AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

16 February 2021

 

Time:

6.00pm

Location:

E-Meeting and at the Administration and Civic Centre,

244 Vincent Street, Leederville

 

 

 

David MacLennan

Chief Executive Officer

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

DISCLAIMER

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

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

Copyright

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

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


 

Order Of Business

 

1          Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country. 6

2          Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence. 6

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

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

4          Applications for Leave of Absence. 13

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 13

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 13

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 14

8          Declarations of Interest 14

9          Strategy & Development 15

9.1             Nos. 201-203 (Lot: 1; D/P: 1239) Oxford Street, Leederville - Change of Use from Shop with Ancillary Roof Terrace to Shop and Club Premises. 15

9.2             No. 526 (Lot: 88; D/P: 89649) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth - Change of use from Single House to Consulting Rooms (Amendment to Approved) 107

9.3             No. 50 (Lot: 412 D/P: 415381) Barlee Street, Mount Lawley - Proposed Single House S.31 Reconsideration. 137

9.4             Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas Relating to Guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street – withdrawn by administration. 206

9.5             Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation. 207

10        Infrastructure & Environment 235

10.1           Proposed Parking Restriction - Broome and Wright Streets, Highgate. 235

10.2           Draft Waste Plan - Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER) 248

10.3           E-Permit Implementation Update. 295

11        Community & Business Services. 307

11.1           Investment Report as at 30 November 2020. 307

11.2           Financial Statements as at 30 November 2020. 316

11.3           Investment Report as at 31 December 2020. 384

11.4           Financial Statements as at 31 December 2020. 393

11.5           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 November 2020 to 30 November 2020. 458

11.6           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020. 478

11.7           Leederville Gardens Trust - COVID-19 funding - Ruah Community Services. 497

11.8           Events Funding - Subiaco Football Club, City of Vincent Match - Family & Footy in Leederville and Sound Scapes of Beatty Park. 500

11.9           Beatty Park Leisure Centre – Indoor Pool Works – Project Variation. 506

12        Chief Executive Officer 507

12.1           City of Vincent Ordinary Election 16 October 2021 - appointment of Electoral Commissioner to conduct the election by postal vote [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 507

12.2           Quarterly Update of 26 Strategic Projects Outlined in Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24  512

12.3           Council Recess Period 2020-2021 - Receiving of items dealt with under Delegated Authority between 16 December 2020 and 2 February 2021. 517

12.4           Appointment of Complaints Officer and Adoption of Complaint Form- Model Code of Conduct 527

12.5           Information Bulletin. 531

13        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 586

13.1           Cr Joshua Topelberg - Amendment to Policy No. 3.8.12 - Mobile Food Vendors. 586

14        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 587

Nil

15        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 587

16        Urgent Business. 587

Nil

17        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 587

Nil

18        Closure. 587

 

 


 

1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

                   Nil

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

  (B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

The following questions were received at the Council Briefing of 8 December 2020.

 

3.1          Dudley Maier of Highgate - Items 5.2 and 5.8

 

Item 5.2 – 404-406 Oxford Street

 

1.                Condition 1.5 states that the area is not for exclusive use. One of the suggestions made when the City recently advertised the Development on City Owned Land policy was that, if the City was serious in its intension that space should not be privatised, there should be a requirement to have a sign, similar to those required for parklets, making it clear that the area is not for the exclusive use of a particular business. How will the local community know that the licence area is not for the exclusive of the businesses, and that anybody is entitled to use the facility?

It is non-exclusive by virtue that it is not enclosed and the public can walk through at all times. A requirement for signs noting the area is for public use at all times is being considered for the Draft Policy, which will be presented to Council for further consideration in early 2021.

 

2.                Can you confirm that members of the community will be able to use any seating in the area without using any services of the adjacent businesses?

Yes, members of the public would be able to use any seating in the area without using any services of the adjacent businesses. 

 

3.                Why does condition 1.2 just refer to ‘the verge’ when the licence area actually extends 2.3 metres beyond the verge into the road?

The proposal includes footpath area and conversion of on-street parking. This can be clarified in the report to Council and licence terms.

 

4.                Did the City obtain a market valuation for the 54m2 prior to advertising the proposal? If so, what was that valuation, who provided the valuation, and when was it provided?

The City sought guidance from a licensed valuer in respect to the market valuation for road reserve areas comprising permanent alfresco structures in early 2020. The valuer verbally advised that the value of these road reserve areas would be nominal, as they are ancillary to the adjacent business. He further advised that it was not easy to provide a market valuation for the road reserve portion. Based on this advice Administration formed the view that a nominal market valuation for this licence area would be well below $5,000.

 

In December 2020 the City engaged a different licensed valuer to provide a market valuation for the proposed licence area. The valuation report was received on 21 January 2021, and listed the market valuation for this licence area as $2,800 excluding GST. It is noted that this valuation was based on a licence area of 24 sqm, which is the new licence area currently being negotiated with the applicant. The proposed licence area and licence terms are yet to be finalised by the City and agreed to by the applicant. If agreed on, a report will be presented to Council in respect to the licence and will include whether public notice is required to be provided.

5.                If a valuation was obtained, was it less that the $5,000 stipulated in Regulation 30 (2) (a) as a requirement for being an exempt disposition?

Yes.

 

6.                Does Regulation 30 (2) (a) actually apply in this case given that it is not the transfer of ownership?

Yes – a licence is within the definition of a disposal of land as set out in the Local Government Act.

7.                Determination Advice Note 7 makes it clear that the movement of all path users must not been impeded in any way during the course of the building works, but does not make reference to the period after construction. Why isn’t there an Advice Note to make it clear that pedestrian movement must not be impeded once construction has been completed.

The use following construction is governed by the licence. The licence provides for non-exclusive use at all times and also requires the applicant to have an Outdoor Eating Area Permit. The Outdoor Eating Area Permit includes a term that a min. 1.5m wide ‘clear pedestrian zone’ to be maintained at all times. The advice note dealing with obstruction during construction was included because it is not explicit in the Outdoor Eating Area Permit or set out in any other approval/licence.

 

8.                Why is the City entertaining this request, in the affirmative, before finalising the Development on City Owned Land policy?

The absence of a policy position does not prevent a proposal being submitted to Council for consideration.

 

Item 5.8 Parklet Policy

 

9.                Will the non-exclusive nature of the Parklet Policy still apply if an adjacent property obtains a liquor licence for the parklet area?

The use of the parklet will remain open to both patrons and non-patrons of the business. If a liquor licence is granted for the space, regulations pertaining to this would be adhered to, including unaccompanied minors being prohibited from using the licenced area, whether they area patrons or non-patrons.

 

10.             How will the business owner be responsible for patron numbers if the area may be used in a non-exclusive manner, for example, a member of the public uses the parklet without being a patron of the business?

The responsibility lies with the license holder to manage the number of people in the rest of their licenced area (i.e. their private establishment) so that there would not be a restriction on the number using the non-exclusive parklet.

 

11.             Will the limit on patron numbers be able to be used by a business owner as an excuse to exclude people taking of advantage of the non-exclusive nature of the parklet, even if the limit has not been excluded?

As per above.

 

3.2          Andrew Main of North Perth – Item 6.6 and 6.3

 

1.                On page 29 of the City’s Accessible City Strategy, the following statements are found:

 

A future transport hierarchy of use must preference mobility for people, not cars, through greatly improved pedestrian, cycle, and public transport infrastructure.

 

On Vincent’s roads, existing priority is typically for people who choose to drive. In upgrading and/or making changes to these roads, pedestrian infrastructure will be the FIRST focus. This may generate the need for more safe crossing points.”

 

One of the stated outcomes of roundabouts is to allow for the continuous movement of vehicles and vehicle drivers are not required to give way to pedestrians crossing any of the intersecting roads. Given the project area has a high level of pedestrian activity, comprising people of all ages and abilities, how does the provision of roundabouts comply with the recommendation in the Accessible City Strategy to put the needs of pedestrians first.

 

The objective of Main Roads Urban Road Safety Program (URSP) is to reduce traffic speeds on local roads making it safer for all road users.  If the speed can be bought down closer to the ‘critical impact speed threshold’ as discussed in the report, the likely severity of any injury is significantly reduced.  The mini-roundabouts, by virtue of their simple design, will slow traffic down while affording pedestrians, cyclist and drivers a clear view of all modes of approaching traffic.

 

2.                Has the impact on pedestrian safety and comfort been assessed by the City administration, and, if not why not? If it has, why hasn’t this assessment been included in the officers report so that council can make a fully informed decision?

 

As above, and as articulated in the report, the URSP is about using ‘low cost’ treatments to reduce the traffic speed, and which includes a reduction in the posted speed limit to 40 kmh.  The lower speeds lessen the potential for accidents, and if they do occur, the severity of an accident, which will benefit all road users.

 

3.                Does the Department of Transport support the provision of roundabouts on roads in this area that are planned to be developed into Safe Active Streets?

 

The Administration had a number of meetings with the Department, when developing the Long Term Cycle Network (LTCN), at which the proposed URSP mini-roundabouts were discussed.  The Department’s position was that their preference was bike priority first while acknowledging that making the local road network safer was beneficial for all road users.  They, along with WestCycle, will be included in the consultation.

 

4.                If the City proceeds with this proposal, will it incorporate zebra crossings across all roads leading into the roundabout. Examples of roundabouts with zebra crossings exist in the City of Fremantle.

 

It is not intended to use excessive regulatory signage and line-marking to draw attention to the changes but rather by making the treatments, i.e. mini-roundabouts, ‘self-explaining’ to the pedestrian, cyclist and driver.  Entering a roundabout you are required to:

 

1.       Slow down

2.       Observe the road rules, and

3.       Proceed with caution.

 

The Fremantle examples are typical large roundabouts (>6m diameter) within the CBD boundary, with high vehicle and pedestrian traffic, as opposed to ‘mini-roundabouts’ on local roads.

 

Item 6.3 - North Perth Traffic Report

 

5.                With regard to the recent works at the intersection of Chelmsford and Fitzgerald Street North Perth, I put forward a view to the City administration and some elected members, that a more effective approach would have been to place a median barrier on Fitzgerald Street to prevent drivers from turning right into Chelmsford Rd. I was advised by the City’s administration that this approach would NOT have been fair on residents on adjacent streets because drivers would use their street instead.

 

Given the above, why is it acceptable for the City to place a median barrier on Fitzgerald Street to prevent drivers turning into View Street, given that drivers will use adjacent streets as an alternative?

 

The black spot treatment at Fitzgerald Street and Chelmsford Road was designed to eliminate the majority, not all, of the accident types that have occurred at the intersection.  To have closed it to all, bar left and left out movements, would have resulted in an unfair redistribution of traffic to the parallel streets.  This has already been borne out by the recent trafic data collected which has seen the Chelmsford Road traffic volume decline by >20% while Grosvenor Road has increased by >20% (both of which are classified as Access Roads).

In respect of View and Fitzgerald streets the major point of difference is pedestrian numbers.  A recent pedestian video survey (October 2019) in the North Perth Common identified 1,659 pedestrians* and cyclists in and around the Common over a 12 hour period (noon to midnight) on a Friday and 1,578 on the Saturday.  By partially closing the intersection it will reduce the number of conflicting turning movements through intersection thereby making it safer for pedestrians, cyclists and motorists alike. *including runners, wheelchairs, skateboards and prams.

 

6.                From the agenda report, it appears that the data collection for vehicle movements was obtained from one field visit in the morning and another in the afternoon peak periods. Does collecting data at these times, on only one occasion, provide adequate information on the impact of the median barrier on traffic movements on adjacent streets. If not, does council have comprehensive data to make an informed decision on this matter?

 

It is standard practice to restrict manual counts to the peak periods and data collected is intended to be indicative as to how the intersection functions in these periods (the critical times).  The City has recently collected pre-closure traffic data in Alma Road (Glebe to Leake), View and Angove Streets and will be collecting data in Alma (west of Leake) Claverton and Leake Streets.  Further, we have data from when the North Perth Common was being constructed (and View Street closed) for before and after comparsions.  The closure is a 12 month trial after which time Council can make a more informed decision including the impact upon pedestrian activity in the North Perth Common.

 

7.                Will the City collect traffic data for the whole of the day, to ensure that it has a comprehensive understanding about the impact of placing a median barrier on Fitzgerald St?

 

As per above.

 

8.                On page 407 of the council agenda, the following statement is made “Alma Road, is not a direct route to Charles Street, as is Angove and View Streets’. How can this statement be justified given that there is no barrier preventing a driver from travelling along Alma Rd between Charles and Fitzgerald St.

 

There is no physical barrier but rather an off-set intersection at Leake Street with Stop Control.  Further, vehicles are typically parked on both sides of the street (from Glebe to Charles) regularly requiring drivers to yield to approaching traffic.  Therefore the route is not direct in the sense that it’s impeded by the above constraints.

 

3.3          Marie Slyth of West Perth – Item 6.5

 

1.                What action can be taken by council to prevent Cyclists speeding on Strahcona Street Bicycle Boulevard?  The speed limit of 30 km is for motor vehicles but cyclists can often be guilty of  racing along  roads between cars when there is no bicycle path.  How will this be managed?

 

The mid-block traffic calming devices have the same impact upon bikes as they do vehicles.  A cyclist riding in excess of 30kmh over a plateau/speed hump would find it and therefore it is unlikely.

 

2.                What action is Council going to take to ensure that Local resident ratepayers still have right to get out of Colvin Lane and into Strathcona Street so that they can successfully negotiate their way to a main road  i.e. Charles Street, Vincent Street, Newcastle Street and Cleaver Street?

 

The Safe Active Street maintains the status quo in respect of access with the added benefit of lower speeds in Strathcona Street.

 

3.                As it looks from the Safe Active Streets proposal,  it is going to be very difficult to get in and out of Strathcona Street into either Carr or Newcastle Streets – having to watch out for fast cyclists as well as turn around the widendened kerks at the corners of each of these streets – especially at peak hour  - what can council do  about this?  Make the very wide kerbs not as wide?

 

As above.

 

4.                Is Council aware that to see what oncoming traffic from Carr Street is turning into Strathcona Street from when –  they have just turned into Strathcona Street from Newcastle Street  and there are several cars.  Will they have to go backing into Newcastle Street I there are no car vacant spaces in Strathcona Street at that time into which they can pull in to let the other car pass?

 

As above.

5.                Have all Councillors and Vincent staff come and checked out the actual layout of this section of Cleaver Precinct to see what impact this proposal will have on this particular community?  Looking at drawings on paper only can be a big trap for all involved. Do you agree?

 

The Officers have walked, ridden and driven the route and are confident the proposed SAS will enhance the amenity of the precinct.

 

6.                What action is council going to take when reviewing how many vehicles will wish to use Cleaver Street to get to their desinations heading west or south west when vehicles will find it too difficult using Strathcona Street.?

 

The Safe Active Street maintains the status quo in respect of access with the added benefit of lower speeds in Strathcona Street.

 

7.                I have lived in Cleaver Precinct for over 60 years – Strathcona Stret and now Carr Street and I’d say know this area better than most – have ridden my bike, driven my car, walked and ridden scooter bike through  around and inside all of these streets  and have been on Main Roads volunteer committee for the Charles Street off ramp  so I do believe Council should take note of my knowledge and suggestions for handling the safety of its residents.

 

 What actions will be taken if a speeding cyclist is hit  as cars come out of Colvin Lane and find it very hard to see them through extra trees to be planted and or it is raining heavily and hard to see?  Where does the safety for local people come in then?

 

The Safe Active Street maintains the status quo in respect of access with the added benefit of lower speeds in Strathcona Street. The closest new tree to Colvin Lane is to the south and will have no impact on the visibility of approaching cars and cyclists.

 

How safe will pedestrians  walking on footpaths  in Strathcona Street and Carr Street be when cyclists decide to ride on the footpaths instead of  the road to dodge cars?

 

Cyclists are legally allowed to ride on the footpath and have an onus of responsibilty to display caution and courtsey. This project is will make the road more attractive to cyclists potentially reducing the numbers of cyclists using the footpath.

 

What action is Council going to take to let resident ratepayers still park in the street outside their own homes or close to them homes  and what about workers who have to do repairs to ratepayers homes ??  In cases of carrying out heavy large repairs to a home they must be given space to park – how can this be arranged?  This is already difficult when customers of the West End Deli park outside our homes and take up large chunks of parking in our street?

 

The Safe Active Street maintains the status quo in respect of parking.

 

Has Perth Bus transport been notified of this proposal, especially when cyclists could be hit crossing Newcastle Street, from the foot of Strathcona Street to cross to Golding Street?

 

Yes, the PTA and Transperth have been advised of the proposed SAS.  However from their prepective it does not impact upon their services.

 

Note the bus driver who was recently charge with hitting a cyclist in Northbridge.

 

As above.

 

We don’t want to see this as a case of discrimination by cyclists against the people who live here whose safety will not be compromised  by this proposal.  Will Council ensure that this will not be the case ?

 

The SAS is not intended to be a high speed commuter cyclist route and therefore the volume and speed of cyclists is anticipated to be moderate.

 

The following questions were received at the Council Meeting of 15 December 2020.

 

3.4          Dudley Maier of Highgate

 

1.             The Procedures for Public Question Time say that questions will be answered at a meeting where practicable. I asked a number of questions at the Briefing, all of which could have been answered, but which were not.  Why weren’t the questions answered?  Was it because the answers may have embarrassed the staff, or call into question the thoroughness of the agenda reports?

The City’s approach since April 2020 has been to allow questions to be submitted by email to be read out at the Council Briefing or Meeting (due to COVID-19 social distancing requirements) and where information is unavailable or requires research or investigation answers are provided in the subsequent Council Agenda. Answers to all your questions required investigation and will be provided in the 16 February Council Agenda.

2.                None of the responses to questions I asked at the last council meeting, about who took responsibility for certain matters, provided any details.  Does the CEO take responsibility for the failure to indicate who is responsible for those matters? Does he think that this sets a good example to the staff? Is it consistent with the administration’s claim of being accountable?

As previously advised, the CEO is responsible for authorising all Council reports and any responses relating to questions raised at Council Briefings or Meetings. If you have any concerns with a response the CEO will address this. 

3.                The answer to my question about Section 6.6 of the Purchasing Policy states “The statement in clauses 6.6 which might have been interpreted as providing the “CEO unlimited power to award contracts without going to tender” was an existing policy clause.” Does the CEO stick by this answer, or is this another administrative oversight?

Yes, the answer provided on the 17 November 2020 was correct

4.                What Council workshops have been held since 1 September 2020 and what items were presented at each workshop?

The following workshops have been held since 1 September 2020:

1 September 2020

·                Prioritisation of 2020-21 Strategic Projects

·                Vincent Rebound Plan

·                Hyde Park Commercial Kiosk Proposal

·                Draft Amendments to R Codes Volume 1 and Planning and Development Regulations – State Government Planning Reforms

·                Update on Local Government Review Panel final report and City of Perth inquiry

·                FOGO Consultation and Communications Strategy – Revised Timeline as per Special Council Meeting Held 30 March 2020

 

22 September 2020

·                Bulk Hard Waste Consultation

·                Britannia North West Reserve Development Plan

·                Sport and Recreation Facilities Plan

·                Vacancy Project Completion Report

·                Accessible City Strategy Progress Report

·                Arts Development Action Plan 2018-2020 Closure

·                Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020-2030

·                Beatty Park Leisure Centre Renewals Business Case Presentation

·                Graffiti Management

·                Policy Document Register and Review Plan

·                Attendance at Events Policy

·                Vincent Rebound – Open for Business Christmas

·                NAIDOC Week – Project Scope and Communications Plan

·                Rocky Bay Request for Expressions of Interest

·                Leederville Laneway Upgrade

27 October 2020

·                Leederville Activity Centre Plan, Place Plan and Oval Masterplan

·                Northbridge Entertainment Precinct, Scheme Amendment 

·                First Quarterly Budget Review

·                Perth Greater CBD Transport Plan

·                Entry Statement Major Artwork Draft Expression of Interest

·                Litis Stadium update

·                Review of draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy 2020 - 2030

·                Review of draft Events Attendance Policy

·                Review of Policy No. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement

·                E-permit Demonstration

·                Update – Vincent Rebound – Open for Business Christmas

·                Update – Innovate Reconciliation Action Plan

 

24 November 2020

·                Leederville Laneway Upgrade

·                Draft Marketing Plan - Events Prioritisation

·                Draft Place Plans - Beaufort Street and Pickle District

·                Draft City Advocacy Agenda

·                CEO KPIs 2020 – 2021 Action 3 - 7 Strategic Projects

·                Consultation Draft of Local Government (Model Code of Conduct) Regulations 2020 and CEO Standards

·                Development Incentives for Community Benefit

·                Overview of Significant Development Assessment Process

·                Amendment 4 to Local Planning Policy No 7.5.15 - Character Retention And Heritage Areas. Relating To Guidelines For The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street And Buxton Street

·                The Review of Library Collection Management Policy (3.11.1) and Local History Collection Management Policy (3.11.2)

·                Pop up and Play Consultation and Locations

 

5.                Why haven’t council workshop dates for 2021 been published as they were last year?

                 The proposed Budget and Council Workshop dates are only determined following the adoption of the Council Meeting dates for 2021, which occurred at the 15 December 2020 Council Meeting. The dates have now been added to the City’s website – https://www.vincent.wa.gov.au/council/council-committees/council-meetings/council-briefing-sessions-meetings.aspx

6.                Can you confirm that, between September 2019 and February 2020, the City paid approximately $52,660 to ES2 Pty Ltd for what is described as a ‘technical security review for user, systems and network access’?  Is it fair to assume that, as a result of the review, all of the City’s IT systems were assessed as being adequately secure from external threats?  When was this determined?

              ES2Pty Ltd conducted a cyber security review to provide the City of Vincent with an understanding of its security environment state level of information security maturity. As a result of this review and risks identified in the Information Systems Audit, the City has implemented additional security controls to manage and remediate priority findings and enable adequate security from external threats.

7.                Why have the Audit Logs suddenly been made confidential? Is it because the previous logs identified delays in addressing two serious issues? Is the sudden confidentiality yet another example of reduced transparency and accountability?

              The Audit Log attached to the 1 December 2020 Audit Committee minutes was made confidential as it contained actions to mitigate the risks identified in the Information Systems Audit, and timeframes for the implementation of these actions. Releasing this additional information publicly could increase the risk of damage to City property.

              Administration will make the Audit Log public moving forward, by removing this confidential information.  

8.                The minutes of the 5 October 2020 meeting of the Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group states that the working group wouldn’t endorse an artist’s proposal to have a work displayed in Hyde Park, and suggested that another site, that is not of Aboriginal significance, be found.

              Does the City have a policy that states that only works of art by Aboriginal artists may be installed in sites of Aboriginal significance?  Did the City establish whether the artist in question identified as Aboriginal before the item was considered by the working group? Should such a matter have come to Council for resolution rather than a working group?

 

              The City sought the Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group (RAPWG) input into decisions and actions of the City and we appreciate their input and advice. The concern was not whether the artist was Aboriginal or not, but respecting changes made to land of Aboriginal significance. The artist accepted feedback from the RAPWG. The City does not have a formal Council policy that states only works by Aboriginal artists may be installed on sites of Aboriginal significance but the City has a strong commitment to respecting Aboriginal history and culture – and the views of the RAPWG. This matter was not required to go to Council for resolution.

 

              Was it the City who proposed that the matter, taken by Mr Lincoln Stewart to the Fair Work Commission, remain confidential? Would the City support making the matter public if Mr Stewart is prepared to make it public? If not, why not?

              As advised at the 15 December 2020 Council Meeting, both parties have agreed to keep this information confidential.

 

9.                Given that the city proposes to stop collecting commercial waste in 2021, will the city still be including the waste produced by commercial properties when reporting on its commitment to ‘zero waste to landfill’ by 2028?

 

Commercial waste collection is not the responsibility of the City. The City has a statutory obligation to collect household waste. However, there is no such obligation to provide a commercial waste service and equally businesses are not compelled to use the City’s waste service.  This means that the City only collects a portion of the commercial waste generated in commercial businesses and can only report on the material that it collects. 

 

Commercial waste data is collected across the state in accordance with the amended Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Amendment Regulations 2019, (gazetted on 28 June 2019). There is mandatory annual reporting required for all waste management sectors (i.e. municipal, commercial and industrial and construction and demolition).  This includes materials from all waste collection, recycling/recovery, processing, treatment and landfill operations.  Annual returns are required to be submitted to the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER).

 

The CEO advised that Mr Maier’s questions will be answered in the Agenda for the 16 February 2021 Ordinary Council Meeting.

 

In response to the question about the industrial relations matter, the CEO advised that the decision to make it confidential was made by both parties.

 

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

4.1     Cr Castle requested a leave of absence from 9 – 16 February

4.2     Cr Topelberg requested a leave of absence from 21  June to 26July (inclusive) for personal reasons. 

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 15 December 2020

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest

8.1          Cr Dan Loden  declared an impartiality interest in Item 12.3  Council Recess Period 2020-2021 - Receiving of items dealt with under Delegated Authority between 16 December 2020 and 2 February 2021.  The extent  of his interest was that one of  Tools N Things Library Inc’s organising committee members is a family member and other members of he committee supported his local government election campaign.

 

8.2          Mayor Emma Cole declared an impartiality interest in Item 9.1 Nos. 201-203 (Lot: 1; D/P: 1239) Oxford Street, Leederville - Change Of Use From Shop With Ancillary Roof Terrace To Shop And Club Premises.  The extent of her interest is that the applicant is a residential neighbour.  She has not spoken to them about this item.

 

8.3          Cr Joshua Topelberg declared a proximity interest in Item 10.1 Proposed Parking Restriction - Broome And Wright Streets, Highgate.  The extent of his interest is that his parents own and occupy a property within the proposed restriction area.  He is not seeking approval to participate in debate or remain in Chambers or vote in the matter.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

9            Strategy & Development

9.1          Nos. 201-203 (Lot: 1; D/P: 1239) Oxford Street, Leederville - Change of Use from Shop with Ancillary Roof Terrace to Shop and Club Premises

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       Venue Management Plan and Code of Conduct

4.       Car Parking Management Plan

5.       Acoustic Report

6.       Applicant's Planning Report

7.       Summary of Submissions - Administration Response

8.       Previous Development Approvals

9.       Site Context Images

10.     Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a proposed Change of Use from a Shop with Ancillary Roof Terrace to a Shop and Club Premises at No. 201-203 (Lot: 1; D/P: 1239) Oxford Street, Leederville in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following Conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 10:

1.       Use of Premises

1.1     This approval only relates to the Change of Use from Shop and Ancillary Roof Terrace to Shop and Club Premises as shown on the plans dated 30 October 2020. It does not relate to any other development on the site;

1.2     A maximum of 50 patrons are permitted in the Club Premises at any one time;

1.3     The Club Premises shall at all times operate in accordance with the Venue Management Plan and Code of Conduct dated 19 January 2020. The terms and conditions outlined in the Venue Management Plan and Code of Conduct shall be provided to all members and guests of the facility and displayed in a prominent location within the entrance area of the venue;

1.4     Any amendments to the operation of the venue, as specified within the Venue Management Plan and Code of Conduct, are to be submitted to the City in the form of a revised Venue Management Plan and Code of Conduct for approval prior to any changes to the venue taking effect; and

1.5     The hours of operation for the Club Premises shall be limited to the following:

·       Monday to Sunday: 7.00am to 10.00pm;

2.       Noise Mitigation

2.1     The measures outlined in the ‘Operational Scenarios’ of the approved acoustic report (Herring Storer Acoustics, December 2020) shall be implemented prior to the commencement of the Club Premises use and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

2.2     No amplified music is to be played on the roof terrace level which exceeds 77db (A) as specified within the Acoustic Report (Herring Storer Acoustics, December 2020); and

2.3     No live music or performances are permitted from the premises;

3.       Bicycle Parking

A minimum of five short-term bicycle bays shall be provided on-site and designed in accordance with AS2890.3 prior to the Club Premises use commencing;

4.       Car Parking

All off-street parking is to be available during business hours for all customers and staff. The parking bays are not to be used for storage purposes or the like; and

5.       Signage

All signage is to be in strict accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising, unless further development approval is obtained.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for a Change of Use from Shop with Ancillary Roof Terrace to Shop and Club Premises at No. 201-203 Oxford Street, Leederville (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to change the use of the subject premises from the existing Shop with Ancillary Roof Terrace to Shop and Club Premises.

 

The ground and first floors of the existing three storey building would continue to operate as a Shop, consistent with a development approval issued by the City in December 2015.

 

The second floor roof terrace is proposed to be used as a Club Premises. The applicant proposes to use the space as a private meeting place for club members to gather on the basis of common interest in networking and socialising for persons with an interest in business and who wish to grow their networks.

 

An approval is required to be sought to change the use of the existing ancillary roof terrace approval for the following reasons:

 

·       The approval for the roof terrace as ancillary to the Shop use was to provide for associated function such as camera equipment launches and photography demonstrations to support sales. The subject application seeks to accommodate a business networking club which is no longer an ancillary use to the Shop. This is because its purpose is not exclusively related to camera equipment, sales, or photography;

·       The landowner proposes to charge an annual fee of $1,800 for membership to the Club and access to the Club Premises. This fee is not paid in affiliation with the Shop use and is related to a separate Club Premises use operating external and separate to the Shop; and

·       The entrance to the Club Premises is via a separate door and lift at the rear of the site. Members will not be required to enter or exit through the Shop at any point. The physical operation of the Club Premises is not reliant on the Shop premises.

 

The Club Premises is proposed to operate as follows:

 

·       A maximum of 50 patrons would be accommodated within the Club Premises at any one time. The applicant anticipates that there would more likely be between nil and 10 persons using the space at any one time. The Club Premises would have a maximum membership basis of 100 people;

·       Operating hours would be limited to Monday to Sunday: 7.00am to 10.00pm;

·       No liquor license would be sought for the Club Premises venue but members could bring their own alcohol and food to the venue;

·       The roof terrace venue would be accessed via a lift and stairway accessed from the rear carpark of the premises. All access to the existing Shop is separate;

·       There would be no staff members on-site operating the Club Premises;

·       A covered portion of the roof terrace that currently provides tables and chairs, a bar area, toilets, speakers and a television would continue to be available for use as part of the Club Premises. Low volume music is intended to be played through the speakers;

·       There are currently four car parking spaces provided on-site for use by staff and customers of the Shop and ancillary roof terrace. The application does not propose to introduce any additional car parking spaces, with the four on-site sparking paces to be available for the Shop and Club Premises uses; and

·       The landowner and manager of the existing Shop business would be the primary venue manager of the Club Premises, with the exception of an alternative venue manager should they not be available.

 

Membership to the Club Premises is proposed as follows:

 

·       Members would pay an annual fee for membership to the club;

·       Membership to the Club is based around the applicant’s engagement or interest within the business community, such as business owners or investors, and with business and networking interests being common to all members. The purpose is to promote social connection, networks and business activity amongst members and their guests;

·       Entry to the Club Premises venue would be limited to members, with each member permitted to bring two non-member guests;

·       Additional non-member guests may be accommodated upon application to the venue manager, such as for larger business networking meetings. This would be permitted where the member has demonstrated the purpose of the meeting as well as provided the names and contact details of all guest attendees. The purpose of inviting non-member guests is to facilitate new business and networking connections, as well as to potentially grow the Club Premises membership;

·       Entry is to be permitted via swipe card access which could only be held by members of the Club Premises;

·       No casual admission to the general public would be permitted; and

·       The use of space would be monitored by a phone app that would allow pre-booking and confirming attendance at the venue. The app would disable swipe passes once the venue has reached its maximum capacity.

 

The following works to the roof terrace area are also proposed as part of this application:

 

·       The existing 0.7 metre high glass balustrading to the perimeter of the terrace is to be increased in height to 1.0 metre;

·       The louvre door to the west of the roof terrace is to be replaced by a solid door with a self-closing hinge. The door is to be kept closed while the Club Premises is in use; and

·       The louvre wall to the south of the roof terrace is to be replaced with a floor to ceiling height barrier comprised of brick to 1.0 metre in height and glazing above to the underside of the roof.

 

These works are being sought in accordance with the recommendations of the Acoustic Report, included as Attachment 5. The purpose of these measures is to prevent noise spill to adjoining properties.

 

The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 2. In support of the proposal the Applicant has also provided a Venue Management Plan included as Attachment 3, a Parking Management Plan included as Attachment 4, an Acoustic Report included as Attachment 5, and Applicant’s Planning Report included as Attachment 6.

Background:

Landowner:

Mont Blanc Group Pty Ltd

Applicant:

Rowe Group

Date of Application:

13 October 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban      

LPS2:   Zone:  Regional Centre  R Code: N/A

Built Form Area:

Town Centre

Existing Land Use:

Shop – ‘P’

Proposed Use Class:

Shop – ‘P’

Club Premises – ‘A’

Lot Area:

412m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes

Heritage List:

No

Site Context

 

The subject site is located on the corner of Oxford Street and Melrose Street at No. 201-203 Oxford Street, Leederville as shown on the location plan included as Attachment 1.

 

The site is developed with a three storey building that currently operates as a Shop on the ground and first floors. An ancillary roof terrace with a covered roof and bar is located on the building’s third floor.

 

The subject site is zoned Regional Centre under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and is located within the Town Centre Built Form Area as prescribed under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

In accordance with LPS2, the land to the west of the subject site is zoned Residential R60; the land to the north and south of the subject site is zoned Regional Centre; the land to the south-west across Melrose Street is zoned Mixed Use R80; and land to the east is reserved for Public Purposes.

 

The site is bound to the north by a commercial property, to its south across Melrose Street is a medical centre (No. 199 Oxford Street), to its east is TAFE Leederville, and to its west is a ROW and a single house (No. 8 Melrose Street). Melrose Street predominately contains single house and grouped dwelling developments while Oxford Street contains a mix of commercial developments.

 

Previous Approvals

 

The following table summarises the previous approvals which relate to the site.

 

Approval Date

Comment

28 September 2010

Council at its Ordinary Meeting approved a development application for Change of Use from a Two Storey Commercial Building with Shop and Ancillary Tea House to Three Storey Commercial Building with Shop, Unlisted Use (Art Gallery), Warehouse and Ancillary Tea House, and Associated Alterations and Additions.

 

This application sought an extension to the existing three storey building which included undercroft car parking to the rear and the provision of 7 car parking bays.

 

This approval lapsed on the basis that construction was not commenced within the two-year time period in which the development was required to have substantially commenced.

 

A cash-in-lieu contribution of $14,460 for 4.82 car parking spaces was required as a condition of this approval. The approval was not enacted and payment of the cash-in-lieu amount was not required to be paid.

18 December 2012

Council at its Ordinary Meeting approved a development application for Alterations and Additions to the existing Three Storey Commercial Building with Shop and Ancillary Tea House to Three Storey Commercial Building with Shop, Warehouse, Ancillary Tea House and Club Premises.

 

Based on the approved plans dated 18 December 2012, the Club Premises was approved for operation on the second floor (roof terrace) of the building.

 

The Club Premises was approved to operate as a private camera club roof terrace as ancillary to the Shop use at ground and first floor levels.

 

The Club Premises was approved to operate as members only to accommodate workshops, meetings and events associated with the Shop (camera equipment sales). The Club Premises was intended to operate as ancillary to the Shop use at the ground and first floors.

 

This approval lapsed on the basis that the Club Premises use did not commence prior to the expiry date of 4 January 2015 and the conditions of approval were not fulfilled prior to this date, such as the submission of an acoustic report.

15 December 2015

Administration under delegated authority issued an approval for construction of a roof cover over the terrace and the use of the roof terrace as ancillary to the Shop use (Shop with Ancillary Roof Terrace). This approval also included retrospective approval for construction of a bar, toilets and storeroom at the roof terrace level.

 

At the time of assessment, the ancillary roof terrace was intended to be used for product launches of camera equipment and similar, and was not to be rented out to private third parties. The proposal was not supported by an acoustic report. This supported the imposition of the following conditions on the development approval:

 

3.   The outdoor deck shall not be leased or used for private/public functions. The use of the outdoor roof deck shall be limited to activities associated with the existing shop;

4.   No amplified music is to be used within the outdoor roof deck.

13 December 2016

Council at its Ordinary Meeting approved alterations to the roof terrace to install a lift structure and staircase at the western elevation connecting the ground and roof terrace levels.

 

A cash-in-lieu contribution of $864 for 0.16 car parking spaces was required as a condition of approval. This payment has been made.

31 August 2018

Administration under delegated authority approved a development application to enclose the existing balcony on the first floor with full height glass windows to Melrose Street.

 

Previous development approvals are included in Attachment 8.

 

Previous Compliance Matters

 

A compliance investigation commenced in relation to the use of the roof terrace in August 2020 following complaints received by the City from three separate complainants. These complaints raised issues regarding noise impacts and anti-social behaviour occurring at the subject site. The compliance investigation found that the roof terrace space was being privately leased to external groups for functions and parties on a weekly basis.

 

This activity was found to be non-compliant with Conditions 3 and 4 of the approval dated 15 December 2015 which sought to prohibit private leasing of the roof terrace space and amplified music. It was also non-compliant with the City’s Sound Attenuation Policy 7.5.21 (Sound Attenuation Policy), being leased until up to 1:00am on some occasions.

 

The landowner has since ceased private leasing of the roof terrace and has removed all online advertisements relating to private leasing of the premises.

 

In response to the compliance matters, the applicant has submitted the subject application to seek approval for use of the roof terrace as a Club Premises to provide a higher level of control for the venue operator over the activities conducted on the site. The applicant is not seeking approval for the space to rented out for private events.

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Land Use

 

ü

Car Parking

 

ü

Bicycle Parking

 

ü

Sound Attenuation

ü

 

Façade Design

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Land Use

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Local Planning Scheme No. 2

 

“P” Use

 

 

Club Premises: “A” Use

Car Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Car Bays

Club Premises requires: 7.5 bays

 

Existing shop required: 4.16 bays 

 

 

 

 

Car Bays

4 bays available on-site to be shared between Shop and Club Premises use.

 

 

A shortfall of 0.16 on-site bays was approved for the Shop use in 2016.

 

Club Premises car parking shortfall proposed: 7.5 bay

Bicycle Bays

 

Short Term

Club premises required: 1 bicycle bay

 

Long Term

Club Premises required: 2 bicycle bays

 

 

 

7 bicycle bays to be shared between Shop and Club Premises

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 21 days from 20 November 2020 to 10 December 2020. The method of consultation included a sign on-site, an advertisement in the local newspaper and six letters mailed to all owners and occupiers adjoining the site (as shown in Attachment 1), in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

Administration also consulted with three additional people who were not in the consultation area but who previously raised concerns with the City when the premises was being rented out for private functions. These concerns inevitably resulted in the August 2020 compliance investigation. Comments were invited from these three additional people by 27 January 2021. No comments were provided during this time from these previous complainants.

 

Following community consultation, the City received a total of 11 submissions, including one objection and 10 letters of support.

 

The concerns raised in the objection are summarised as follows:

 

·       Liquor license may be sought in the future;

·       Management of alcohol to be consumed on the premises;

·       Management of anti-social behaviour resulting from use of alcohol; and

·       Potential for noise and nuisance as a result of the proposed use.

 

The comments raised in the support submissions are summarised as follows:

 

·       The proposed meeting venue would provide a positive contribution to the area and members of the local community;

·       Support for the rooftop being used as a private members club for business networking meetings;

·       The site is a suitable location for a Club Premises being located in an active mixed-use area; and

·       The proposal includes several clear controls to ensure orderly operation as a Club Premises, including no amplified being music permitted as well as reasonable operating hours and capacity numbers.

 

A summary of submissions and Administration’s responses is included in Attachment 7. The applicant has not provided a response to the submissions made, rather the applicant submitted a revised Venue Management Plan to better address the concerns raised in relation to anti-social behaviour and management of patrons.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            No

 

The application did not require referral to the DRP as the extent of works relating to the external appearance of the development proposed are limited, including balustrading and doorway upgrades, and are as recommended by the Acoustic Report.

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. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

·       Policy No. 7.5.21 – Sound Attenuation; and

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

 

Planning and Development Act 2005

 

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

In accordance with the City’s Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments, applications for development approval that propose a Club Premises land use require Council determination.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Health and Wellbeing

The proposal seeks to enhance social relationships and business networking opportunities which have a positive correlation with increased mental health and a stronger social environment.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.

Comments:

Land Use

 

Club Premises is an ‘A’ use within the Regional Centre zone, meaning that the use is not permitted without the discretion of Council only after community consultation has first been undertaken. Regard is to be given to the objectives of the Regional Centre zone when considering the appropriateness of the use, listed as follows:

 

·       To provide a broad range of employment opportunities to encourage diversity and self-sufficiency within the Centre.

·       To encourage high quality, pedestrian-friendly, street-orientated development that responds to and enhances the key elements of the Regional Centre, and to develop areas for public interaction.

·       To ensure levels of activity, accessibility and diversity of uses and density is sufficient to sustain public transport and enable casual surveillance of public spaces.

·       To provide residential opportunities within the Regional Centre including high density housing, affordable housing, social and special needs housing, tourist accommodation and short term accommodation.

·       To ensure that the centres are developed with due consideration to State Planning Policy 4.2 - Activity Centres for Perth and Peel.

 

The City did not receive community submissions relating to the appropriateness of the proposed Club Premises use itself. One submission was received in relation to potential impacts as a result of the use, including noise and management of anti-social behaviour. 10 submissions of support were received in relation to the proposed land use.

 

The proposal is consistent with the objectives of the Regional Centre zone under LPS2 for the following reasons:

 

·       The character of the immediate locality includes both commercial and residential activities, and the amenity of the subject and surrounding sites are reflective of this. Residential development is located to the west of the subject site. Development to the north, south and east of the subject site includes commercial development on land zoned Regional Centre under the City’s LPS2. The amenity of surrounding residential properties in close proximity to the subject site would be reflective of being in close proximity to the adjacent Regional Centre zone which includes a TAFE, shops, a mechanic, restaurants, and associated traffic, parking, noise and odours generated from such non-residential land uses. As such, the proposed commercial use, being a Club Premises use is compatible with the existing character of the locality;

·       Previous approvals for the site include use of the roof terrace as a Club Premises and an Ancillary Roof Terrace to the Shop. These proposals were to facilitate gatherings of persons with a similar interest, with no restriction on the maximum number of patrons that could be accommodated, and the City has previously demonstrated its support for a use of this nature on this site. The City does not have record of any complaints being received in relation to the use of the roof terrace space until the commencement of the private leasing arrangement in 2019. The subject application seeks to introduce venue management measures and controls, attendee code of conduct and building modifications to ensure that the use would not result in adverse amenity impacts such as noise and anti-social behaviour. This is discussed in further detail below;

·       The layout of the Club Premises ensures that noise and activity emitted from the roof terrace would be directed to the south and east of the subject site. This is because the location of the lift, staircase, bathroom and solid self-closing door would reduce the activity generated from the Club Premises to the residential properties along Melrose Street located to the west. The on-site car park area and a 3.0 metre ROW separate the roof terrace from the closest residential dwelling located at No. 8 Melrose Street. Sufficient distance is provided to further alleviate amenity impacts to this residential property from patrons entering and exiting the venue;

·       The Acoustic Report submitted identifies that the use would operate without resulting in detrimental noise impacts to the adjoining residential and commercial properties. The Club Premises is proposed to operate in the space with management measures and with building modifications, as recommended by the Acoustic Report, that would reduce noise impacts to adjoining properties. The proposal would maintain compatibility with commercial development on Oxford Street while being sensitive to adjoining residential development to the south and west of the subject site in respect to noise;

·       Through the consultation period concerns were raised relating to impacts on the amenity of the locality. The applicant has submitted a Venue Management Plan (VMP) in support of the proposal that outlines the operation and management measures for the proposed use to mitigate the potential for anti-social behaviour and prevent detrimental amenity impacts on nearby residential and commercial properties. At the time of member sign-up, the prospective member would be vetted by the Venue Manager, noting that they would require a reference from an existing member or a personal and professional reference check prior to membership being granted. Additional measures include limiting use of the Club Premises by members and their guests. Club members would be responsible for their conduct while on the premises, including those of their guests, through monitoring via the member’s phone app that records booking, names of all members and their guests attending the site, and details of when and their duration of stay at the premises. A Code of Conduct is also required to be signed and made available to all members. The issue of noise is largely dependent on individual’s behaviour that may lead to potential impacts on the surrounding residents. The applicant has implemented a two warning rule for any anti-social behaviour or immediate revocation of membership in the case of serious or intolerable misconduct as determined by the Venue Manager. The contact details for all guests are recorded by the Club app and the accountable member would be approached directly should the misconduct result from non-member guests. Bans from the venue may result in the event of serious misconduct;

·       The contact details of the Venue Manager would be provided to adjoining residents, providing opportunity for incidents to be dealt with promptly and appropriately. In the event the proposed Club Premises is not operating in accordance with the management plan and is found to be causing a nuisance, it would be open to the City to undertake formal compliance action;

·       The applicant has provided a Parking Management Plan (PMP) to demonstrate that parking demands could be appropriately managed. The site is highly accessible by public transport being located on the Oxford Street high frequency bus route and within approximately 550 metres of the Leederville Train Station. There is also sufficient capacity within the surrounding road network to accommodate on-street parking. This is discussed in further detail within the Parking section of this report,

·       The Shop tenancy would continue to provide an active relationship to the street as it would continue to operate at the ground and first floor levels. Additional passive surveillance opportunities would be provided by the gathering of people at the roof terrace level; and

·       The proposed use would contribute to activity and diversity of use in the Leederville Regional Centre and provide both daytime and night time activity that would be compatible and complementary with neighbouring businesses and the intent of the Regional Centre zone.

 

Operation and Management of Club Premises

 

A Venue Management Plan (VMP) and Code of Conduct has been submitted to the City, included as Attachment 3.

 

The VMP outlines the general management procedures for the operation of the venue including operating hours, patron management, membership, noise, consumption of food and alcohol, anti-social behaviour, access, parking and waste management. The Code of Conduct outlines the expectations regarding members behaviour towards other members, the venue and surrounding properties.

 

The VMP provides a commitment for the applicant to comply with what has been written within the document. The VMP is a daily tool which would be used to manage the Club Premises. It would also provide greater assurance to the adjoining neighbours that the Club Premises would control its activities daily in an appropriate manner.

 

A condition of approval is recommended requiring the Code of Conduct to be provided to and signed by all members and guests and to be displayed within the premises, as well as for the Management Plan to be complied with at all times. If the conditions of approval are not adhered to, it would be open to the City to undertake formal compliance action.

 

A summary of the management measures are provided below.

 

Hours of Operation

 

The proposed hours of operation are Monday to Sunday 7:00am to 10:00pm.

 

The Venue Manager or an appointed representative would attend the premises at 10:00pm when the venue is in use to ensure the premises has been vacated and in an orderly manner. Swipe card access is only activated at the time of booking of the venue and all cards will deactivate at 10:00pm each night to restrict access to the venue.

 

The proposed operating hours are comparable to the operating hours of nearby land uses including a restaurant at No. 209 Oxford Street that operates until 12:00am Monday to Saturday, and a Café located at No. 196 Oxford Street which operates from 6:30am Tuesday to Saturday. The operating hours are also common for businesses located within a Regional Centre zone and specifically the Leederville Town Centre.

 

Management measures have been implemented through the VMP to reduce impacts on adjoining properties. Guest behaviour would be monitored via on-site cameras by the Venue Manager who would not be on the premises. Guests are requested to access and egress the venue in a quiet and peaceful manner and would be provided with the Venue Management Plan and Code of Conduct upon sign up.

 

Membership

 

The VMP details membership requirements. The premises would operate on a membership basis whereby patrons would pay an annual fee for the right to use the club subject to several criteria.

 

Prior to becoming a member of the Club Premises, an application form and curriculum vitae is to be submitted to the Venue Management. Any prospective members would also require a reference from an existing member or a personal and professional reference prior to membership being granted.

 

Meetings involving more than the prescribed two guests must be registered and approved by management. Meetings of this nature could only be organised by an existing member. The applicant expects this would only occur on an occasional basis.

 

Accepted members would be required to sign a document agreeing to the terms of use and Code of Conduct for the Club Premises.

 

Members would be required to pre-book use of the space via a mobile app. They would be provided with an electronic swipe card to enable access to the building. The swipe card would be activated based on the booking schedule. Access to the premises is to be monitored both through visual/camera recording and electronic recording used of the swipe cards. Existing cameras are placed throughout the site to capture all activity on the roof terrace as well as entry and exit of the premises and activity on the public street immediately adjacent to the site. Cameras are located in a number of positions at the roof terrace level, at the top and bottom of the lift and external stairs, within the car park area to capture people entering and exiting the premises, as well as cameras facing both Melrose and Oxford Streets.

 

The applicant considers anti-social behaviour would be minimal given admission to the premises is restricted to club members only, except at the discretion of venue management. The applicant also considers they could sufficiently police behaviour at the premises by requiring the space to be pre-booked via the mobile app and by monitoring access to the site both through visual/camera recording and electronic recording of use of swipe cards.

 

Management practices would assist in mitigating anti-social behaviour. These measures include the vetting process required of members, the accountability and traceability of member’s activities through the app and surveillance footage, the ability to attend the site and request members to leave the premises, and the presence of the Venue Manager at the venue at closure times.

 

The VMP identifies that the contact details of the Venue Manager would be provided to all surrounding residences and businesses. The Venue Manager resides locally and would be available during the use of the venue.

 

Any complaints received from nearby residences or businesses would be investigated by venue management to ensure that the issue is resolved and does not reoccur.

 

Disciplinary actions have been specified within the Code of Conduct if members or their guests repeatedly or intentionally fail to follow the Code of Conduct. The actions would vary dependant on the violation. Possible consequences include members being given two warnings for misconduct prior to their membership being revoked. At the discretion of venue management, membership and access to the premises may also be terminated immediately without warning following a serious breach of the Code of Conduct by a member or their guests.

 

Administration considers the proposed management measures could mitigate the impact of activities from the Club Premises, so long as the Code of Conduct rules are administered and any breaches of those rules are appropriately investigated.

 

Acoustic Report

 

The City’s Sound Attenuation Policy requires development applications for non-residential uses that involve areas where groups of people may gather and music is played to submit an acoustic report demonstrating acoustic compliance.

 

The applicant submitted an Acoustic Report prepared by a qualified Acoustic Consultant in support of the Club Premises, as included as Attachment 5. The Acoustic Report assesses noise generated from the proposed use and its impact on the adjoining properties.

 

The Acoustic Report confirms that noise levels generated from the premises during the proposed operating hours would comply with the relevant assigned noise levels under the Environmental Protection (Noise) Regulations 1997. This compliance is subject to the following design alterations to the roof terrace:

 

·       The existing 0.7 metre high glass balustrading to the perimeter of the terrace to be increased in height to be 1.0 metre;

·       The louvre door to the west of the roof terrace is required to be replaced by a solid door with a self‑closing hinge. The door is to be kept closed during use;

·       The louvre wall to the south of the roof terrace is to be replaced with a solid barrier. A brick wall to 1.0 metre in height and glazing above to the underside of the roof is proposed; and

·       Background music is to be played through the existing speakers and should be played at no louder than 77db (A) at one metre from the speaker. Two existing speakers are located within the covered roof terrace space with no speakers located in the uncovered outdoor rooftop space.

 

The acoustic report submitted has been reviewed and is supported by the City’s Environmental Health team.

 

The modifications to the built form meet the deemed-to-comply requirements of the Built Form Policy Clause 1.13 Façade Design. The alterations to the building are minor and would not adversely impact the streetscape.

 

The Venue Management Plan states that background music would be through the existing speakers on the premises.  No external speakers are proposed and the Venue Management Plan requires members to first notify management if background music is intended to be played.

 

The noise generated from the premises would not result in an adverse impact on the amenity of the surrounding area based on the Acoustic Report and its recommendations as well as the measures proposed within the VMP. Conditions of development approval have been recommended to relating to these matters.

 

Car Parking

 

In accordance with the Non-Residential Development Parking Policy, a Club Premises use requires the provision of 7.5 car bays based on the proposed maximum capacity of 50 patrons.

 

In accordance with the development approval issued in 2016, the existing Shop use requires 4.16 on-site car parking bays and approved a shortfall of 0.16 car bays.

 

The site provides a total of four car bays on-site, including one ACROD bay.

 

The proposal for Club Premises would result in a shortfall of 7.5 car bays, in addition to the previously approved shortfall of 0.16 bays.

 

During the consultation period, there were no submissions made in relation to the proposed car parking shortfall.

 

A Parking Management Plan has been prepared and submitted by the applicant as justification for the proposed parking shortfall. This is included as Attachment 4 and is summarised as follows:

 

·       On-street car parking bays are located within walking distance of the subject site including 32 bays available on Oxford Street and 19 bays available on Melrose Street;

·       Off-street parking facilities are available with 210 bays at Frame Court car park (515 metres from the site) and 360 bays available at the Avenue Car Park (300 metres from the site);

·       Members of the club would be required to pre-book use of the space via a mobile app to monitor parking demand and usage;

·       Seven short-term bicycle spaces are provided on the site. End of trip facilities are available, including a disabled toilet, shower, lockers and changing facilities; and

·       The subject site is located within 540 metres of the Leederville Train Station and within close proximity to high frequency and regular frequency bus routes which run along Newcastle Street, Oxford Street, and Loftus Street, as well as pedestrian paths connecting to local amenities.

 

The proposed parking provision is suitable for the following reasons:

 

·       The site is located along Oxford Street which is serviced by bus Route 15 that provides services between Perth and Glendalough Station and bus Route 402 that provides services between the Perth Busport and Stirling Station. Both services are high frequency bus routes and the bus stops are within 20 metres of the site. These bus routes increase the convenience for patrons visiting the site via bus and supports travel to and from the site by means other than by reliance on car;

·       The subject site is located within the Leederville Town Centre activity precinct and nearby other venues that attract visitors. The site is highly accessible by public transport and likely to attract multi-purpose visits to the area such as to nearby shops and restaurants in addition to the Club Premises;

·       Bicycle parking facilities are recommended to be provided as a condition of the approval. Five short term bicycle parking bays can be provided in the car park area to accommodate the staff and customers of the Shop and Club Premises. There is generally a maximum of four staff members working at the Shop at any one time. Adequate end of trip facilities are provided at the premises for patrons who cycle to the venue, including lockers and a shower facility. This would support cycling as a convenient alternative to driving to the venue;

·       The City’s parking survey data does not capture parking along Melrose Street. In light of this, a review of the City’s GIS aerial mapping was undertaken. There are 31 on-street bays in this location and review of the GIS mapping data indicates that there is on average eight bays available at any one time. The average is taken across days which were captured in the mapping, noting times of the photos taken is not available. Details of the parking demand for this area is as follows:

o   Monday 10 February 2020 – 25 cars parked (6 bays available)

o   Monday 2 March 2020 – 25 cars parked (6 bays available)

o   Wednesday 4 March 2020 – 23 cars parked (8 bays available)

o   Sunday 3 May 2020 – 21 cars parked (10 bays available)

o   Sunday 21 June 2020 – 25 cars parked (6 bays available)

o   Sunday 30 August 2020 – 19 cars parked (12 bays available)

This data indicates that on street parking along Melrose Street has capacity and is not being fully utilised.

·       Along the northern side of Melrose Street there is a two hour time restriction between 8:00am and 5:00pm Monday to Friday and 8:00am and 12:00pm Saturday. Along the southern side of Melrose Street there is a one hour time restriction at all times. It is expected that patrons would generally attend the site for a one to two hour time period, such as for a meeting, and that this time restriction would suit members that attending the site by private vehicle and that were parking on-street;

·       In relation to parking on Oxford Street, a review was completed against the City’s parking survey data in the vicinity. The survey was undertaken on 28 November 2018 and captured the occupancy of bays on Oxford Street between Bourke Street and Leederville Parade for the hours of 9:00am to 11:00am; 12:00pm to 2:00pm; 3:00pm – 5:00pm; and 6:00pm – 8:00pm. The data has been averaged across the recorded hours to determine the availability of bays across the day and shows that of the 83 bays available for public parking, there is an average of 32 bays available at any one time. This provides additional car parking opportunities;

·       Based on the above parking data and GIS mapping analysis, there are a total of 114 on-street bays in the immediate locality, whereby 40 bays are available on-average, which equates to 35 percent vacancy on-average. The parking available in the area is sufficient to provide for the needs of businesses;

·       If parking in the immediate vicinity is not available, 360 bays are available at The Avenue off-street car park located approximately 290 metres from the subject site. This car park has an average vacancy rate of 42 percent based on the City’s parking survey data for the hours of 9:00am to 11:00am; 12:00pm to 2:00pm; 3:00pm – 5:00pm; and 6:00pm – 8:00pm;

·       The on-site car parking requirement has been calculated based on a maximum occupancy of 50 persons. The applicant anticipates that the premises would more likely attract between nil to 10 persons at any one time, in which case the demand for parking would significantly decrease for the most of  the time that the Club Premises would be in use;

·       Management of the adjoining property to the north at Nos. 205-207 Oxford Street, Leederville has advised that they are willing to offer their five car parking bays for use by the subject site outside of their own hours of operation. While this is noted, the City has not received notice of a formal agreement or arrangement to facilitate consideration of these spaces; and

·       After 10 years of operation, the parking for the existing Shop use has been demonstrated to not have resulted in a detrimental impact on traffic or parking for residents or businesses in the area. The City has not received any complaints relating to car parking since the use commenced operation.

 

Sufficient on-site parking is provided for staff and customers of the development together with the availability of alternate modes of transport and public parking in the area to support the needs of the venue, without the need for a cash-in-lieu contribution from the applicant.

 

The application demonstrates the subject tenancy provides for a range of transport means for customers to and from the site. The available car parking, bicycle parking and public transport options available are sufficient to manage the car parking requirements of the Club Premises whilst also supporting alternative modes of transport, which is consistent with the objectives of the City’s Non-Residential Development Parking Policy. The proposal is acceptable having regard to car parking.

 

Bicycle Parking

 

The Club Premises use requires a total of one short-term and two long-term bicycle bays for the proposed maximum capacity of 50 persons on-site. The applicant has proposed the provision of seven bicycle parking spaces on-site.

 

There are currently no bicycle parking spaces provided on the site for the Shop use and have not previously been required as part of any previous approvals.

 

The application plans and Parking Management Plan refer to the provision of seven bicycle bays within the car park area off Melrose Street. The City’s Technical Services Officers have reviewed the plans and advised that the provision of seven bicycle bays would not be compliant with AS2890.3 in their proposed location due to having inadequate dimensions.

 

The City’s Technical Services Officers are satisfied that there is sufficient space within the site’s car park area to accommodate five short-term bicycle bays that would support the Shop and Club Premises uses.

 

The provision of a minimum of five short-term bicycle bays is recommended as a condition of approval prior to the commencement of the Club Premises use. The nature of the Club Premises use is that it not expected that customers would be attending the site for extended periods of time. This means that the provision of short term bicycle bays would be suitable rather than dedicated long-term bicycle bays in a locker.

 

The provision of short-term bicycle bays is consistent with the standards of the City’s Parking Policy and is sufficient to ensure that there is adequate bicycle spaces provided on-site for the use of both customers and staff of the Shop and Club Premises uses, and would support cycling to the venue as a convenient alternative to driving to the venue.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


This page has been left blank intentionally.


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

This page has been left blank intentionally.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

9.2          No. 526 (Lot: 88; D/P: 89649) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth - Change of use from Single House to Consulting Rooms (Amendment to Approved)

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Location Map

2.       Previous Approval and Plans

3.       Development Plans

4.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

5.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response

6.       Parking Management Plan  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for Change of Use from Single House to Consulting Rooms (Amendment to Approved) at No. 526 (Lot: 88; D/P: 89649) Fitzgerald Street, North Perth, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 3 dated 18 November 2020, subject to the following:

1.       All conditions and advice notes detailed on development approval 5.2014.690.1 granted on 22 September 2015 continue to apply to this approval, except as follows:

1.1     Condition 1.1 is amended to read as follows:

1.1     A maximum of two consulting rooms are permitted to operate at any one time;

1.2     Condition 2.1 is amended to read as follows:

2.1     A minimum of six car bays shall be provided on-site

1.3     Condition 5 is amended to read as follows:

5.       A minimum of three long term bicycle parking bays, and two short term bicycle bays provided in a location convenient to the entrance and publicly accessible shall be provided on site prior to commencement of the use of the two consulting rooms. The bicycle facilities shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 to the City’s satisfaction; and

1.4     A new Condition 7 to read as follows:

7.       The two easternmost parking bays in the tandem parking configuration, in addition to the parking bay identified as ‘staff only parking bay’ on the approved plans, shall be clearly marked and set aside for staff parking only prior to commencement of the use of the two consulting rooms, to the City’s satisfaction.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for an amendment to a previous approval for a change of use from Single House to Office and Consulting Room (Medical) at No. 526 Fitzgerald Street, North Perth (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes to increase the number of consulting rooms operating on site from one which was previously approved, to two. The purpose of this is to allow two full time medical practitioners to operate on site, at the same time. The application does not seek approval for the office use component which was previously approved.

 

Customers would attend the premises by appointment only. Each appointment would run for approximately one hour with a 10-15 minute break scheduled in between appointments.

 

The proposed operating hours for the consulting rooms would be from 8:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday. There would be two administration staff on site during operating hours also.

 

The premises currently has a total of six car parking bays and two bicycle parking spaces for staff and customers to use on site.

 

The proposal includes the provision of a movable storage locker which would provide an additional three long term bicycle parking on site to be located on the south western corner of the site. The storage locker is 1.9 metres in length, 1.0 metre in width and 1.3 metres in height, and would be screened from view from both Fitzgerald Street and York Street by existing vegetation on the site boundaries to the streets.

 

The proposed development plans are included as Attachment 3.

Background:

Landowner:

Thi Thu Nga Nguyen and Van Tam Nguyen

Applicant:

Karl Smith and Theresa Kidd

Date of Application:

17 November 2020

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban, Other Regional Roads

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R60-R100

Built Form Area:

Transit Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Consulting Rooms – ‘A’

Proposed Use Class:

Consulting Rooms – ‘A’

Lot Area:

611m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

Site Context

 

The subject site is bound by Fitzgerald Street to the west, York Street to the south, a two storey single house to the east and three two storey single houses in a terrace configuration to the north. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and adjoining property to the north on the corner of Fitzgerald Street are zoned Residential R60-R100 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The remaining adjoining properties to the north that do not front onto Fitzgerald Street and adjoining property to the east are zoned Residential R60 under LPS2. All adjoining properties are located within the Transit Corridor built form area under the Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy).

 

The sites zoned Residential R60-R100 are subject to clause 26(4) of LPS2 which stipulates that development will only be permitted to R100 standards where the development site area is greater than 2,000 square metres. The subject site has an area of 611 square metres and is therefore only permitted to be developed to R60 standards.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties have a permitted building height limit of 3 storeys if they have a site area less than 2000 square metres and 4 storeys if they have a site area greater than 2000 square metres under the Built Form Policy. The subject site therefore had a permitted building height of 3 storeys given that it has an area of 611 square metres.

 

Previous Approval

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 22 September 2015, Council resolved to conditionally approve a development application at the subject site for a Change of Use from Residential to Office and Consulting Room (Medical). The minutes for the item from this meeting, including a copy of the approved plans, are contained within Attachment 2. The previous approval for both Office and Consulting Room land uses was sought in order to provide flexibility for activities conducted on site.

 

Following the previous approval, the entire premises operated as a consulting room. It was then used as an office. The site is now available for lease and is proposed to be used as Consulting Rooms for two medical practitioners.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of LPS2 and the City’s policies including Policy 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms (Consulting Rooms Policy) and Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements (Parking Policy). In each instance where the proposal requires the discretion of Council, the relevant planning element is discussed in the Detailed Assessment section following from this table.

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Previously approved

Requires further Discretion

Land Use

 

P

 

Car Parking

 

 

P

Bicycle Parking

P

 

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements Policy

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

Clause 2 – Parking Requirements

 

3.5 car parking spaces required per consulting room. Two consulting rooms would require 7 car parking spaces.

 

 

 

 

6 car parking spaces provided on site.

 

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:

Community consultation was undertaken in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 4 December 2020 and concluding on 17 December 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification with 10 letters being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

The City received one submission in objection to the proposal at the conclusion of the advertising period which relates to the following concerns:

 

1.       Adverse impact on security, visual privacy and property value for adjoining properties; and

 

2.       Adverse impact from vehicle noise on adjoining properties.

 

A summary of the submission received and Administration’s response to this is included as Attachment 4. The applicant’s response to the summary of the submission is included as Attachment 5.

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. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

·       Policy No. 7.5.22 – Consulting Rooms; and

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

 

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

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The application is being referred to Council for determination in accordance with the City’s Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments. This is because the application proposes to amend a development approval previously determined by Council that impacts the conditions imposed.

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 Environmentally Sustainable Design Provisions of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form, which is informed by the key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 is not applicable to this proposal. This is because the application does not propose to modify the existing building on site.

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:

Should Council agree to waive the cash-in-lieu for the shortfall of vehicle parking on-site, the City would not receive the amount of $5,400 that would contribute towards the provision and upgrading of transport infrastructure within the City of Vincent.

Comments:

Car Parking

 

In accordance with the City’s Parking Policy, consulting rooms within the Transit Corridor built form area are required to provide 3.5 car parking bays per consulting room. As the application proposes an increase from one to two consulting rooms operating at any one time, there is a requirement for 7 car parking spaces to be provided on site. The application proposes a total of 6 car parking bays, resulting in a parking shortfall of one bay based on the prescribed standard in the Parking Policy.

 

The applicant has provided a Parking Management Plan which is included as Attachment 6 that outlines the following:

 

·       A total of 5 car bays and one ACROD bay is available for use on site;

·       The building has end of trip facilities which are available for staff to use, promoting cycling as an alternate transport mode. There is also a proposed bicycle lock up shed that can facilitate the parking of three bicycles;

·       The site has a short term bicycle post that can be used by customers or staff to secure a bicycle whilst attending the site;

·       The subject site is located along Fitzgerald Street which is a high frequency bus route with dedicated AM/PM bus lanes; and

·       There is ample street parking available on York Street and also across Fitzgerald Street at Woodville Reserve on Namur Street and Farmer Street.

 

The proposed departure to the Parking Policy standard is consistent with the objectives of the Policy and would not adversely affect the surrounding area for the following reasons:

 

·       The previous approval for the site was to accommodate a maximum of five persons within three offices and one client for the consulting room practitioner, with a minimum of four parking bays to be provided on site. The subject application to amend the previous decision is not seeking the approval of the three offices which would otherwise accommodate up to five persons and associated parking demand;

·       The operation of the proposed two consulting rooms is to be organised by appointments which run for one hour each, scheduled with a 10-15 minute break in between appointments. The appointments are pre-booked and scheduled to minimise any overlap. This means that there would be no ‘peak periods’ in the day that would otherwise typically result in increased demand for car parking;

·       The applicant has specified in the parking management plan (Attachment 6) that five bays on site that are intended to be made available for and rotated between staff members working in the morning and in the afternoon. The site is, however, highly accessible by alternate modes of transport available to the site, including high frequency bus route and three long term bicycle bays proposed to be provided on site (as discussed below). Administration recommends that rather than five bays be set aside for staff parking as set out in the Parking Management Plan, that three bays being the two easternmost (rear) parking bays in a tandem configuration in addition to the parking bay immediately to the south of the reversing bay identified on the development plans as ‘staff only parking bay’ be marked and set aside for staff parking. This would make available two bays on site that are not for exclusive use by staff and rather available for customers also, in addition to an ACROD bay on the eastern portion of the site. This parking arrangement would provide greater flexibility in the use of on site parking bays between staff and customers, and better respond to the anticipated parking demands for the site, which would include two clients being attended to on site at any one time. A condition requiring these three parking bays on site to be marked and set aside for staff use has been recommended;

·       The one bay car parking shortfall would be mitigated with the availability of the following alternative transport options:

o   The subject site includes short term bicycle parking that was required as a condition of the previous approval. The bicycle parking is located at the entrance to the building, next to the ACROD parking bay space and is capable of securing two customer bicycles;

o   The applicant has provided details in their parking management plan to provide a movable long term bicycle locker on site that would allow for the secure parking for up to three staff bicycles. The locker is proposed to be located in the south western corner of the subject site, external to the existing building and would be screened from view from the adjoining streets. The building is equipped with end of trip facilities including two showers that are able to be used by staff who elect to cycle to work;

o   The inclusion of bicycle parking bays and end of trip facilities would support a shift towards a more active and sustainable transport mode; and

o   The subject site is located within 25 metres of Fitzgerald Street which has a high frequency bus route (960) that runs every 13 minutes on both sides of the street;

·       In relation to on-street car parking availability in the area:

o   There are two existing on-street parking bays immediately in front of the subject site along York Street that are within 10 metres of the entrance of the premises;

o   A review of the City’s 2018 Street Parking Survey indicates that there are a total of 41 on-street car parking spaces available along York Street between Fitzgerald Street and Walcott Street. These on-street parking spaces have no time restrictions or ticketing requirement with the bay furthest away located approximately 310 metres from the subject site. The survey that was conducted between 28 November and 1 December 2018 indicates that the maximum occupancy of the on-street bays during the survey period was 54 percent on a Saturday. The proposed consulting rooms are not proposed to operate on Saturdays. The maximum occupancy of the on-street car bays on a Friday was 46 percent between 9:00am to 8:00pm. The City’s survey data indicates that there is adequate on-street car parking availability on York Street if required from time to time to support the proposed additional consulting room and its associated one car bay shortfall, and that it would not result in an adverse impact on the availability of on-street car parking in the immediate area; and

o   There are additional public car parking bays available along Namur Street adjoining Woodville Reserve. These bays are located within 50 metres of the subject site and across Fitzgerald Street; and

·       The City’s records show that there have been no car parking-related complaints received for the subject site since the previous approval was granted on 22 September 2015 and since the approved use commenced.

 

The parking demand generated by the development would be accommodated without the need for a cash-in-lieu contribution from the applicant for the proposed parking shortfall of one bay. This is because parking management on site would enable both staff and customer parking. The subject site is located on a high frequency bus route, as well as being provided with on-site bicycle parking bays and is accessible by public footpaths. These elements support alternate methods of transport to and from the site and would reduce the parking demand generated by the development. There would also be ample on-street public parking bays within close proximity of the subject site that are available for use.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

9.3          No. 50 (Lot: 412 D/P: 415381) Barlee Street, Mount Lawley - Proposed Single House S.31 Reconsideration

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Map

2.       Development Plans

3.       16 June 2020 Council Minutes and Previously Refused Plans

4.       3D Perspectives

5.       Applicant's Urban Design Study & Schedule of Colours and Materials

6.       Applicant's Environmentally Sustainable Design Study

7.       Administration's Detailed Streetscape Analysis

8.       Determination Advice Notes  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004, the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme, APPROVES the application for a Single House at No. 50 (Lot: 412; D/P: 415381) Barlee Street, Mount Lawley, in accordance with the plans shown in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions, with the associated determination advice notes in Attachment 8:

1.       Development Plans

This approval is for a Single House as shown on the approved plans dated 21 January 2021. No other development forms part of this approval;

2.       Boundary Walls

The surface finish of boundary walls facing an adjoining property shall be of a good and clean condition, prior to the practical completion of the development, and thereafter maintained, to the satisfaction of the City.  The finish of boundary walls is to be fully rendered or face brick; or material as otherwise approved; to the satisfaction of the City;

3.       External Fixtures

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

4.       Visual Privacy

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

5.       Colours and Materials

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

6.       Street Walls and Fences

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

7.       Landscaping

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

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

·       Areas to be irrigated or reticulated;

·       As shown on the approved plans, the provision of a minimum of 15.7 percent deep soil area, 2.4 percent planting areas and 19.2 percent canopy cover at maturity, as defined by the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form;

·       The provision of plantings within the planter areas located on the first and second floors of the dwelling that would be visible from Barlee Street, such as trailing or climbing species. The species shall be to the City’s satisfaction; and

·       The provision of trees contributing towards canopy coverage within deep soil areas provided and within the front setback area. The tree species are to be in accordance with the City’s recommended tree species list;

7.2     All works shown in the plans as identified in Condition 7.1 above shall be undertaken in accordance with the approved plans to the City’s satisfaction, prior to occupancy or use of the development and maintained thereafter to the satisfaction of the City at the expense of the owners/occupiers;

8.       Stormwater

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

9.       Sight Lines

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

10.     Car Parking and Access

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

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

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

10.4   Prior to the first occupation of the development, the redundant or “blind” crossover on the corner of Barlee Street and Kaata Lane shall be removed and the verge and kerb made good to the satisfaction of the City, at the applicant/owner’s full expense.

 

Purpose of Report:

To reconsider an application for development approval at the invitation of the State Administration Tribunal (SAT) for a Single House at No. 50 Barlee Street, Mount Lawley (the subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application proposes a three storey Single House on a vacant lot with frontages to Barlee Street and Kaata Lane. The application proposes pedestrian access from Barlee Street and vehicle access from Kaata Lane.

Background:

Landowner:

Davor Nikolic

Applicant:

Davor Nikolic

Date of Application:

27 November 2019

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban      

LPS2:   Zone: Residential         R Code: R50

Built Form Area:

Residential

Existing Land Use:

Vacant Lot

Proposed Use Class:

Single House

Lot Area:

253m²

Right of Way (ROW):

Yes – 6 metres wide where it abuts the subject site, reducing to 3 metres minimum along portions of the ROW further to the north;

City owned; and

Drained and sealed.

Heritage List:

No

 

Site Context

 

The subject site is currently vacant and is bound by Barlee Street to the south west, Kaata Lane to the north-west, vacant lots to the north-east and south-east and a two storey single house which is currently under construction to the east. There is an existing six storey mixed use development on the north-western side of Kaata Lane. The subject site is located approximately 40 metres to the west of Beaufort Street. A location plan is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties on the south eastern side of Kaata Lane are zoned Residential R50 under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2). The adjoining properties on the north western side of Kaata Lane are zoned District Centre under LPS2 and have direct frontage to Beaufort Street.

 

The subject site and all adjoining properties on the south eastern side of Kaata Lane are within the Residential built form area and have a building height limit of two storeys under the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy). The adjoining properties on the north western side of Kaata Lane are within the Town Centre built form area and have a building height limit of six storeys under the Built Form Policy.

 

Previously Refused Proposal

 

At its Ordinary Meeting on 16 June 2020, Council resolved to refuse the development application for a single house at the subject site in line with Administration’s recommendation, for the following reasons:

 

1.       The proposed primary street setback does not satisfy the Local Housing Objective of Clause 5.2 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 - Built Form and the Design Principles of Clause 5.1.2 of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The setback of the building from Barlee Street would result in building mass that has not been mitigated due to the massing, materials and detailing of the building design. This appearance of building bulk and scale associated with the development would not contribute to, preserve or enhance the existing streetscape;

 

2.       The proposed building height does not satisfy the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 5.6 of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (P5.6.1, P5.6.2 and P5.6.5) and the Design Principle of Clause 5.1.6 of State Planning Policy 7.3: Residential Design Codes – Volume 1. The building height and overall building design would result in building bulk and scale that would have an adverse impact on, and is inconsistent with the existing streetscape;

 

3.       As a consequence of the street setback, building height and building design (relating to massing, materials, detailing and roof form), the proposal:

 

3.1     Would result in a bulk, scale and appearance that is not compatible with its setting in the Residential zone (Clause 67(m) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015);

 

3.2     Would detract from the amenity and character of the residential locality (Clause 67(n) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

 

3.3     Would result in a scale and mass that is not respectful of the heritage listed place at No. 69 Barlee Street. Mount Lawley (Clause 5 of the City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management – Development Guidelines for Heritage and Adjacent Properties); and

 

4.       The proposed development would not provide for adequate landscaping on site and would not result in a high quality landscaping outcome (Clause 67(p) of the deemed provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015).

 

The minutes of the 16 June 2020 Ordinary Council Meeting and the previously refused plans are included as Attachment 3.

 

SAT Process

 

On 30 June 2020 following Council’s refusal, the applicant submitted an application for review of this decision with the SAT.

 

On 4 August 2020 the City’s Officers and Design Review Panel (DRP) Chairperson attended an on-site mediation with the applicant where the SAT member adjourned to a further mediation on 1 September 2020. Following this on-site mediation that was adjourned, the applicant engaged an architect and met with the City’s Officers and DRP Chairperson to discuss the proposal on multiple occasions.

 

The City’s Officers and the applicant reached an agreement to vacate the further SAT mediation listed for 1 September 2020 until 30 November 2020 in order to continue to discuss the proposal and resolve outstanding issues associated with the City’s reasons for refusal.

 

The applicant submitted amended plans throughout the SAT process. At the further SAT mediation on 30 November 2020, the SAT member invited the City to reconsider its decision at its February 2021 meeting pursuant to Section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

 

The proposal has been subject to a significant redesign since it was previously refused. The key changes that have been made to the amended proposal are summarised as follows:

 

·       Incorporating nil street setbacks for the ground and first floors on the corner of Barlee Street and Kaata Lane where the site is adjacent to six storey mixed use development. Increased street setbacks are provided for all floors where the site abuts Residential R50 to the east;

·       Reducing the setback of the ground floor garage to Kaata Lane;

·       Increasing the size of the ground floor outdoor living area and converting the store into an activity room that can be used in conjunction with this outdoor living area;

·       Clarifying that the ground floor ‘games room’ space would be primarily used as a home office. A home office does not require planning approval in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office & Home Store;

·       Removing the upper floor cantilevering of the development adjacent to Barlee Street and incorporating a roof terrace on the second floor;

·       Providing increased deep soil zone areas on the ground floor and on-structure planter boxes on the first and second floors;

·       Incorporating a private balcony for bedroom 4 on the second floor;

·       Changing the roof form from a pitched roof to a concealed roof; and

·       Increasing the finished floor level by 0.5 metres.

 

The amended plans for Council’s reconsideration are included in Attachment 2.


 

Details:

Summary Assessment

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

 

Planning Element

Use Permissibility/ Deemed-to-Comply

Requires the Discretion of Council

Street Setback

 

ü

Lot Boundary Setback

 

ü

Building Height

 

ü

Open Space

ü

 

Surveillance

ü

 

Front Fence

ü

 

Outdoor Living Areas

 

ü

Landscaping (R Codes)

ü

 

Parking & Access

ü

 

Site Works/Retaining Walls

ü

 

Visual Privacy

ü

 

Solar Access

ü

 

External Fixtures, Utilities and Facilities

ü

 

Developments on Rights of Way

 

ü

Heritage Management

ü

 

Detailed Assessment

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

 

Street Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.1

 

Ground Floor

No deemed-to-comply standard, as there are no adjoining properties to allow for the calculation of an average street setback. Design principle assessment required.

 

Upper Floor

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

 

Balconies

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

 

 

 

Ground floor primary street setback ranging from nil to 4.9 metres (Barlee Street).

 

 

 

 

First floor wall setback ranging from 1.0 metre forward to 3.9 metres behind the ground floor predominant building line.

 

 

 

First floor balcony setback in line with the ground floor predominant building line.

Lot Boundary Setback

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Clause 5.1.3

 

First floor bedroom 2 to bedroom 3 wall setback 1.8 metres from the north eastern lot boundary.

 

Second floor balcony to bedroom 5 wall setback 2.3 metres from the north eastern lot boundary.

 

 

1.5 metres.

 

 

1.5 metres.

Building Height

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.3

 

Storeys

Two storeys.

 

Overall Height

Maximum concealed roof height of 7 metres.

 

 

 

Three storeys.

 

 

Maximum concealed roof height of 9.4 metres.

Outdoor Living Area

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

R Codes – Clause 5.3.1

 

Minimum dimension of 4 metres

 

 

3.2 metre minimum dimension.

Developments on Rights of Way

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy – Clause 5.13

 

Development must be setback 1 metre from a right of way. If the site is subject to right of way widening, the setback is measured from the new lot boundary after the widening is applied.

 

 

Proposed right of way setback ranging from nil to 1.5 metres.

 

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

Consultation/Advertising:

The amended proposal submitted as a result of the SAT process underwent community consultation in accordance with the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 for a period of 14 days commencing on 4 December 2020 and concluding on 17 December 2020. Community consultation was undertaken by way of written notification with 71 letters being sent to surrounding landowners, as shown in Attachment 1 and a notice on the City’s website in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

 

At the conclusion of the community consultation period the City received no submissions were received.

 

The previously refused proposal underwent community consultation in the same manner and received one submission in support.

Design Review Panel (DRP):

Referred to DRP:            Yes

 

The previously refused proposal was referred to the DRP Chairperson for review on numerous occasions during the assessment process. The key design concerns and comments from the DRP Chairperson based on the plans that were previously refused were as follows:

 

·       The design, including the roof form and cantilevered upper floor balcony with bulky piers is inappropriate and would have a detrimental impact on the surrounding streetscape and adjoining properties. The site planning, architectural expression and materials and detailing require further consideration;

·       The upper floor building envelope requires further consideration and should be redesigned to step in from the ground floor building line;

·       Consideration should be given to simplifying the roof by using simple pitched roofs or a flat roof;

·       The development should be informed by the character of the street, materials, roof forms and the strong floating tree canopies to create a contemporary solution;

·       The transition of the roof from Barlee Street to Kaata Lane is not well resolved and creates an awkward transition from Barlee Street to Kaata Lane; and

·       The proposed landscaping is purely “infill”.

 

The proposal has been subject to review and comment from the DRP Chairperson throughout the SAT process which has culminated in the SAT member’s invitation for the City to reconsider its decision.

 

The key changes to the design which have been implemented to address the concerns and comments from the DRP Chairperson related to the previously refused plans are as follows:

 

·       Incorporating nil street setbacks for the ground and first floor on the corner of Barlee Street and Kaata Lane where the site is adjacent to the six storey mixed use development, and providing increased street setbacks for all floors where the site abuts Residential R50 to the east;

·       Reconsidering the approach to building massing by removing the cantilevered balcony design element;

·       Reducing the setback of the garage to Kaata Lane to allow for the size of the outdoor living area to be increased. The increased size of the outdoor living area and increased setbacks to the south eastern lot boundary also allow for meaningful deep soil zone areas and canopy coverage to be provided;

·       Incorporating a roof terrace on the second floor to supplement the primary outdoor living area as well as to allow the second floor level setback to be increased;

·       Providing on-structure planter boxes on the first and second floors; and

·       Changing the roof form from a pitched roof to a concealed roof.

 

The revised plans reflecting the above key design changes and that are included in Attachment 2 have been reviewed by the DRP Chairperson. The DRP Chairperson has advised that the proposal effectively addresses the previous design concerns and is supported.

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;

·       Policy No. 7.5.9 – Home Business, Home Occupation and Home Office & Home Store; and

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

 

Amendment 2 – Built Form Policy

 

The previous proposal was refused by Council at its meeting on 16 June 2020. At the same meeting, Council resolved to adopt Amendment 2 to its Built Form Policy which introduced a raft of changes including new upper floor setback provisions and changes to the garage width provisions. The Policy was amended to better align with the new State Planning Framework and to improve development outcomes across the City. The revised plans included in Attachment 2 have been assessed against the provisions of the amended Built Form Policy.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

The matter is being referred to Council as the application proposes a height of three storeys and does not meet the deemed-to-comply building height. It also relates to a request from the SAT to reconsider the previous decision of Council under section 31 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004.

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:

This is not in keeping with any of the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Should this application proceed to a full SAT hearing, the City would incur a cost related to the engagement of a consultant.

Comments:

Primary Street Setback

 

The Built Form Policy deemed-to-comply standard relating to the ground floor primary street setback outlines that it is to be calculated by averaging the setback of the five adjoining properties, either side of the proposed development. The primary street for the proposed development is Barlee Street and the application proposes a ground floor primary street setback ranging from nil to 4.9 metres. A design principles assessment is required to be undertaken because there are no adjoining properties for the purposes of calculating an average street setback.

 

The Built Form Policy deemed-to-comply standard relating to the upper floor primary street setback outlines that walls and balconies on upper floors shall be setback a minimum of 2 metres and 1 metre behind the ground floor predominant building line respectively. The application proposes a first floor wall setback ranging from 1.0 metre forward to 3.9 metres behind the ground floor predominant building line, and first and second floor balconies ranging from in line with and 1.0 metre forward of the ground floor predominant building line.

 

Whilst the ground floor primary street setback provisions remain unchanged, Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy did introduce new upper floor primary street setback provisions.

 

Reason 1 for refusal of the previous proposal outlined that the setback of the building from Barlee Street and overall building design would result in building bulk and scale that would not contribute to, preserve or enhance the existing streetscape.

 

Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy introduced the requirement for development applications for Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings to be accompanied by an urban design study to demonstrate that the development would be complimentary to the existing streetscape. The applicant has provided an urban design study and schedule of colours and materials in support of the proposal which are included as Attachment 5. The City’s detailed streetscape analysis is included in Attachment 7.

 

The proposed primary street setbacks would satisfy the design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy, as well as address the previous reason for refusal for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed site planning and building massing would be appropriate in relation to the surrounding development context. The building envelope with nil setbacks on the corner of Barlee Street and Kaata Lane and increased street setbacks towards the south eastern corner of the site would provide a ‘stepping back’ effect and an appropriate transition between the existing six storey mixed use development to the north west and the Residential R50 zoned single houses to the south east of the subject site;

·       The development does not propose any cantilevered design elements adjacent to Barlee Street and the building massing would be appropriate to reduce the appearance and impact of the third storey on the streetscape;

·       The proposed setback would be an appropriate design response, respecting the setbacks in the established streetscape without compromising the amenity of the future occupants of the dwelling;

·       The proposed dwelling uses contrasting materials, glazing and articulation to effectively reduce the appearance of blank solid walls and associated building bulk;

·       The development provides adequate open space and private outdoor living areas to allow the occupants of the dwelling to undertake outdoor pursuits;

·       The proposed front façade contains glazing to increase surveillance and interaction between the development and the streetscape;

·       The proposed development provides adequate space to accommodate parking, landscaping and utilities;

·       The application proposes 15.7 percent of the site as deep soil zone areas and 2.4 percent of the site as planting areas including on-structure planting areas. One cottonwood hibiscus tree and two magnolia grandiflora trees within the primary street setback area are proposed as part of this which would contribute positively to the streetscape and reduce the appearance of building bulk. Further to these deep soil and planting areas, the development provides additional planters on the ground floor area and second floor terrace which cannot be included in the technical assessment of deep soil area or planting areas because they have a width less than 1 metre. These planters are intended to accommodate small plants and shrubs, contributing to the overall landscaping outcome;

·       The application does not propose to remove the two existing established street trees on the Barlee Street verge adjacent to the subject site; and

·       The proposed development provides vehicle access from Kaata Lane and would not have an adverse impact on the existing streetscape in relation to garage doors and vehicle access points.

 

Lot Boundary Setback

 

The R Codes deemed-to-comply standards relating to lot boundary setbacks outline that the first floor bedroom 2 to bedroom 3 wall shall be setback 1.8 metres and the second floor balcony to bedroom 5 wall is to be setback 2.3 metres from the north eastern lot boundary. Both of these walls are proposed to be setback 1.5 metres from the north eastern lot boundary.

 

The proposed lot boundary setbacks to the north eastern lot boundary meet the design principles of the R Codes and are supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed dwelling façade orienting towards the north eastern lot boundary provides glazing and contrasting colours and materials to reduce the appearance of building bulk;

·       Due to the favourable orientation of the lots, the proposed lot boundary setbacks would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining north eastern properties access to direct sun;

·       The proposed glazing along the north eastern façade is provided as highlight windows to allow access to natural sunlight for the occupants of the dwelling without compromising visual privacy or amenity for the adjoining property;

·       The reduced lot boundary setbacks allow the setback of the development from Barlee Street to be increased at the upper floor levels without having an adverse impact on the amenity of the adjoining property to the north east in relation to overshadowing, overlooking or building bulk; and

·       Whilst the adjoining property to the north east in currently vacant, the City has issued a development approval for a Single House at this site. Based on the approved plans, the proposed lot boundary setback departures to the deemed-to-comply standard would be located adjacent to the adjoining property’s future side setback area, blank solid walls and windows to non-habitable rooms. The proposed lot boundary setback would not be adjacent to any major openings to habitable rooms or the primary outdoor living area. The subject proposal was advertised to the adjoining property to the north east for a period of 14 days after which time, no submissions were received.

 

Building Height

 

The Built Form Policy deemed-to-comply standards relating to building height outline that the development is to have a maximum height of two storeys and a maximum concealed roof height of 7 metres. Following the refusal of the previous proposal, the applicant has amended the building design to include a concealed roof rather than a pitched roof. The application proposes a maximum height of three storeys and a maximum concealed roof height of 9.4 metres.

 

Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy did not include any changes to the building heights permitted for the subject site.

 

Reason 2 for refusal of the previous proposal outlined that the building height and overall building design would result in building bulk and scale that would have an adverse impact on, and would be inconsistent with the existing streetscape.

 

The proposed building height would satisfy the design principles of the R Codes and local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy, as well as address the previous reason for refusal the following reasons:

 

·       Whilst the maximum height of the building has been increased by 0.5 metres from the proposal that was previously refused by Council, the third storey is now proposed to be setback between 3.9 metres and 4.1 metres behind the line of the ground floor below, effectively reducing the impact of building bulk as viewed from the street and adjoining properties;

·       An additional storey to that permitted under the Built Form Policy would be an appropriate development outcome for the site and based on the dwelling design. This is because of the site’s close proximity to the District Centre zone, Beaufort Street and the existing six storey mixed use development on the opposite side of Kaata Lane. The proposed height of 9.4 metres would facilitate functional internal ceiling heights without resulting in a development that dominate the existing streetscape;

·       The development would provide an appropriate transition between the six storey mixed use development to the north west and single houses to the south east in relation to building height as well as roof form. Whilst the existing streetscape is predominantly characterised by single and two storey pitched roof dwellings, there are examples of concealed and skillion roof forms in the streetscape including Nos. 13, 15, 53 and 55 Barlee Street. The applicant’s urban design study is included in Attachment 5 and the City’s detailed streetscape analysis is included in Attachment 7;

·       Due to the favourable orientation of the lots with the road reserve primarily to the south, the proposed building height would not have an adverse impact on the adjoining properties’ access to direct sun;

·       The area surrounding the subject site is relatively flat and the proposed development would not have an adverse impact on access to views of significance for adjoining properties; and

·       The comments provided by the DRP Chairperson in relation to the previously refused proposal advised that there would be scope to consider a third storey due to the site’s close proximity to the District Centre zone, Beaufort Street and the existing six storey mixed use development on the opposite side of Kaata Lane, provided that concerns regarding open space, landscaping and building design were addressed. The current proposal provides sufficient open space and landscaping and would address the concerns relating to building design by setting the third storey back behind the line of the ground floor. The DRP Chairperson has reviewed the current proposal and advised that it effectively addresses the previous concerns relating to building height.

 

Outdoor Living Area

 

The primary outdoor living area for the dwelling is the ground floor courtyard. The R Codes deemed-to-comply standards in relation to outdoor living areas set out a minimum dimension of 4 metres. The proposed courtyard has a minimum dimension of 3.2 metres.

 

The proposed outdoor living area would satisfy the design principles of the R Codes and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The outdoor living area is open to the northern aspect and associated winter sunlight;

·       The outdoor living area has a total area of 22.7 square metres, exceeding the 16 square metre deemed-to-comply standard specified by the R Codes;

·       The outdoor living area would be capable of use with the ground floor activity room which is a habitable room of the dwelling;

·       The development provides a balcony on the first floor with an area of 14.0 square metres, and two balconies on the second floor with areas of 28.6 square metres and 8.8 square metres. This would equate to an aggregate balcony area of 51.4 square metres. These balconies are capable of use in conjunction with habitable rooms of the dwelling and serve as secondary outdoor living areas in addition to the courtyard; and

·       The outdoor living area is located to the rear of the dwelling which will allow privacy from the street.

 

Landscaping

 

In addition to the deemed-to-comply standards of the R Codes, the application has also been assessed against the landscaping provisions of the Built Form Policy that sets out deemed-to-comply standards. The deemed-to-comply landscaping standards set out in the Built Form Policy have not yet been approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission and as such, these provisions are given due regard in the assessment of the application.

 

The Built Form Policy requires 12 percent of the site provided as deep soil zones, 3 percent of the site provided as planting areas and 30 percent of the site provided as canopy coverage at maturity. The application proposes 15.7 percent deep soil zones, 2.4 percent planting areas and 19.2 percent canopy coverage at maturity.

 

Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy reduced the required deep soil zone areas from 15 percent to 12 percent and introduced a 3 percent planting areas provision. The canopy coverage provision remains unchanged.

 

The previously refused plans provided 11.5 percent deep soil zones and 13.8 percent canopy coverage at maturity. Reason 4 for refusal of the previous proposal outlined that the development would not provide for adequate landscaping on site and would not result in a high quality landscaping outcome.

 

The proposed landscaping would satisfy the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy as well as address the previous reason for refusal for the following reasons:

 

·       The desirable proposed nil setbacks to Barlee Street and Kaata Lane limit opportunities to provide canopy coverage within street setback areas. The proposed built form outcome with reduced street setbacks would be appropriate in the context of the site’s location adjacent to the town centre and a six storey mixed use development to the north west, ‘stepping back’ to provide a transition to the Residential R50 zoned lot to the south east of the site. Trees have been provided on the ground floor in these sections of ‘stepping back’ within portions of the primary street setback area and the interface between the proposed dwelling and the adjoining property to the south east that would effectively contribute towards canopy cover visible from Barlee Street and adjoining properties;

·       The application proposes two cottonwood hibiscus trees and five magnolia grandiflora trees along the Barlee Street and south eastern boundaries of the site. The application proposes two magnolia grandiflora trees between Barlee Street and the dwelling. The City’s Parks team has advised that these trees would receive sufficient access to natural sunlight now that the cantilevered balcony design element has been removed and the upper floors are setback behind the ground floor building line;

·       A range of shrubs proposed along the Barlee Street and south eastern boundary including native varieties to complement trees proposed and in order to contribute positively to the overall landscaping outcome on site;

·       The application proposes on-structure landscaping on the first and second storeys of the building that are capable of supporting plantings and shrubs that would assist in softening the appearance of the dwelling. A condition of approval has been recommended that requires the selection of planting species in order to achieve this outcome, such as a trailing or climbing species;

·       Planters on the ground floor area and second floor terrace which cannot be included in the technical assessment because they have a width less than 1 metre would accommodate small plants and shrubs, further contributing to the overall landscaping outcome;

·       Further to the 19.2 percent canopy at maturity that would be provided on site, the development would contribute towards additional canopy coverage that falls outside of the lot boundaries. Inclusive of the canopy that falls outside the lot boundaries, the development would provide 28.4 percent of the site area as mature canopy;

·       The inclusion of a climbing trellis above the driveway would soften the appearance of the vehicle access point from Kaata Lane as viewed from the public realm and assist in providing some shade of the driveway hardstand; and

·       The two existing verge trees adjacent to the site on Barlee Street are to be retained.

 

Developments on Rights of Way/Secondary Street Setback

 

The Built Form Policy deemed-to-comply standards relating to setbacks from a ROW outline that development is to provide a 1 metre setback from a ROW and that this setback is to be measured from the new lot boundary after ROW widening has been applied. The proposed development provides a nil setback to the ROW which has a width of 6 metres and does not require any further widening.

 

The proposed setback to the ROW meets the design principles of the Built Form Policy and is supported for the following reasons:

 

·       The proposed setback would not have an adverse impact on the streetscape given that the existing development on the opposite side of the ROW has a nil setback to the ROW from the ground floor to the fourth floor (being the first five storeys);

·       The building bulk of the façade adjacent to Kaata Lane is effectively reduced through the use of articulation, glazing and varied colours, materials and finishes; and

·       Pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Barlee Street which is a dedicated road with suitable space for service areas and waste management.

 

Heritage Management

 

Reason 3.3 for refusal of the previous proposal outlined that the scale and mass of the development would not be respectful to the adjoining heritage listed place across the road at No. 69 Barlee Street, Mount Lawley. The heritage listed place is the former Salvation Army Citadel which is listed as Management Category A on the City’s Municipal Heritage Inventory (MHI).

 

The City’s Policy No. 7.6.1 – Heritage Management provides acceptable development standards relating to development adjacent to heritage listed buildings. The previously refused proposal was deemed not to meet one of these acceptable development provisions that requires the height of the new build to be compatible to the adjacent heritage listed building and staggering the building is one acceptable method to achieve this.

 

Whilst the building height of the current proposal exceeds the deemed-to-comply standards of the Built Form Policy, the design has been amended to remove the cantilevered upper floor balcony, providing staggered street setbacks with the upper floors setback behind the predominant building line of the ground floor. The amended approach to arrangement of building massing with increased upper floor setbacks result in a development outcome which would be compatible with the adjacent heritage listed building with regard to building height and effectively addresses the previous reason for refusal.

 

Compatibility with and impact on the Residential Zone

 

Reasons 3.1 and 3.2 for refusal of the previous proposal outlined that the development would not be compatible with its setting in the Residential zone and would detract from the amenity and character of the residential locality as a consequence of the street setback, building height and building design relating to massing, materials, detailing and roof form.

 

Following the SAT process, the applicant has provided an urban design study and schedule of colours and materials in support of the amended proposal which are included as Attachment 5. The City’s detailed streetscape analysis is included in Attachment 7.

 

The current proposal would address the previous reasons for refusal for the following reasons:

 

·       The development no longer proposes any cantilevered elements adjacent to Barlee Street and the building massing would be appropriate to reduce the appearance and impact of the third storey on the streetscape;

·       The proposed dwelling uses contrasting materials, glazing and articulation to effectively reduce the appearance of blank solid walls and associated building bulk;

·       The development would provide an appropriate transition between the six storey mixed use development to the north west and single houses to the south east in relation to building height as well as roof form;

·       Whilst the existing streetscape is predominantly characterised by single and two storey pitched roof dwellings, there are examples of concealed and skillion roof forms in the streetscape including Nos. 13, 15, 53 and 55 Barlee Street; and

·       The DRP Chairperson has reviewed the current proposal and advised that it effectively addresses the previous concerns relating to compatibility with the surrounding streetscape.

 

Environmentally Sustainable Design

 

Amendment 2 to the Built Form Policy introduced local housing objectives relating to environmentally sustainable design for Single Houses and Grouped Dwellings. The applicant was advised of the City’s environmentally sustainable design objectives. The applicant has elected to not provide a lifecycle assessment report or recognised equivalent to satisfy local housing objective 1.8.6 of the Built Form Policy.

 

The applicant has provided written justification addressing the remaining environmentally sustainable design local housing objectives (1.8.1 – 1.8.5) which is included in Attachment 6 to demonstrate how the development has incorporated features of environmentally sustainable design and satisfied these local housing objectives. The applicant’s written justification is summarised as follows:

 

·       The dwelling is to be constructed using low maintenance construction materials including recycled brick, rendered brickwork and ultrawood cladding;

·       The dwelling would be fitted with effective insulation;

·       Aluminium awning would be provided for the majority of north facing windows for shading. Landscaping would be incorporated along the south east and south western boundaries of the development to provide additional shading;

·       Whilst the requirement for vehicle access to be provided in the northern corner of the site off the ROW has limited the ability to provide a northern aspect to ground floor living areas, the primary outdoor living area is located in the northern section of the site;

·       Where possible, rooms include openings in two directions to maximise cross ventilation. Large openings are provided in the southern façade to take advantage of variable cool breezes. All windows are openable aside from those to the stairwell;

·       Significant soft landscaping has been provided on site including on-structure planter boxes which will allow the passive capture of rainwater;

·       The proposed concealed roof would allow for the provision of solar panels; and

·       The roof colour is light to minimise solar absorption.

 

Administration is satisfied that the initiatives outlined in the applicant’s written justification included in Attachment 6 would meet the objectives of LPS2 specifically, to promote and encourage design that incorporates sustainability principles, including solar passive design, energy efficiency, water conservation, waste management and recycling.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


This page has been left blank intentionally.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator





PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

9.4          Amendment No. 4 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.5.15 - Character Retention and Heritage Areas Relating to Guidelines for The Boulevarde, Kalgoorlie Street, Matlock Street and Buxton Street – withdrawn by administration

 

 

THIS REPORT WAS WITHDRAWN BY ADMINISTRATION TO ALLOW NOMINATORS AND OWNERS TO BE INFORMED THAT THE MATTER IS BEING PRESENTED TO COUNCIL.

 

 

 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

9.5          Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation

Attachments:             1.       Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

2.       Summary of Submissions

3.       Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 - Temporary Accommodation (Tracked Changes from Advertised Version)

4.       Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (Modified from Advertised Version)  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the Administration response to submissions, included at Attachment 3, received during advertising of Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation;

2.       SUPPORTS Standard Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 without modification, pursuant to Regulation 50(3) of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, included at Attachment 1;

3.       FORWARDS Standard Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 included as Attachment 1 and any required documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission pursuant to Regulation 53 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

4.       PROCEEDS with Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation with modifications pursuant to Clause 5 of Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015, included at Attachment 4; and

5.       NOTES that Administration will notify submitters of Council’s decision but will not publish notices of adoption until after the Western Australian Planning Commission has determined Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the outcomes of public consultation on Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (Amendment 6 to LPS2) and Amendment No. 1 to Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5) and to determine whether to proceed with the amendments.

Background:

Council, at its meeting on 19 May 2020, resolved to prepare Amendment 6 to LPS2 (included at Attachment 1) and Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 for the purpose of public advertising.

 

Amendment 6 to LPS2

 

Amendment 6 to LPS2 proposes a risk-based approach to address permissibility based on the potential impact on the amenity of surrounding uses. The Amendment proposes that the Zoning Table include Bed and Breakfast, Holiday Accommodation and Holiday House land uses.

 

Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5

 

Changes proposed in the advertised version of Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 included:

 

(a)      Modify general and land use definitions to align with Amendment 6 to LPS2 to ensure Local Planning Policy No. 7.4.5 – Temporary Accommodation (LPP 7.4.5) can be used as an effective tool in the assessment and management of applications for short term accommodation;

(b)      Include exemptions from Development Approval for low impact uses to streamline the approvals process; and

(c)      Include provisions relating to the location of short term accommodation uses to provide greater guidance and clarity, including acceptable development criteria for assessment of applications in Mixed Use and Residential Zones.

 

Both amendments were advertised between 5 September 2020 and 17 October 2020 through the following methods:

 

·       Written notification was sent to surrounding Local Governments and relevant State Government agencies;

·       A notice was published in the West Australian for one week and the Perth Voice once per week for four weeks;

·       Written notification to stakeholders including industry bodies, local short term accommodation operators, adjoining neighbours and a randomised survey sample; and

·       A notice was published on the City’s Imagine Vincent engagement portal including a survey on the proposed changes.

Details:

The City received nine submissions on the proposed amendments relating to short term accommodation during the consultation period.

 

Submitters were generally supportive, with four out of seven survey respondents saying that the draft policy struck the right balance between flexibility and control. One survey responded and one submitter responded that the draft policy was too restrictive, and two submitters responded that the policy was not restrictive enough.

 

The primary issues and modifications are addressed below with a full summary of submissions and responses to those submissions included as Attachment 2.

 

1.       Development Approval Exemptions

 

A number of submitters commented that the exemptions in the advertised version of LPP 7.4.5 are confusing.

 

On review, the text provisions for development approval exemptions have been converted to a table. This makes the provision much easier to read and understand. It is also proposed to remove the requirement for written notification, management plans and codes of conduct for house swap/house sit arrangements as these uses are considered so minor that the City should not require notification of them occurring.

 

2.       Minimum Night Stay

 

One submitter suggested that a two-night minimum stay is too restrictive, there are a number of good reasons why a visitor would stay for one night and a number of successful short term accommodation uses do not have a minimum.

 

On review of the overall policy provisions proposed by this amendment, there are now sufficient requirements to specifically address potential amenity impacts such that the minimum night stay requirement is no longer essential. This includes locational requirements, mandatory management plans and codes of conduct and requirements for a host or management plans that address any potential noise, traffic/parking, antisocial behaviour and complaints management issues that could occur from a specific proposal. It is recommended that two-night minimum stay be removed.

 

3.       Outdoor living

 

The requirement for ‘sufficient distance’ from outdoor living areas of adjoining properties was considered to be unreasonable and impractical to implement and measure. On review, it is considered that this may be a very restrictive factor in a number of proposals, especially given Vincent’s urban development pattern and density, as well as the inability for applicants to modify the location of their outdoor living areas. As such, it is proposed that this provision be removed.

 

4.       Public advertising

 

The public advertising clause has been modified to respond to the proposed Amendment No. 6 to LPS2. LPS2 currently requires advertising of any ‘A’ use and allows the City to exercise discretion when determining whether to advertise a ‘D’ use.

 

5.       Administrative Modifications

 

A number of further administrative changes and corrections have been made. These are all highlighted in the tracked changes version of LPP 7.4.5 at Attachment 2.

 

The City’s new policy template has also been used for the final version but not on the tracked changes version.

 

As a result of submissions, Administration recommends modifications be made as set out in the modified version of LPP 7.4.5 at Attachment 3.

 

Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2

The proposed Amendment No. 6 to Local Planning Scheme No. 2 will provide greater guidance for Bed and Breakfast, Holiday Accommodation and Holiday House land uses which are currently not listed in the Zoning Table. The amendment will provide greater guidance on where these types of land uses should be located.

 

The Amendment was forwarded to the Environmental Protection Authority pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005, where no objection was received.

 

No submissions were received that directly related to Amendment 6 to LPS2 during the formal advertising period.

 

Administration recommends that Council support Amendment 6 to LPS2 without modification.

Consultation/Advertising:

Submitters will be directly notified of Council’s decision. If Amendment 6 to LPS2 is supported by the Western Australian Planning Commission, both Amendment 6 to LPS2 and Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 would be published simultaneously and come into effect together.

Legal/Policy:

·       Planning and Development Act 2005;

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

·       State Planning Policy No. 7.3 – Residential Design Codes (R Codes);

·       Local Planning Scheme No. 2; and

·       Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to support the proposed Amendment 6 to LPS2 and Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 to deal with development relating to short term accommodation and the management of such land uses.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Thriving Places

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

 


 

Sensitive Design

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is not in keeping with any of the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of progressing the Amendments will be met through the City’s existing operational budget. The proposal has no cost imposition for future budgets.

Comments:

The progression of Amendment 6 to LPS2 and the final adoption of Amendment 1 to LPP 7.4.5 will:

 

·       Ensure the City’s Planning Framework relating to short term accommodation is consistent and up to date;

·       Align LPP 7.4.5 with Local Planning Scheme No. 2 to ensure that it can be used as an effective tool in the assessment and management of applications for short term accommodation;

·       Provide exemptions from Development Approval for low impact short term accommodation uses to streamline the approvals process; and

·       Ensure that any proposals for short term accommodation are sensitive and respectful to the existing residential uses within the neighbourhood.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

10          Infrastructure & Environment

10.1        Proposed Parking Restriction - Broome and Wright Streets, Highgate

Attachments:             1.       Broome Street Consultation

2.       Broome Street Responses

3.       Wright Street Consultation

4.       Wright Street Responses  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the report on the proposed parking restrictions in Broome and Wright Streets, Highgate.

2.       APPROVES;

2.1     the installation of 3P parking restrictions in the unrestricted sections of Broome Street, between Lord and Smith Streets, Highgate, from 8.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday, and

2.2     the installation of 3P parking restrictions in the unrestricted sections of Wright Street, between Lincoln and Harold Streets, Highgate, from 8.00am to 5.30pm Monday to Friday.

3.       NOTES that residents will be eligible for parking permits other than those excluded as a condition of a development approval.

4.       ADVISES the respondents of Council’s decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the outcome of the public consultation to install 3P parking restrictions in Broome and Wright Streets, Highgate.

Background:

Currently there are limited sections with parking restrictions in:

 

·       Broome Street, from Smith Street to Lord Street, and

·       Wright Street, from Lincoln Street to Harold Street. 

 

Both streets are predominately residential in nature and include Brigatti Gardens and Jack Marks Reserve, both popular local parks.  The majority of the surrounding streets in the area have time restrictions which has resulted in non-local parking congregating in the Broome and Wright Streets.

 

This parking demand has also increased, due to the increasing density of developments in the area and increasing restrictions on CBD commuters no longer being able to use other local streets for full day ‘free’ parking.  As this parking demand has increased, local residents have found a growing lack of parking adjacent to their properties and have contacted the City to address their concerns.

Details:

The City has assessed the parking restrictions in surrounding streets and, for reasons of continuity, recommends a three hour time restriction (3P) between 8AM and 5.30PM from Monday to Friday, in both Broome and Wright Streets, in the aforementioned sections.  In respect of parking outside these times, the residents have the added protection of the existing ‘HBF’ Stadium event restrictions, which would remain.  Further, residents will be eligible for resident and visitor parking permits other than those exclusions such as a condition of a development approval. 

Subsequent to this review the City undertook a public consultation of the affected properties, with feedback obtained as follows:

 

1.    Broome Street, from Smith Street to Lord Street, Highgate.

 

The City’s mail out, Attachment 1, went to 100 separate addresses including properties in the area and property owners.  Ten responses were received, all responses are attached in Attachment 2.  Two of the ten responses also provided comment on the Wright Street parking as well. 

 

All ten responses expressed support for the parking restrictions, and all were from occupiers of the address.  Two of the ten responses also requested additional parking restrictions on Stirling Street to address the inevitable follow on parking issues and increased usage due to the new Woolworths Grocery Store to be completed by mid-2021.  Lastly, one resident requested we also add a ‘no-parking on verge’ condition, and another to extend the prohibition past 5:30pm.

 

2.    Wright Street, from Lincoln Street to Harold Street, Highgate.

 

The City’s mail out, Attachment 3, went to 132 separate addresses including properties in the area and property owners.  Three responses were received, all responses area attached in Attachment 4

 

All three responses expressed support for the parking restrictions, and all were from occupiers of the address.  Two of the three responses also provided comment on the Broome Street parking as well. 

 

Two of the three responses were from residents on the corner of Wright Street and Stirling Street, and these both requested additional parking restrictions on Stirling Street to address the inevitable follow on parking issues and increased usage due to the new Woolworths Grocery Store to be completed by mid-2021. 

Consultation/Advertising:

All affected property owners and occupiers within the immediate area of the proposed works were notified of the proposal and asked to provide comment. The Public Consultation letters are attached in Attachment 1 and 3, and all responses are attached in Attachment 2 and 4. 

 

The City advertised in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation Appendix 2 through the following means: 

 

·       Mail out to all properties and non-resident owners. 

·       The City’s Imagine Vincent website, and 

·       Posts on the City’s social media pages. 

 

Note:  All persons who commented or provided submissions during the public notice/consultation period for this matter will be notified that this item is going before Council. 

Legal/Policy:

Broom and Wright Streets are classified as local roads under the care, control and maintenance of the City of Vincent.  Both Broome and Wright Streets are predominately residential and include Brigatti Gardens and Jack Marks Reserve, which are zoned Public Open Space. 

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to undertake parking restrictions. 

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Thriving Places

Our physical assets are efficiently and effectively managed and maintained.

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 not in keeping with any of the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Signage and line-marking for the new parking restrictions would be expected to cost in the order of $1,000 each.

Comments:

Over the past decade there has been a significant increase in demand for on-street parking by non-residents in the City’s CBD fringe areas, such as the Highgate area, as the cost of parking in the CBD increases.  Further, the local area has seen significant infill development which only increases the demands on street parking.  Inevitably the amenity of the residents diminishes as a result and the proposed restrictions will provide some surety that parking will be available in the vicinity during the peak times. 

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

10.2        Draft Waste Plan - Department of Water and Environment Regulation (DWER)

Attachments:             1.       Draft Waste Plan

2.       Waste Strategy 2018-2023  

 

Recommendation:

That Council ENDORSES the attached Draft Waste Plan.

 

Purpose of Report:

To seek Council endorsement of the attached Draft Waste Plan.

Background:

Under section 40(4) of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act), the CEO of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) may by written notice require a local government to prepare a future waste plan outlining how waste services provided by the local government will be managed to achieve consistency with the Western Australian Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030 (Waste Strategy).

 

In line with this, the (State) Waste Strategy includes a headline strategy to “Implement local government waste plans, which align local government waste planning processes with the Waste Strategy.”

 

Waste Plans will provide a link between the targets and objectives of the Waste Strategy 2030 and local government waste management activities.

                                                                                                

The purpose of waste plans is to:

 

·           align local government waste management activities with the Waste Strategy;

·           map current performance and establish a benchmark to achieve Waste Strategy targets;

·           monitor progress on local government achievement of Waste Strategy targets; and

·           design programs and activities which will support the implementation of waste plans.

Details:

It is intended that any existing, up-to-date waste management plans or strategies be integrated into the waste plan process, rather than creating new strategies and targets.   As the City of Vincent has an existing, Council endorsed Waste Strategy 2018-2023, which aligns with the with the Waste Strategy 2030, the attached draft Waste Plan incorporates our Waste Strategy’s projects and implementation plans.  DWER have reviewed this draft and provided positive feedback.

 

The final version of the Waste Plan needs to be endorsed by Council and submitted to DWER by 30 March 2021.

 

Pursuant to section 44 of the WARR Act, DWER require reporting on the City of Vincent’s implementation of the waste plan on an annual basis. The first report is due on 1 October 2022, for the 2021-22 financial year.

Consultation/Advertising:

Public consultation was carried out before Council approved its Waste Strategy 2018-2023. As the Waste Plan required by DWER aligns fully with the City’s Waste Strategy public consultation is not required.

Legal/Policy:

Under section 40(4) of the Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Act 2007 (WARR Act), the CEO of the Department of Water and Environmental Regulation (DWER) may by written notice require a local government to prepare a future waste plan outlining how waste services provided by the local government will be managed to achieve consistency with the Western Australian Waste Avoidance and Resource Recovery Strategy 2030 (Waste Strategy).

 

The CEO of the DWER has exercised his power in the above regard and the City is now required to submit a Council endorsed Waste Plan by 30 March 2021.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to not endorse a Waste Plan as required by DWER. Under section 42 of the WARR Act, if the local government does not comply with the CEO of DWER’s notices under sections 40(4) and 41(1) of the WARR Act, the CEO may serve notice in writing on the City of Vincent advising it that the CEO intends to prepare or modify a waste plan for a local government according to the notices, as if the CEO were the local government. This may occur after the CEO consults and has regard to the views of the Waste Authority and your local government.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have improved resource efficiency and waste management by delivering a contemporary and sustainable waste service that minimises waste generation and increases recovery, reuse and recycling.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This is in keeping key sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024 as this Draft Waste Plan incorporates the Council endorsed Waste Strategy 2018-2023 Projects and Implementation Plans.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Reduced exposure to environmental health risks

Financial/Budget Implications:

Nil.


This page has been left blank intentionally.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

10.3        E-Permit Implementation Update

Attachments:             1.       E-Permits 3rd Letter to Residents

2.       E-Permits Survey Results for Questions 1-7  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the feedback received from the community on the implementation of the E-Permits system.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide an update to Council on the feedback received from the community on the implementation of the e-permits system.

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 17 November 2020, Council requested Administration to undertake consultation and seek feedback from the community on the implementation of the e-permits and report back to Council by February 2021.  This report has been prepared to address that request.

Details:

Since the e-permit system went live on 2 November 2020, there has been a total of 2,916 residents create an account and utilise the new system. This is over 69% of the total number of current permit holders that were notified that the new system is in place.

 

A reminder letter (Attachment 1) was sent by post to residents on Monday 18 January 2021 for those that have not yet created an account.  This letter reiterated the additional support available for those experiencing any difficulty or concerns with accessing, setting up and/or managing their account and also asked the resident to provide their feedback on their experience of this process, by completing a short survey. 

 

1,314 current permit holders have not yet created an account despite two letter being sent about the introduction of the new system. Of this number the city has sent 779 emails to permit holders where an email address had been provided and 88 current permit holders have replied to say they no longer reside at that property. A further 64 have now created accounts. This process will continue by email and telephone until all current permit holders are contacted and any issues are resolved.

 

There were 210 respondents who provided feedback to the survey, which consisted of the following 8 questions:

 

1.   How was your experience creating your e-permit account?

2.   How was your experience managing your e-permit account once created?

3.   What device did you use to create and/or manage your account?

4.   What age bracket do you belong to?

5.   Did you need to contact the City for assistance during create/or manage account process?

6.   Did you require any assistance from a family member, friend or other, with creating your account?

7.   Do you think the e-permit system will make it easier for you to manage your residential parking permits?

8.   Do you have any comments, feedback or suggestions?

 

The results of these survey questions are provided in Attachment 2.

 

Highlights from the results are:

 

·       only a very small number experienced difficulty creating their account and subsequent difficulty managing their account once it was created (i.e. 6 and 7% respectively);

·       of those requiring assistance, around 19% contacted the City and 3% sought assistance from a family member or friend;

·       over 55% think the e-permit system will make it easier for them to manage their residential parking permits; and

·       the majority (67%) used a PC/Desktop Computer to set up and manage their accounts.

 

Of the 210 responses received, 162 (77%) left further feedback, suggestions and comments, a summary of which is outlined below:  

 

·       48 positive comments;

·       24 negative comments;

·       16 requesting an app be developed;

·       10 requesting additional Ranger patrols;

·       51 miscellaneous comments, not pertaining to the system itself;

·       13 that did not provide any specific comment; and

·       48 that declined to leave a comment.

 

 

It should be noted that these survey results are applicable to the accounts created prior to the letter sent 18 January 2021. If any further feedback is received from this point onwards, it will be analysed separately.

 

In addition to the survey that residents were asked to complete after they had created their account, the reminder letter asked any residents who had any concerns with the E-Permits system to contact the City. This resulted in 20 phone calls from residents that had a query or required assistance. The concerns were largely from those that have no internet access or needed to confirm their activation code. Each of these concern were addressed and the accounts created. There were also 9 residents who visited the Library requesting assistance setting up their account, with the majority of these residents not having internet access. In these cases, City staff assisted the resident to create their account.

 

From the initial correspondence sent to all existing residential permit holders, there are still 1,576 properties that are yet to have an e-permits account created. Ranger Administration staff are currently obtaining all current occupants details to make contact with them, and encourage them to create their e-permits account, whilst at the same time offering them assistance if they are experiencing any difficulty.

Consultation/Advertising:

A reminder letter was sent to residents that had not yet created their account on Monday 18 January 2021.

Legal/Policy:

The City has run a security assessment against the e-permits system based on the Australian Cyber Security Centre framework, including confirmation of various security arrangements by the software vendor. The City is satisfied with data security controls that are in place for the e-permits system. The City also reviewed the e-permits system against the Australian Privacy Principles. The Principles helped the City review how it intended to collect and use personally identifiable information for e-permits. The City is satisfied with privacy controls in place for e-permits.

 

The City’s Register of delegations, authorisations and appointments’ identifies which users within the Council have access to the e-permits database. Any additional requests for access to this information must be authorised by the CEO directly. No other external authorities have access to the e-permits database, nor is there any intention to make this data available to any external authority.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to have the e-permits system implemented. There are a small number of residents who have ongoing concerns about the use of this technology for the City’s residential parking permit system.  Administration is working with these residents to address these concerns. The City ran a security assessment against the e-permits solution based on an Australian Cyber Security Centre framework, including confirmation of various security requirements by the software vendor. The City was satisfied with data security controls in place for the e-permits solution. The City also reviewed the e-permits solution against the Australian Privacy Principles. The Principles helped the City review how it intended to collect and use personally identifiable information for e-permits. The City was satisfied with privacy controls in place for the e-permits solution.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Waste Reduction

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

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is not in keeping with any of the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The e-permits system will result in an estimated saving of $6,200 per annum.

Comments:

The feedback to date is, on the whole, very encouraging with 93% of respondents reporting on-going management of their account Very Easy to Ok.  Whilst it is still early days, and some are unsure, the majority believe the system will make it easier for them to manage their parking permits in the future.

Administration staff have continued to assist many residents, whether in person at the Library, on the phone, by email or by visiting the resident at their home, to create and manage their e-permit account and will continue to offer ongoing support, for the small number of residents experiencing ongoing difficulties with their account management. 

 

The City will continuously review feedback to inform future improvements, with every effort made to support residents during the transition and ensure that ongoing management is as smooth as possible.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11          Community & Business Services

11.1        Investment Report as at 30 November 2020

Attachments:             1.       Investment Statistics as at 30 November 2020  

 

Recommendation:

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

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s Investments as at 30 November 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 in this reporting period

 

·       Administration invested $2,500,000 in November 2020 relating to Municipal funds. The volume of investments has reduced for cash flow management purposes; and

·       The exposure to financial institutions with ‘no current record of funding fossil fuels’ has slightly reduced compared to last month because financial institutions in this category are not providing competitive rates which is impacting the City’s ability to provide investment preferences to these organisations.

Investment Status

 

As at 30 November 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $39,183,018. Interest bearing term deposits account for $35,651,552 and the remaining $3,531,466 is held in a non-interest bearing account.

 

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

 

Month

2019/20

2020/21

Ended

Total funds held

Total term deposits

Total funds held

Total term deposits

July

$32,209,493

$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

$39,183,018

$35,651,552

December

$38,557,295

$34,633,796

 

 

January

$37,915,806

$33,773,707

 

 

February

$35,377,640

$33,681,961

 

 

March

$33,969,162

$28,466,025

 

 

April

$30,832,893

$25,975,451

 

 

May

$28,935,398

$22,319,031

 

 

June

$25,079,463

$17,565,310

 

 

 

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

 

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment

Original Budget

Revised Budget

Budget YTD

Actual YTD

% of FY Budget

Municipal

$230,000

$100,000

$9,675

$23,248

240.29%

Reserve

$180,205

$130,205

$46,232

$47,779

103.35%

Subtotal

$410,205

$230,205

$55,907

$71,027

127.04%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$0

$30,021

0.00%

Total

$410,205

$230,205

$55,907

$101,048

180.74%

*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 0.62% for current investments whereas the Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for November 2020 is 0.02%.

 

Sustainable Investments

 

The graph below outlines the fossil fuel vs non-fossil fuel investment trends since July 2018. The highest % the City has achieved in non-fossil fuel investments since July 2018 is 39% which was in March 2019.

 

Subsequently, there was an upward trend from Jun 2019 up to June 2020.

 

Since June 2020, the economic impact of COVID-19 has resulted in banks offering record low interest rates.  This has been particularly noticeable in the banks divested of fossil fuel activities resulting in a decline, in the City’s portfolio exposure to non-fossil fuel institutions.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The City's investment policy requires that in the first instance, the City considers rate of return of the fund. All things being equal, the City then prioritises funds with no current record of funding fossil fuels. If Council wishes to increase the number of non-fossil fuel lenders this can be achieved if the City is prepared to accept a lower rate of return."

 

Administration utilises ‘Market Forces’ to ascertain the level of exposure banks have in fossil fuel activities and utilises a platform called ‘Yield Hub’ to determine interest rates provided by banks that are published on a daily basis.

 

As at 30 November 2020, $2,000,000 (5%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

 

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

 

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

 A1+

30%

24.5%

30%

Nil

90%

62.2%

A-1

25%

6.6%

30%

Nil

80%

6.6%

A-2

20%

15.9%

N/A

Nil

60%

31.2%

 

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:

This does not contribute to any environmental sustainability outcomes.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is not in keeping with any of the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

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                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11.2        Financial Statements as at 30 November 2020

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 30 November 2020  

 

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

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

 

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 30 November 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 $1,158,684 (15%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           A favourable variance of $244,677 primarily due to an increase in revenue generated primarily from increased activity at Beatty Park, public halls and sporting grounds (Recreation and Culture); and

·           A favourable variance of $832,954 due to an increase in revenue generated from parking activities (Transport).

 

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by $1,181,194 (3%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           A favourable variance of $1,053,817 for revenue generated primarily from increased activity in relation to the Swim school at Beatty Park and parking facilities within the City (Fees and charges).

 

Expenditure by Program reflects an under spend of $1,305,411 (7%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      A favourable variance of $445,025 primarily contributed by a budget to actuals timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping and recycling services (Community Amenities); and

·      A favourable variance of $486,473 contributed by a timing variance in building and ground maintenance works at various facilities within the City (Recreation and Culture).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects an under spend of $1,213,109 (6%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      Employee costs reflects a favourable variance of $123,889. This variance is materially contributed by a combination of vacancies and savings identified within multiple sections of the City.

 

·      Materials and contracts reflect a favourable variance of $839,740. This is mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping and recycling services, ground maintenance and building maintenance works respectively. 

 

Surplus Position – 2020/2021

 

The surplus position brought forward to 2020/21 is $2,122,499 compared to the adopted budget amount of $1,615,763.

 

Content of Statement of Financial Activity

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

6.         Cash Backed Reserves (Note 6 Page 53)

 

The cash backed reserves schedule provides a detailed summary of the movements in the reserve portfolio, including transfers to and from the reserve. The balance as at 30 November is $11,156,298.

 

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

 

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

 

 

Due Date

First Instalment

18 September 2020

Second Instalment

18 November 2020

Third Instalment

18 January 2021

Fourth Instalment

18 March 2021

 

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

 

The outstanding rates debtors balance as at 30 November 2020 is $12,056,734 excluding deferred rates ($117,424).

 

The outstanding rates percentage at 30 November 2020 is 31% compared to 27% 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; and

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

 

The collectable gap between this year and last year has reduced in November compared to the statistics published in last month’s report. This is an indicator of a positive trend in the recovery of the economy as a whole. 

 

 

 

 

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 56)

 

Total trade and other receivables as at 30 November 2020 is $3,273,527.

 

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

 

·        $1,370,602 (87%) 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).

 

As some of the unpaid infringements are aged, a provisional amount of $181,310 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the current portion (within 12 months) and a corresponding provisional amount of $238,616 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).

 

·        $140,897 (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.

 

·        Tenancy related debts 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, the debts will be sent to the debt collectors for further follow up.

 

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

 

As at 30 November 2020, the Centre’s operating surplus position is $286,905 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date surplus amount of $11,200. 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 30 November 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:

Expenditure within this report facilitates various projects, programs, services and initiatives that contribute to protecting/enhancing the City’s built and natural environment and to improving resource efficiency.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure within this report facilitates various projects, programs and services that contribute to the priority health outcomes within the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

As contained in this report.  


This page was left blank intentionally.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator




 



 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator




 






Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11.3        Investment Report as at 31 December 2020

Attachments:             1.       Investment Statistics as at 31 December 2020  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Statistics for the month ended 31 December 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 December 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 in this reporting period

 

·       No funds have been invested in December to ensure cash flows are maintained at an optimum level; and

 

·       The exposure to financial institutions with ‘no current record of funding fossil fuels’ has slightly reduced compared to last month because financial institutions in this category are not providing competitive rates which is impacting the City’s ability to provide investment preferences to these organisations.

Investment Status

 

As at 31 December 2020, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $38,061,941. Interest bearing term deposits account for $33,065,398 and the remaining $4,996,543 is held in a non-interest bearing account.

 

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

 

Month

2019/20

2020/21

Ended

Total funds held

Total term deposits

Total funds held

Total term deposits

July

$32,209,493

$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

$39,183,018

$35,651,552

December

$38,557,295

$34,633,796

$38,061,941

$33,065,398

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 December 2020 is:

 

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment

Original Budget

Revised Budget

Budget YTD

Actual YTD

% of FY Budget

Municipal

$230,000

$100,000

$9,675

$38,060

393.39%

Reserve

$180,205

$130,205

$46,232

$54,246

117.33%

Subtotal

$410,205

$230,205

$55,907

$92,306

165.11%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$0

$33,891

0.00%

Total

$410,205

$230,205

$55,907

$126,197

225.73%

*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 0.5% for current investments whereas the Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for December 2020 is 0.02%.

 

Sustainable Investments

 

The City's investment policy requires that in the first instance, the City considers rate of return of the fund. All things being equal, the City then prioritises funds with no current record of funding fossil fuels. The City can increase the number of non-fossil fuel lenders but this would likely result in a lower rate of return.

 

Administration utilises ‘Market Forces’ to ascertain the level of exposure banks have in fossil fuel activities and utilises a platform called ‘Yield Hub’ to determine interest rates provided by banks that are published on a daily basis.

 

As at 31 December 2020, $2,000,000 (5%) of the City’s investments are held in financial institutions considered to be investing in non-fossil fuel related activities.

 

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

 

Short Term Rating (Standard & Poor’s) or Equivalent

Direct Investments Maximum %

with any one institution

Managed Funds Maximum %

with any one institution

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

Policy

Current position

 A1+

30%

29%

30%

Nil

90%

67.9%

A-1

25%

0%

30%

Nil

80%

0%

A-2

20%

16.4%

N/A

Nil

60%

32.1%

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:

This does not contribute to any environmental sustainability outcomes.

 

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

This is not in keeping with any of the priority health outcomes of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

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                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11.4        Financial Statements as at 31 December 2020

Attachments:             1.       Financial statements as at 31 December 2020  

 

Recommendation:

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

Purpose of Report:

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

 

Details:

The following documents, included as Attachment 1, comprise the statement of financial activity for the period ending 31 December 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 $1,769,527 (20%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           A favourable variance of $396,092 primarily due to an increase in revenue generated primarily from increased activity at Beatty Park, public halls and sporting grounds (Recreation and Culture); and

·           A favourable variance of $1,214,610 mainly due to an increase in revenue generated from parking activities and $217,425 received as grant monies from Department of Fire and Emergency Services (DFES) for storm damage claims (Transport).

 

Revenue by Nature or Type is tracking favourable compared to the YTD budget by $1,895,697 (4.3%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·           A favourable variance of $1,392,337 for revenue generated primarily from increased activity in relation to the Swim school at Beatty Park and parking facilities within the City (Fees and charges); and

·           A favourable variance of $332,397 for revenue primarily from the grant monies received from DFES for storm damage claims (Fees and Charges).

 

Expenditure by Program reflects an under spend of $39,066 (0.1%) compared to the year to date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      A favourable variance of $125,029 primarily contributed by vacant positions and timing variance of works (Governance);

·      A favourable variance of $332,216 primarily contributed by a budget to actuals timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping and recycling services (Community Amenities);

·      An unfavourable variance of $635,155 primarily contributed by depreciation at HBF Park (previously NIB stadium) (Recreation and Culture); and

·      An unfavourable variance of $156,822 primarily contributed by depreciation and timing of works (Transport).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type reflects a slight over spend of $30,074 (0.1%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·      Depreciation reflects an unfavourable variance of $1,105,563 primarily as a result of depreciation at HBF Park.

 

·      Materials and contracts reflect a favourable variance of $754,638. This is mainly contributed by a timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping and recycling services, ground maintenance and building maintenance works respectively. 

 

·      Other Expenditure reflects a favourable variance of $229,652 as a result of timing variance of works within various sections of the City.

 

The depreciation forecasts will be reviewed and updated to align with actual expenditure as part second quarterly budget review in March 2021.

 

Surplus Position – 2020/2021

 

The closing revised budgeted position is a deficit of $405, 905. This deficit has arisen due to the following budget amendments in December 2020:

-     Beatty Park Leisure Centre indoor pool filter plant replacement requiring an additional $300,000; and

-     Leederville Laneway Upgrade - $132,308

 

The audited surplus position brought forward to 2020/21 is $2,122,499 compared to the adopted budget amount of $1,615,763. The additional surplus of $506,736 will be updated during the March 2021 budget review and will offset the current deficit position.

 

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 December 2020 is $11,385,244.

 

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 December 2020 is $10,256,532 excluding deferred rates of $117,424.

 

The outstanding rates percentage at 31 December 2020 is 26% compared to 22% for the similar period last year. This has been contributed by: -

 

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

·        Administration has also received 34 hardship applications and these ratepayer payments will now be deferred until March 2021.

 

However, the collectable gap is improving at almost the same rate as last year indicating a positive trend in the recovery of the outstanding debt. 

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 56)

 

Total trade and other receivables as at 31 December 2020 is $2,298,276.

 

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

 

·        $1,297,307 (88%) 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).

 

As some of the unpaid infringements are aged, a provisional amount of $181,310 has been calculated as doubtful debts for the current portion (within 12 months) and a corresponding provisional amount of $238,616 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).

 

·        $140,455 (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.

 

·        Tenancy related debts 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, the 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 December 2020, the Centre’s operating surplus position is $313,274 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date surplus amount of $67,439. 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 December 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:

Expenditure within this report facilitates various projects, programs, services and initiatives that contribute to protecting/enhancing the City’s built and natural environment and to improving resource efficiency.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure within this report facilitates various projects, programs and services that contribute to the priority health outcomes within the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

As contained in this report.  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                  16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator



PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



PDF Creator


PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


PDF Creator


PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11.5        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 November 2020 to 30 November 2020

Attachments:             1.       Payments by EFT and Payroll November 20

2.       Payments by Cheque November 20

3.       Payments by Direct Debit November 20  

 

Recommendation:

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

 

EFT payments, including BPAY and payroll

 

$4,578,413.99

Cheques

 

$1,140.48

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$130,546.89

 

 

 

Total payments for November 2020

 

$4,710,101.36

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 November 2020 to 30 November 2020.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 2.2.18) the power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

The list of accounts paid must be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 1 November 2020 to 30 November 2020, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT and BPAY Payments

2609 – 2620

$3,362,493.52

Payroll by Direct Credit

November 2020

$1,215,920.47

Sub Total

 

$4,578,413.99

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82640 - 82645

$1,140.48

Sub Total

 

$1,140.48


 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$395.84

Loan Repayments

$100,782.60

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$28,344.89

Credit Cards

 

$1,023.56

Sub Total

 

$130,546.89

 

 

 

Total Payments

 

$4,710,101.36

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

“13.    Lists of Accounts

 

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

 

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

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

 

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

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure covered in this report includes various projects, programs, services and initiatives that contribute to protecting/enhancing the City’s built and natural environment and to improving resource efficiency.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure covered in this report includes various projects, programs and services that contribute to the priority health outcomes within the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11.6        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020

Attachments:             1.       Payments by EFT and Payroll December 20

2.       Payments by Cheque December 20

3.       Payments by Direct Debit December 20  

 

Recommendation:

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

 

EFT payments, including BPAY and payroll

 

$5,968,155.06

Cheques

 

$886.40

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$197,820.85

 

 

 

Total payments for December 2020

 

$6,166,862.31

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020.

Background:

Council has delegated to the Chief Executive Officer (Delegation No. 2.2.18) the power to make payments from the City’s Municipal and Trust funds.  In accordance with Regulation 13(1) of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996 a list of accounts paid by the Chief Executive Officer is to be provided to Council, where such delegation is made.

 

The list of accounts paid must be recorded in the minutes of the Council Meeting.

Details:

The Schedule of Accounts paid for the period 1 December 2020 to 31 December 2020, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT and BPAY Payments

2621 – 2629

$4,739,070.60

Payroll by Direct Credit

December 2020

$1,229,084.46

Sub Total

 

$5,968,155.06

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82646 - 82649

$886.40

Sub Total

 

$886.40


 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$395.84

Loan Repayments

$154,648.45

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$31,432.60

Credit Cards

 

$11,343.96

Sub Total

 

$197,820.85

 

 

 

Total Payments

 

$6,166,862.31

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

“13.    Lists of Accounts

 

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

 

·       the payee’s name;

·       the amount of the payment;

·       the date of the payment; and

·       sufficient information to identify the transaction.

 

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

 

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

·       recorded in the minutes of that meeting.”

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

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

Our community is satisfied with the service we provide.

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure covered in this report includes various projects, programs, services and initiatives that contribute to protecting/enhancing the City’s built and natural environment and to improving resource efficiency.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure covered in this report includes various projects, programs and services that contribute to the priority health outcomes within the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025.

Financial/Budget Implications:

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

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                 16 February 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                16 February 2021

11.7        Leederville Gardens Trust - COVID-19 funding - Ruah Community Services

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES funding provided to Ruah Community Services under the Leederville Gardens Trust COVID-19 Relief Grant Funding program;

2.       APPROVES the request from Ruah Community Services for an extension and variation to the terms of their Leederville Gardens Trust COVID-19 Relief Grant Agreement  until May 2021, to enable the remaining $6513.74 of unspent grant funding to be acquitted; and

3.       NOTES that the Executive Director, Community & Business Services will prepare and enter into a variation to the funding agreement for Ruah Community Services.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide an update on the progress of the grant provided under the Leederville Gardens Trust COVID-19 Relief Funding program to Ruah Community Services and to seek approval of a variation to the current grant agreement.

Background:

At the Special Meeting of Council on 30 March 2020 it was resolved that Council:

 

‘1.      As trustee of the Leederville Gardens trust fund ENDORSES the allocation of up to $1 million from those funds for the provision of urgent relief of people in need as a direct or indirect consequence of the conditions imposed by COVID-19;

 

2.       INVITES Expressions of Interest from Registered Public Benevolent Institutions to be considered for funding under Recommendation 1 above; and

 

3.       NOTES that the outcome of the expression of interest process in Recommendation 2 above will be presented to the City’s COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee for consideration and approval.’

 

Following this, administration invited suitable Public Benevolent Institutions (PBI’s) to submit their Expression of Interest for funding under this program. Applications were assessed by Administration and funds approved to PBI’s at the COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee meetings as per the below schedule:

 

Meeting Date

PBI

Amount

28 April 2020

St Vincent De Paul

$200,000

28 April 2020

Uniting Care West

$129,000

5 May 2020

RUAH Community Services

$27,800

5 May 2020

People Who Care

$105,000

12 May 2020

YMCA of WA

$138,000

9 June 2020

Foodbank WA

$178,476

30 June 2020

Derbarl Yerrigan Health Service

$68,559

 

Agreements have been entered into for all organisations listed in the above schedule.

Details:

It is noted that the organisations delivering emergency relief and financial relief support have seen a slower than expected uptake in services. It is believed that the financial support measures which have been implemented on a Federal level along with the re-opening of many services during Phase 4 have been responsible for the decline in service requirements.

 

Ruah Community Services (Ruah) contacted Administration on 16 November 2020 in relation to their Leederville Gardens Trust COVID-19 funding.  Following further investigation of funds already spent, Ruah requested an extension to their grant deadline.  The grant agreement was executed on 29 May 2020 and was for a period of six (6) months concluding on 29 November 2020. 

 

This extension requested by Ruah is for the unspent funding of the grant that occurred as a result of COVID restrictions, which meant many external services Ruah use for housing were closed, and they were unable to refer clients. This meant that clients who usually move out of refuge accommodation into longer term housing stayed in the refuge for longer than usual.  Following Council Briefing, Administration confirmed with RUAH that an extension up until 30 May 2021 would enable them sufficient time to expend the funds.

 

Now that restrictions have eased, Ruah anticipates they will be able to assist members of the community over the next three months, as housing providers are now taking referrals and women and children are beginning to move to longer term accommodation again.

 

The original intent of the COVID-19 Relief Funding program, as set out in the agenda paper presented on 30 March 2020 states:

 

“The current COVID-19 pandemic has raised the potential of imminent hardship being experienced by many of our more disadvantaged and at-risk community members. This may place extra strain on the services and programmes currently provided by various not-for-profit, charitable or volunteer organisations and exacerbate areas of underserviced demand.”

 

In considering this request, it is important to consider that the support provided by Ruah provi