments whereas the Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for October 2020 is 0.07%.

Sustainable Investments

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

As at 31 October 2020, $4,591,726 (12%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

The following guidelines have been established to manage the City’s investments, including maximum investment ratios:

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Direct Investments Maximum % with any one institution		Managed Funds Maximum % with any one institution		Maximum % of Total Portfolio
Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position	Policy	Current position
A1+	30%	24.8%	30%	Nil	90%	67.2%
A-1	25%	6.9%	30%	Nil	80%	6.9%
A-2	20%	10.0%	N/A	Nil	60%	25.9%

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

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

“6.14. Power to invest

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

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

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

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

[(b) deleted]

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

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

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

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

19. Investments, control procedures for

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

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

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

(b) the transactions related to each investment.

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

(1) In this regulation —

authorised institution means —

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

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

foreign currency means a currency except the currency of Australia.

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

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

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

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

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

(e) invest in a foreign currency.”

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda 15 December 2020

11.8 Financial Statements as at 31 October 2020

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

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 31 October 2020 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 October 2020.

Background:

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

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

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 31 October 2020:

Note	Description	Page

1.	Statement of Financial Activity by Program Report and Graph	1-3
2.	Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type Report	4
3.	Net Current Funding Position	5
4.	Summary of Income and Expenditure by Service Areas	6-46
5.	Capital Expenditure including Funding graph and Capital Works Schedule	47-52
6.	Cash Backed Reserves	53
7.	Rating Information and Graph	54-55
8.	Debtors Report	56
9.	Beatty Park Leisure Centre Financial Position	57

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

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

Revenue by Program is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by an amount by $2,044,800 (42%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $215,731 as a result of issuing the food premises licences earlier than anticipated (Health);

· A favourable variance of $769,600 primarily due to an increase in revenue generated from Beatty Park (Recreation and Culture);

· A favourable variance of $1,136,821 due to an increase in revenue generated from parking activities (Transport); and

· An unfavourable variance of $136,430 due to a reduction in interest earnings from term deposits as a result of low interest rates being offered in the market (General Purpose funding).

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by $2,032,123 (5%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $2,137,866 for revenue generated primarily from operations at Beatty Park and parking facilities within the City (Fees and charges).

Expenditure by Program reflects a slight over spend of $55,184 (0.4%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

· A favourable variance of $145,066 primarily contributed by a timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping services (Community Amenities);

· A favourable variance of $137,605 primarily contributed by a reduction in vehicle maintenance costs (Other Property and Services);

· An unfavourable variance of $264,864 primarily contributed by employee costs at Beatty Park as a result of operations resuming back to normal (Recreation and Culture); and

· An unfavourable variance of $146,449 primarily contributed by timing variance relating to street tree maintenance works (Transport).

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects a slight over-spend of $68,486 (0.5%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

Employee costs reflects an unfavourable variance of $670,355. This variance is materially contributed by the following areas: -

o Beatty Park - $425,000. Staff have been deployed back to work as a result of operations resuming at Beatty Park. This will be adjusted accordingly at the first quarterly budget review in November.

o Rangers shift allowances and budget phasing variance - $140,000. This will be reviewed and adjusted accordingly at the November budget review.

· Materials and contracts reflect a favourable variance of $669,658. This is mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping services and other immaterial variances within other areas of the City.

Surplus Position – 2020/2021

The provisional surplus position brought forward to 2020/21 is $2,963,903 compared to the adopted budget amount of $1,615,763.

The actual opening surplus figure will be adjusted once the end of year audit has been finalised.

Content of Statement of Financial Activity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

6. Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 53)

The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserve portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 31 October is $10,403,469.

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

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

	Due Date
First Instalment	18 September 2020
Second Instalment	18 November 2020
Third Instalment	18 January 2021
Fourth Instalment	18 March 2021

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

The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 31 October 2020 is $15,805,782 excluding deferred rates ($231,000) and including ESL debtors and pensioner rebates.

The outstanding rates percentage at 31 October 2020 is 41% compared to 30% for the similar period in 2019/2020. This is primarily contributed by: -

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

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

· The due date for the second instalment falling in October compared to the due date this year falling in November resulting in a timing variance.

8. Receivables (Note 8 Page 56)

Total trade and other receivables as at 31 October 2020 is $2,646,071.

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

· $1,607,730 (89%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are sent to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.

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

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

· $141,340 (10%) relates to cash-in-lieu of car parking debtors. In accordance with the City’s Policy 7.7.1 Non-residential parking, Administration has entered into special payment arrangements with long outstanding cash in lieu parking debtors to enable them to pay their debt over a fixed term of five years.

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

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

b) Midnight, 1 May 2023.

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

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

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

As at 31 October 2020, the Centre’s operating surplus position is $226,348 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $93,691. This is contributed primarily by the increase in activity relating to swim school and fitness initiatives at the Centre.

10. Explanation of Material Variances

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

In accordance to the above, all material variances as at 31 October 2020 have been detailed in the variance comments report in Attachment 1.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

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

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

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

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

As contained in this report.

Qualitative Criteria	Weighting
A. Demonstrated Understanding Tenderers must provide the following information and supply any other relevant details in an attachment and label it “Demonstrated Understanding”: Tenderers to demonstrate they understand the scope of works required by providing: a) Proposed methodology / process for delivering the services on time and within budget b) identify potential issues / risks and how these will be mitigated, c) a project delivery plan including key stages and timelines	1. 50%
B. Resources Tenderers must address the following information and supply any other relevant details in an attachment and label it “Resources”: a) Tenderers to provide evidence that they have the required plant, equipment and appropriately skilled staff to undertake the demands the City requires.	2. 40%
C. Environmental Responsibility Tenderers must address the following information and supply any other relevant details in an attachment and label it “Environmental Responsibility”: a) Provide details of your organisation’s environmental policy and / or practices which manage or reduce the impact on the environment.	3. 10%

FUND	CHEQUE NUMBERS/ BATCH NUMBER	AMOUNT
Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)
EFT and BPAY Payments	2594 – 2608	$4,804,698.56
Payroll by Direct Credit	October 2020	$1,211,974.69
Sub Total		$6,016,673.25

Cheques
Cheques	82615 - 82639	$4,792.30
Cancelled cheques	82633	-$50.00
Sub Total		$4,742.30

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)
Lease Fees		$29,064.30
Loan Repayments		$100,782.60
Bank Charges – CBA		$64,665.95
Credit Cards		$15,119.70
Sub Total		$209,632.55

Total Payments		$6,231,048.10

Council Briefing	Ordinary Meeting of Council
9 February	16 February
16 March	23 March
20 April	27 April
11 May	18 May
15 June	22 June
20 July	27 July
10 August	17 August
7 September	14 September
5 October	12 October
9 November	16 November
7 December	14 December

	Total	Significant	Moderate	Minor
Open as at 20 October 2020	26	3	19	4
New Actions Added	22	5	11	6
Implemented/Closed	4	2		2
Open as at 1 December 2020	44	6	30	8