AGENDA

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

 

18 May 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. 9

5          The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. 9

6          Confirmation of Minutes. 9

7          Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion) 10

8          Declarations of Interest 10

9          Strategy & Development 11

9.1             No. 1/278 (Lot: W108; D/P: 223022) Beaufort Street, Perth - Unauthorised Change of Use to Restricted Premises. 11

9.2             Draft Pickle District Place Plan. 48

9.3             Accessible City Strategy - Outcomes of Advertising. 73

10        Infrastructure & Environment 223

10.1           Public Consultation Results - Mini-Roundabout Pilot Project 223

10.2           Advertising of new/amended policy - Memorials in Public Places and Reserves (2.1.5) 265

10.3           Tender no IE105/2020 Design, Supply and Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems at City of Vincent Sites. 276

10.4           E-Permits Implementation Progress Report 281

11        Community & Business Services. 283

11.1           Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 March 2021 to 31 March 2021. 283

11.2           Investment Report as at 31 March 2021. 305

11.3           Financial Statements as at 31 March 2021. 314

11.4           Differential Rating Strategy 2021/22. 380

11.5           May Budget Review 2021/22 [ABSOLUTE MAJORITY DECISION REQUIRED] 389

12        Chief Executive Officer 406

12.1           Quarterly Update of 26 Strategic Projects Outlined in Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24  406

12.2           New Lease to the Western Australian Volleyball Association Inc.- portion of 413 Bulwer Street, West Perth. 411

12.3           Results of Consultation - Proposal for a Commercial Kiosk at Hyde Park. 431

12.4           Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 4 May  2021. 486

12.5           Information Bulletin. 559

12.6           Request from the Public Transport Authority - Transfer and Dedication of portion of Summers Street, East Perth. 605

13        Motions of Which Previous Notice Has Been Given. 616

13.1           Notice of Motion - Cr Jonathan Hallett - Local Planning Scheme No. 2 Amendment regarding Tobacco Outlets. 616

14        Questions by Members of Which Due Notice Has Been Given (Without Discussion) 622

Nil

15        Representation on Committees and Public Bodies. 622

16        Urgent Business. 622

Nil

17        Confidential Items/Matters For Which The Meeting May Be Closed. 622

Nil

18        Closure. 622

1            Declaration of Opening / Acknowledgement of Country

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

2            Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Nil

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

  (B)         Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

3.1          Gary Simmons of Perth – Item 9.1

In respect to the proposed removal of the heritage “Player huts” located on the northern section of the existing lawn tennis courts (which DPLH has approved subject to compliant photographic and written evidence) can Council please consider and direct its planners to amend the draft plan to retain these amenities so that they are congruent to the use of the adjacent proposed landscape area and proposed community garden.  In my opinion this will provide for a shaded retreat for community members to relax and enjoy the sense of place that is being created and at the same time preserve the heritage aspect of these outbuildings.  By all means still have them photographed and documented for precautionary reasons.

The possibility of utilising the huts for shade and relaxation will be included as a focus area in the community consultation process, to gather community feedback on this type of amenity. If there is strong support for this, the City will then investigate the feasibility of re-installing the huts in this way and if able to proceed, will amend the Development Plan accordingly.

3.2          Mary Collura-Oldham of Perth – Item 10.2

 

1.            What strategies are in place to encourage activation of other parks within the City of Vincent and to also encourage/promote use of these parks for festivals and/or other community events?

 

            The City assesses venue requests on a case by case basis, and will consider if the venue is suitable.  For example, if there was a proposal for a large music festival (multi stages, drinking etc.), we would recommend moving the event to somewhere like Loton Park, Birdwood Square or Leederville Oval. For smaller community events and weddings etc., we wouldn’t deter them from holding their event at Hyde Park as it has a stage and power for events.

 

            All of the City’s reserves, parks and facilities are promoted through website ‘Space to Co’. We also offer free hire of our town squares (Leederville Village Square, North Perth Common and Mary Street Piazza) to encourage use of these spaces for events.

 

2.            What strategies are in place to improve public transport to and from the park especially when there are festivals or events in place?

 

            Event and festival organisers (ie larger scale events) are asked to promote public transport and other sustainable transport options, such as cycling.  

 

3.          What strategies and responsibilities are placed on organisers of such events to provide a parking strategy for volunteers and attendees and to also monitor and police potential congestion and parking issues.

 

            Event organisers are asked in their applications to highlight other available parking spaces – for example, the Hyde Park Fair promotes and uses the Italian Club Parking. We also ask the organisers to notify local residents of these plans.

 

            If the event involves large numbers of volunteers the City will work with organisers to arrange a suitable parking location nearby.

 

              Rangers then monitor large scale events to ensure people are parking legally, and will respond to residents’ requests if someone is parking in a driveway or no-standing zones.

 

4.             Most importantly, will the council commit to ensuring that the increasing and competing demands for parking in this area will be managed with sensitivity to the needs of residents.  We should not be forgotten.

              An associated issue that has not really been given much discussion and consideration is the fact that Glendower Street – is both a busy thorough fare and parking lot and these two aspects often create a chaotic, unsafe and unpleasant ambience for all concerned. 

 

              The City will manage parking in accordance with the Accessible City Strategy.

 

3.3          Suzanne Burke – Emmerson St, North Perth – Item 13.1

The recent decision to use and retain woodchips has been made despite residents providing historical evidence of woodchips blocking drains during significant rain events and subsequently causing flooding to homes on Emmerson St on more than one occasion.

Can you please provide more details on who has made this decision? Is it the CEO? The Mayor? Was it voted on by councillors? If there was a vote, what exactly was voted on, and who cast their vote and which way.

I believe we are entitled to know who has provided support and who hasn’t. In the interests of full transparency this information must be provided.”

The decision was made by the CEO.

In addition, the letter from the CEO states that the woodchips do not increase the flood risk to our properties. How can the CEO come to this conclusion when the evidence clearly contradicts this?

The City does not agree with calculation of risk put forward by Ms. Burke in relation to the use of wood mulch and the risk of property flooding. This has been communicated consistently through a series of communications.

It is my understanding that the Hydraulic Report in 2017 prepared by external consultants showed water coming across the park from all directions. However, I have not been able to verify this, because despite requesting a copy of this report on multiple occasions I am still waiting to receive it. Is there a reason why COV administration cannot release a copy of this report which is a public document? If not, can you please provide it as requested? If this does indeed show water coming from the Charles/Vincent corner of the park, which it has been proven that woodchips float across on, will the CEO reverse this decision?

All documents requested have been provided. As above, the City does not agree with calculation of risk put forward by Ms. Burke.

3.4          Vern Gardam of Mt Lawley – Item 9.2

The Briefing notes to Councillors summarised my comments at the Briefing session as: "Mentioned that there are errors in the report and attachment.”

 

This is incorrect. I have viewed the tape and I said there are errors in the report and there is a missing Attachment which was identified. It is an appendix Attached to the Consultant’s report. This attachment is referred to in the Consultant’s report - page 16 para 3.  The Appendix was not attached to the Consultant’s report that went to the Briefing session. It does not form part of the Consultant’s report that council has before it this evening. 

 

At the Briefing session I requested information about the Community Consultation panel. In particular (i) the how many panellists,

(ii) how were they selected,

(iii) how many attended the meeting with the consultant (iv) what feedback did the Community panel provide the Consultant (v) what, if any, feedback did administration provide to the panel. And if feedback was provided when was it provided? 

 

The appendices are the last two pages of the Consultant’s Report (tables detailing administration and community response to IAP2 Spectrum of Public Participation).

The Report has been updated to confirm the date of each workshop, how community members were selected, who and how many turned up and what was discussed.

3.5          Ben McLaughlin of Perth – Item 9.1

Would the council consider allocating a set number of parking bays for staff?

Parking will be a key focus of community consultation to understand the parking requirements in the area.

3.6          Dudley Maier of Highgate

1.                What council workshops have been held since 23 March 2021 and what items were presented at each workshop?

There has been one Workshop since 23 March 2021, which was on 13 April 2021 and the following items were discussed:

·                          Underground Power

·                          Phase 2 COVID-19 Art Relief Grant Funding – Medium Scale Town Centre Artworks

·                          Woodville Reserve Landscape Plan

·                          Review of Local Planning Scheme No 2 (Norfolk Precinct)

·                          Review of the Graffiti Removal Service in City Owned Rights of Way

·                          Advocacy Agenda – Q1 2021 Update

·                          CEO KPIs 2020 – 2021: 7 Strategic Projects Monthly Update

·                          Smoke Free Town Centres Project

·                          Amendments to the Local Government Property Local Law – Smoke Free Areas

·                          Leederville Gardens Inc – Request for remittance of funds due to overpayment

·                          Operating Expenses - Labour

2.                Prior to September 2019, monthly financial statements and expenditure were included in the agendas for the following month.  When the council had two meetings a month the expenditure figures were included in the first meeting of the following month, and the financials were included in the second. The Director has said that the extra month is required to make adjustments and prepare reports.  Why was it possible to provide the reports in a more timely manner before September 2019, but not since?  Given that the staff said that the proposed meeting cycle would increase transparency around financial statements, thus tying transparency to timeliness, do you agree that the city is less transparent than it was prior to September 2019? Why isn’t expenditure available immediately after the end of the month?

              Regulation 34 of the Local Government (Financial) Regulations requires the financial statements to be presented to the OCM within 2 months of the end of the month. This month's report is compliant with that requirement.

 

              This reporting cycle provides sufficient time for the City to review the financial statements, process end of month journals, and prepare commentary for Council.

 

              Other adjoining business processes, staffing and service levels have been developed to fit with this cycle.

 

              The reporting cycle provides adequate time for managerial review. Transparency is enhanced when the City provides accurate reports with appropriate explanatory commentary.

 

              Timeliness is not an issue given we are working within statutory timelines. There are no plans to change the reporting cycle.

 

3.                What was the cost of traffic management at the recent plant sale?

              The total cost of the Traffic Management at the plant sale was $1665.50 ex GST.

4.                Were council members made aware that $45,000 for the demolition of the Beatty Park Pavilion was included in the 2018/19 Operating Budget before they approved that budget?

              Council was aware of this operating initiative when approving the budget. 

 

5.                Why does the press release about the film project, published on 1 April, say that the project is in its fourth year when in reality the project has been going since 2005?

              The press release was referring to the fourth year of the project being run by Revelation Film Festival. The City of Vincent Film Project was previously managed by a company called FTI which no longer exists.

6.                How many members of the public, apart from the presenters/facilitators, participated in the Mighty Raw Covid Arts project, and when were the commentaries for the two live AFL games provided?

              One workshop has taken place with 12 participants, apart from the presenters/facilitators. The commentary events have not yet taken place. The City agreed with the artists that this project was best delivered during the AFL season and the artists are currently planning the events, with dates to be confirmed but delivered this financial year.

7.                How many of the ’16 public artworks in six months’, as listed in the press release of 6 July 2020, were actually delivered in the six months?

              Six of the total 16 funded projects were delivered within the six months. The press release of July 2020 reflected the information at that time. As the City of Vincent finalised the projects with artists, more flexibility was created for artists to deliver this financial year.

 

8.                How many times has the community engagement panel met since its inception? Given that membership of advisory groups and committees is made public, why isn’t membership of the engagement panel made public?  Who is on the panel? The answer to a previous question about the waste strategy project indicated that 43 members were invited and that 20 registered.  Why weren’t the number that actually participated provided? How many actually participated?

              The community panel have met four times since inception. They were due to meet a fifth time but this was cancelled during COVID-19 lockdown in 2020.

 

              The community panel is not a formal Advisory Group appointed by Council. From an invitation and EOI process, the panel is randomly selected against a set of demographic indicators to ensure a representative spread of our community. The selection is made by an independent company and the names and contact details of panel members are not made available to Elected Members or the public, as is commonly the case with establishing a community panel. We have also not sought permission from panel members to make their details public.

              20 people registered and out of these 13 attended the workshop.

4            Applications for Leave of Absence

Cr Alex Castle requested a leave of absence from 13 – 18 July 2021f for personal reasons

Cr Jonathan Hallett requested a leave of absence from 19 – 23 May 2021 for business reasons

5            The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

6            Confirmation of Minutes

Ordinary Meeting - 27 April 2021

7            Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

8            Declarations of Interest

8.1          Cr Sally Smith declared an impartiality interest in item XXXXReport and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 2 March 2021.  The extent of her interest is that her husband is a member of the Audit Committee.

8.2          Cr Ashley Wallace declared a financial interest in item 11.1 Authorisation of Expenditure 1 March 2021 to 31 March 2021.  The extent of his interest is that A payment was made to GHD a “Beatty Park leisure pool assessment." He is employed by GHD, who were engaged by the Project Consultant (Ninnes Fong) to scan and core drill the indoor pool shell to ensure its integrity, which resulted in that payment.  He is not seeking approval to participate in the debate or to remain in Chambers or to vote on the matter.

8.3          Cr Joshua Topelberg declared a proximity interest in item 10.1 Public Consultation Results – Mini-roundabout pilot project.  The extent of his interest is that his primary residence is located within the proposed trial area. He is not seeking approval to participate in the debate or to remain in Chambers or to vote on the matter.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

9            Strategy & Development

9.1          No. 1/278 (Lot: W108; D/P: 223022) Beaufort Street, Perth - Unauthorised Change of Use to Restricted Premises

Ward:                        South

Attachments:             1.       Consultation and Location Plan

2.       Development Plan

3.       Outline of Activities

4.       Summary of Submissions - Administration's Response

5.       Summary of Submissions - Applicant Response

6.       Parking Management Plan

7.       Determination Advice Notes

8.       Beaufort Street Land Use Context Plan  

 

 

Recommendation:

That Council, in accordance with the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Metropolitan Region Scheme:

1.       APPROVES part of the application for unauthorised Change of Use to Restricted Premises and Signage at No. 1/278 Beaufort Street, Perth (Lot: W108; D/P: 223022), in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, subject to the following conditions and advice notes included in Attachment 7:

1.1     This approval is for Change of Use to Restricted Premises and Signage as shown on the approved plans dated 23 March 2021. No other development forms part of this approval;

1.2     This approval is for Restricted Premises as defined in the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No.2. Use of the subject land for a different use may require further development approval in accordance with the provisions of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 and the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015;

1.3     A minimum of three on-site parking bays shall be provided for use of the premises;

1.4     A minimum of two short-term bicycle bays shall be provided within the verge adjoining the development. The bicycle bays shall be designed in accordance with AS2890.3 and installed within 28 days from the date of this determination to the satisfaction of the City;

1.5     The proposed Restricted Premises shall be limited to the following hours of operation:

·       Monday to Sunday – 10:00am to 7:00pm;

1.6     Doors and windows and adjacent floor areas fronting Beaufort Street shall maintain an active and interactive relationship with this street. Ground floor glazing and/or tinting shall be a minimum of 70 percent visually permeable to provide unobscured visibility. Darkened, obscured, mirrored or tinted glass or other similar materials as considered by the City is prohibited;

1.7     Within 28 days from the date of this determination, all signage the subject of this approval is to be installed in accordance with Elevation 01 on the approved plans dated 23 March 2021. Thereafter the signage shall be:

1.7.1  Kept in strict accordance with the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising, unless further development approval is obtained;

1.7.2  Kept in a good state of repair, safe, non-climbable, and free from graffiti for the duration of its display on-site; and

1.7.3  Be wholly contained within the subject lot; and

2.       REFUSES part of the application for unauthorised roller shutters at No. 1/278 Beaufort Street, Perth (Lot: W108; D/P: 223022), in accordance with the plans provided in Attachment 2, for the following reasons:

2.1     The development does not satisfy the objectives of the Commercial zone under Clause 16 of the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2, as the roller shutters are incompatible with the design of facades within the streetscape. This is as a result of the roller shutters providing for reduced activation to the street frontage;

2.2     The development does not satisfy the Local Housing Objectives of Clause 1.13 Façade Design of the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy as:

2.2.1  The appearance of the roller shutters as a security measure adversely impacts on and does not reflect the character of the local area;

2.2.2  The roller shutters reduce activation provided to the street frontage, which reduces visibility of the internal use from the street; and

2.2.3  As a result of the roller shutters, the use does not provide for a visual connection with the adjoining public spaces and does not adhere to the performance criteria of the Western Australian Planning Commissions, Designing Out Crime Planning Guidelines; and

2.3     As a consequence of the adverse appearance of the roller shutter addition and subsequent reduced street surveillance outlined in Refusal Reasons 1 and 2, the roller shutter additions:

2.3.1  Are not compatible nor complimentary to the area in which it is located (Clause 67(2)(m) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

2.3.2  Would detract from the amenity and character of the locality, and would set an undesirable precedence (Clause 67(2)(n)(ii) and (iii) of the Deemed Provisions in Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015); and

2.4     Within 28 days from the date of this determination, the roller shutters must be removed from the façade and the affected areas of the façade made good, to the satisfaction of the City.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider an application for development approval for an unauthorised change of use to Restricted Premises at No. 1/278 Beaufort Street, Perth (subject site).

PROPOSAL:

The application seeks approval for a change of use to Restricted Premises along with works associated with the premises including the installation of roller shutters and signage.

 

Details of the application include:

 

·       The tenancy operating as ‘Up in Smoke’ selling shisha related accessories including:

o   Hookahs (a pipe used for smoking flavoured tobacco) and accessories including additional mouthpieces, glass bases and flavoured charcoal. The applicant has advised that the premises does not sell tobacco or nicotine products;

o   Vapes and other accessories including spare batteries and coils;

o   E-Juice (nicotine-free flavoured vaping liquids); and

o   Scales and other accessories;

·       The tenancy operating between 10:00am and 7:00pm Monday to Sunday;

·       Signage to the window and awning; and

·       Roller shutter additions to each of the external windows and door fronting Beaufort Street. The roller shutters are open during business hours and closed outside of these.

 

The applicant has advised that persons under 18 years of age are not permitted within the premises. There is no legislation restricting those persons under the age of 18 from entering a premises that sells shisha related accessories.

 

The restriction that would apply is that it is illegal to sell tobacco products or smoking implements to persons under 18 as set out in the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006.

 

Tobacco is not being sold from the premises.

 

The development plans are included as Attachment 2 and a cover letter outlining the activities of the use is included as Attachment 3.

 

This development application was lodged on 10 February 2021 and sought approval for a proposed change of use and signage. Following the lodgement of this application the use of the premises commenced and the signage was installed. The roller shutters were also installed at this time. The application has since been amended to seek approval for the roller shutters in addition to the use and signage components.

BaCkground:

Landowner:

Georgina MacDougall

Applicant:

Kareem Hassan

Date of Application:

10 February 2021

Zoning:

MRS:    Urban

LPS2:   Zone: Commercial        R Code: No R Code

Built Form Area:

Activity Corridor

Existing Land Use:

Shop

Proposed Use Class:

Restricted Premises

Lot Area:

761m²

Right of Way (ROW):

No

Heritage List:

No

 

The subject site is zoned Commercial under the City’s Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2) and is located within the Activity Corridor Built Form Area. The subject site abuts Beaufort Street to the west which is an Other Regional Road under the Metropolitan Region Scheme. A location plan is included in Attachment 1.

 

The subject site was previously known as No. 276-282 Beaufort Street. A development application was previously supported by Council at its meeting on 26 March 2013, and approved by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) on 30 April 2013. The application was required to be determined by the WAPC is it related to public works being undertaken by the (then) Department of Housing. This approval related to the demolition of a heritage-listed building and construction of shops and a night shelter, and 13 car parking bays.

 

The subject site consists of three tenancies:

 

·       The subject tenancy is Unit 1 which abuts Beaufort Street to the west and the vehicle access way to the on-site parking area to the south. The subject tenancy was originally approved as a shop and was previously vacant until being occupied by the current use;

·       Unit 2 is located next to Unit 1 and abuts a pedestrian access way secured by a gate to the north. This tenancy was originally approved as a shop and is currently operated as an accountancy; and

·       The rear building on the subject site accommodates Tom Fischer House (No. 278A Beaufort Street) which is operated by St Vincent De Paul and provides support for those experiencing homelessness. Tom Fischer House accommodates up to 12 people and is open between 5:30pm and 8:30am every night.

 

The property adjoining the subject site to the north is No. 286-288 Beaufort Street that accommodates the Association for Services to Torture and Trauma Survivors (ASeTTS). ASeTTS provides services to people who have experienced torture or trauma, including support for family and children, youth, counselling and community development. ASeTTS operates from 9:00am to 5:00pm Monday to Friday and is closed on weekends. This site is owned by the City and leased to ASeTTS.

 

Adjoining the southern and eastern boundaries of the subject site is a five storey mixed use development at No. 250 Beaufort Street. To the west of the subject site across Beaufort Street is a five storey mixed use development at No. 273 Beaufort Street.

 

Outside of this immediate context the broader area of Beaufort Street consists of a mix of residential and commercial uses. Within 250 metres of the subject (between Parry Street and Bulwer Street), these uses include:

 

·       Restaurants and cafes;

·       Offices for varying tenants including lawyers, engineers, financial advisors and accountants;

·       Beauty and health uses including dentists, orthodontist, hair dresser, laser clinics;

·       Photography and printing studios;

·       Shops including furniture and clothing stores;

·       Performing arts venue (The Saraswati Mahavidhyala Centre for Performing Arts and Education);

·       Lodging houses including Northlodge City Central and Monger House;

·       Convenience store selling day-to-day goods, and a supermarket specialising in Asian groceries;

·       Tavern (The Brisbane Hotel);

·       Fast food outlet (McDonald’s); and

·       Residential uses including standalone dwellings and apartments in mixed use developments.

 

A context plan indicating the types and locations of uses for this portion of Beaufort Street between Bulwer Street and Newcastle Street is included as Attachment 8.

Details:

Summary Assessment

The table below summarises the planning assessment of the proposal against the provisions of the City of Vincent Local Planning Scheme No. 2 (LPS2), the City’s Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form (Built Form Policy) and other relevant local planning policies.  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 & Bicycle Parking

 

ü

Facade Design

 

ü

Signage

 

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.

 

 

Restricted Premises is an ‘A’ use.

Car and Bicycle Parking

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking Requirements

 

Car Parking Bays

5 bays required.

 

Bicycle Spaces

1 long term and 2 short term spaces required.

 

 

 

 

3 bays provided for use by staff.

 

 

No on-site bicycle spaces provided.

Façade Design

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Built Form Policy Clause 1.13

 

A1.13.1 – Active frontage to be provided to the public realm to ensure activity, interaction and surveillance of the street.

 

A1.13.10 – Security measures shall be transparent and visually permeable to allow views into the building and enable light sources to be seen from the street.

 

 

Roller shutters installed on external openings which do not permit an active frontage when closed.

 

 

Roller shutters are solid and not transparent or visually permeable.

Signage

Deemed-to-Comply Standard

Proposal

Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signage and Advertising

 

Standards common to all signs

 

Total signage area not to exceed 10 percent of total area of building wall.

 

 

 

 

Signage occupies 19.3 percent of front façade.

 

 

The above elements 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 24 days from 18 March 2021 to 11 April 2021. The consultation period was extended to account for the Easter holiday period, and the method of consultation included a sign on-site, an advertisement in the local newspaper and 349 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.

 

The City received a total of 16 submissions during the community consultation period, including 15 objections and one expressing concern but not specifically objecting to or supporting the application. A summary of the concerns received in opposition of the application is as follows:

 

·       The use having commenced operating and roller shutters being installed which is detrimental to the amenity of the streetscape;

·       The use displays products that promotes smoking and would be visible to surrounding residents, commercial business, and parent and school children passing on their way to parks and schools in the area. This would further diminish the little amenity of an area which needs revitalisation;

·       The use would not comply with relevant tobacco legislation and would promote illegal activity;

·       There is limited parking proposed on site for staff and the street parking is already congested;

·       The use will attract anti-social behaviour which will impact on the residents of the surrounding apartments; and

·       The use is contrary to the objectives of LPS2 and State policy.

 

A summary of submissions and Administration’s response is included in Attachment 4. The applicant has provided a response to the submissions and this is included in Attachment 5.

 

Administration contacted the Highgate Primary School to notify of the application, despite the school being outside of the consultation radius. No comment was received from Highgate Primary School.

 

During the consultation of the application it was brought to Administration’s attention that roller shutters had been installed on the premises. These were not proposed as part of the application lodged with the City and were not included as part of the consultation documentation. The applicant subsequently amended the application to include the roller shutters.

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. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement;

·       Policy No. 7.1.1 – Built Form Policy;

·       Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signage and Advertisements;

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

·       Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992;

·       Tobacco Products Control Act 2006; and

·       Department of Health ‘Shisha and the Law’ Guidelines 2017.

 

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.

 

Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015

 

Schedule 2, Clause 73 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provides the ability for approval to be granted for a part of the development for which approval is sought.

 

Unauthorised Development

 

Schedule 2 of the Planning and Development Regulations 2009 outlines that the applicable fee for determining a development application where the development has commenced or been carried out is the standard fee plus, by way of penalty, twice that fee. The applicant has paid a total fee of $885 for the subject application. This amount reflects the fee for a change of use and associated works, and twice that fee by way of penalty.

 

Schedule 2, Clause 65 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 provides the ability for a development application where the development has already commenced or carried out to be approved, approved with conditions or refused.

 

Should the application be refused, the use would need to cease and the signage and roller shutters be removed in accordance with Section 214 of the Planning and Development Act 2005. Similarly if the application were to be approved, the development would be required to comply with any conditions imposed.

 

Policy No. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement

 

The City’s Policy No. 4.1.22 – Prosecution and Enforcement (Enforcement Policy) provides discretion to allow a use to continue to operate until the development application is determined and establishes that this may be in circumstances where there is reasonable prospect of approval.

 

Administration was satisfied that the current operation of the premises did not present an immediate danger, hazard, health or safety risk to a person or the property, consistent with the City’s Enforcement Policy, and did not require the use to cease or additions be removed while the application was being processed.

Delegation to Determine Applications:

In accordance with the City’s Register of Delegations, Authorisations and Appointments, the application is required to be presented to Council as it has received more than five objections during the consultation period.

Risk Management Implications:

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

There are no sustainability implications applicable to this application.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Reduced smoking

The Public Health Plan implications are discussed further in the Comment section.

Financial/Budget Implications:

There are no financial or budget implications applicable to this application.

Comments:

Council is required to use its discretion to determine this application. Relevant to this are the following considerations:

 

1.       Whether the land use can be contemplated in the zone (the Restricted Premises use is permissible within the Commercial zone as it is an ‘A’ use);

 

2.       The development standards and requirements that apply, such as car parking provision and signage; and

 

3.       Matters to be given due regard in determining an application. These matters that provide guidance as to how discretion is to be exercised is provided for under Clause 67 of the Planning and Development (Local Planning Schemes) Regulations 2015 (Planning Regulations).

 

Tobacco Products Legislation

 

The Tobacco Advertising Prohibition Act 1992 includes restrictions on the advertising of smoking, purchase or use of tobacco products.

 

The use of shisha and smoking implements is legal within Western Australia and is regulated by the Department of Health through the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006. The Department of Health also has a guideline titled ‘Shisha and the Law’ that outlines the specific requirements relating to the sale and use of shisha and smoking implements.

 

The premises sells accessories related to the smoking of shisha, including pipes (hookahs), charcoal, vapes, and E-Juice. The premises does not sell tobacco or nicotine products, or provide for tobacco or nicotine products to be consumed on site.

 

The Tobacco Products Control Act 2006 requires a retailer’s licence to be issued by the Department of Health if tobacco products are to be sold or supplied.  The applicant has advised that tobacco is not sold or supplied from the premises. The premises sells smoking implements as well as flavoured charcoal and vaping liquids and would not require a tobacco seller’s licence to be obtained as a result. This has been confirmed by the Department of Health.

 

During the consultation period, the City received complaints relating to the use of the premises having commenced, and it selling tobacco and smoking implements in contravention of the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006.

 

Administration referred the matter to the Tobacco Control Branch of the Department of Health. In investigating the matter, the Tobacco Control Branch advised:

 

·       A tobacco seller’s licence is required for the retail sale of tobacco products. If a premises has a tobacco seller’s licence it is against the law to display smoking implements such as hookahs and pipes;

·       It had inspected the subject premises, and confirmed that it does not hold a tobacco seller’s licence. As the premises does not currently hold a tobacco seller’s licence there are no restrictions regarding the display of smoking implements;

·       Flavoured charcoal is not a tobacco product and E-Juice is not within the scope of the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006; and

·       Outside of the relevant tobacco legislation, the Department of Health does not have a position on the appropriateness of premises selling smoking implements.

 

Should the premises seek to sell or advertise tobacco products in the future, it would be required to comply with this applicable legislation irrespective of any planning approval granted.

 

As smoking and the use of smoking implements is a legal activity and regulated under separate State legislation, the associated health impacts are not a material planning consideration. However the use and its compatibility with the surrounding locality and extent of impact on amenity are a valid considerations, and are discussed in further detail below.

 

Land Use

 

The premises falls within the definition of the Restricted Premises which is defined as (emphasis added):

 

‘Restricted premises means premises used for the sale by retail or wholesale, or the offer for hire, loan or exchange, or the exhibition, display or delivery of –

 

a)       publications that are classified as restricted under the Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 (Commonwealth); or

b)       materials, compounds, preparations or articles which are used or intended to be used primarily in or in connection with any form of sexual behaviour or activity; or

c)       smoking-related implements.

 

The subject site is zoned Commercial under LPS 2 and Restricted Premises is an ‘A’ use. An ‘A’ use means that the land use can be approved, but at the discretion of the local government after community consultation has been undertaken.

 

The City received submissions during the consultation period relating to the land use, including its consistency with the objectives of LPS2, impacts on the amenity of the locality, and broader health and anti-social behaviour impacts.

 

Administration has assessed the acceptability of the land use against relevant considerations set out in the planning framework. This is detailed below.

 

LPS2 Commercial Zone Objectives

 

Council is to have regard to the objectives of the Commercial zone in determining the appropriateness of the land use, which are as follows:

 

·       To facilitate a wide range of compatible commercial uses that support sustainable economic development within the City;

·       To ensure development design incorporates sustainability principles, with particular regard to waste management and recycling and including but not limited to solar passive design, energy efficiency and water conservation;

·       To maintain compatibility with the general streetscape, for all new buildings in terms of scale, height, style, materials, street alignment and design of facades; and

·       To ensure that development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties in the locality.

 

The following is relevant to the assessment of the proposal against these objectives:

 

·       The premises is operating as a retail tenancy that offers products on display for sale. This would contribute towards economic development, a predominant day time retail offering and commercial activity along Beaufort Street. The retail nature of the business is consistent with surrounding commercial activities and include shops, offices, consultants, restaurants and cafes. These commercial activities provide goods or service for sale, are open to the general public, and provide day time and night time trade; consistent with the nature of the proposed land use;

·       Aside from the roller shutters, no modifications are proposed to the building. This would ensure that it maintains compatibility with the streetscape through its overall built form. This includes its building height and scale and the provision of an active street frontage that are consistent with the Built Form Policy. The roller shutters would obscure this active frontage during the hours when the business is closed, and are not supported for the reasons outlined further in this report. The development does not impact on the energy efficiency or water conservation principles. Waste will be collected by an external waste service provider, in line with the City ceasing commercial waste collection by 1 July 2021; and

·       The potential impact on the amenity of adjoining owners and residential properties is discussed below.

 

Impact on Amenity – LPS2 Commercial Zone Objectives and Clauses 67(2)(m) & (n) of the Planning Regulations

 

One of the objectives of the Commercial zone under LPS2 is to ensure development is not detrimental to the amenity of adjoining owners or residential properties. Clauses (m) and (n) of the matters to be considered by local government in the consideration of an application under the Planning Regulations relates to the compatibility of the development with its setting (Clause 67(2)(m)) and the amenity of the locality, including its character and social impacts of the development (Clause 67(2)(n)(ii) and (iii).

 

The Planning Regulations defines amenity as ‘means all those factors which combine to form the character of an area and include the present and likely future amenity’.

 

The character and existing amenity of Beaufort Street is reflective of its location in an inner city setting that serves as an activity corridor, providing for a mix of primarily commercial land uses and consisting of predominantly low to medium rise development. The area is located between and within close proximity to the Northbridge entertainment district and the Mount Lawley town centre. The area contains a wide range of commercial, retail, entertainment and residential land uses in close proximity to one another and with varying extents of intensity and activity.

 

In respect to future amenity, this extent of Beaufort Street is zoned Commercial under LPS2 that is intended to provide for a mix of compatible commercial uses, with residential uses also contemplated. This area is also identified as Activity Corridor built form area in the City’s Built Form Policy with a five-storey height limit permitted. The objective of the Activity Corridor is to improve the built form connection and design between the City’s town centres, and is envisaged to undergo intensification in line with this. The City’s Local Planning Strategy identifies this stretch of Beaufort Street as intending to provide a conduit between Mount Lawley and Northbridge, with commercial activities to be focused along this corridor. The future amenity of the locality would be reflective of an area envisaged for greater intensity of commercial activities having regard to these planning instruments.

 

In considering whether or not the development is likely to be detrimental to the amenity of adjoining businesses or residential properties in the locality, Council must consider the practical impacts of the proposal. The following comments are relevant in considering the amenity impact of the use in this context:

 

·       A Restricted Premises is a permissible use within the Commercial zone, by virtue of not being an ‘X’ (not permitted) land use. In this respect a premises of this nature that is permitted to sell smoking-related implements as per its definition under LPS2 can be contemplated under the planning framework. LPS2 does not set out any specific locational requirements for a Restricted Premises, and where these should be situated in proximity to other commercial activities or residential dwellings;

·       The premises is selling smoking implements, however does not sell tobacco. Although there is a public health impact from smoking, smoking itself is not an illegal activity. The nature of the use is not associated with an illegal activity. A comparison is made to the consumption of alcohol from licenced premises. A Liquor Store is a ‘P’ permitted use within the Commercial zone. The provision of alcohol is not an illegal activity, however the consumption of alcohol results in an impact on public health. Similarly, the Brisbane Hotel, located at No. 292 Beaufort Street approximately 60 metres from the subject premises, is a Tavern which provides for the service and consumption of alcohol on site. The consumption of alcohol from within a licenced premises is not illegal despite its public health impact. As with relevant liquor legislation, there are restrictions on the selling of smoking implements to those under the age of 18, which is administered through the Tobacco Products Control Act 2006. The applicant has advised that those under the age of 18 are not permitted to enter the store;

·       The use operates by displaying products for retail sale in a commercial setting. This is not dissimilar to the function of a shop;

·       A Cloud 9 premises that sells smoking implements is located at No. 527 Beaufort Street, Highgate, approximately 850 metres from the subject site. Prior to LPS2 coming into effect in May 2018, Restricted Premises was not a land use under the City’s previous Town Planning Scheme No. 1 (TPS1), nor was there a separate land use which related to the sale of smoking implements. This means that these premises at the time would have fallen within the Shop land use. The Shop land use under TPS1 is defined as ‘means any building wherein goods are exposed or offered for sale by retail’. Cloud 9 was operating prior to the gazettal of LPS2 and would have fallen within the Shop land use under TPS1. No. 527 Beaufort Street was zoned Commercial under TPS1 and a Shop was a ‘P’ permitted use. The store’s products related to smoking are displayed and visible from the public realm;

·       Approximately 60 metres from the subject tenancy at No. 2/250 Beaufort Street, there is an existing convenience store that sells a range of everyday products. This business also sells cigarettes and other tobacco products, as well as smoking implements. The premises has been operating since prior to LPS2 coming into effect. Under TPS1 the premises would have fallen under the Shop land use. No. 250 Beaufort Street was zoned Commercial under TPS1 and a Shop was a ‘P’ permitted use. Smoking related products sold by this business are not displayed and visible from the public realm;

·       Neither LPS2 nor the Built Form Policy include development standards which require premises of this nature to be discrete or to limit the display of smoking-related implements. Conversely the provisions of the Built Form Policy require an active street frontage to be provided and maintained. Smoking implements and advertising signage are visible from the public realm for the subject premises, and are not discrete from view of the passing public. This is due to the tenancy providing for an active and open relationship with the street which is consistent with the design intent of the Built Form Policy during operating hours. This means that smoking implements for sale are on display and visible from outside of the premises. Advertising signage on the awning and windows promote the business name which is ‘Up in Smoke’. The extent of signage is acceptable as discussed further in this Report, though it contributes to the exposure of the business;

·       In having regard for existing uses in the immediate and surrounding context of the premises, there could be a perceived impact of the Restricted Premises on the amenity of the locality. The premises is located on the same site as Tom Fischer House (located at the rear of the subject site) and adjacent to ASeTTS. Both of these uses provide services for vulnerable and at-risk members of the community. The subject premises is approximately 75 metres from Birdwood Square which is public open space, and approximately 315 metres from Highgate Primary School. There could be a perceived impact on existing users of the surrounding area which includes community services, a primary school and public open space. This is as a result of the visibility of the products given the active frontage and operating hours of the premises are predominantly during the day between 10:00am and 7:00pm. The applicant has advised that those under 18 years of age are not permitted in the premises. These services are currently operating in close proximity to a licenced venue being the Brisbane Hotel, which facilitates the service and consumption of alcohol on site. The operation of the Brisbane Hotel in close proximity to vulnerable and at-risk community groups would have some inherent impact and reduced amenity. Further to this and as noted above the premises is 60 metres from a convenience store selling tobacco products, and 850 metres from a similar premises in Cloud 9. In this regard the operation of a Restricted Premises in this context is unlikely to result in further reduced amenity for that currently experienced by being on close proximity existing premises which serve alcohol and sell tobacco and smoking implements in proximity to services for vulnerable community members and the Highgate Primary School;

·       In having regard for these at-risk and vulnerable groups supported By Tom Fischer House and ASeTTS more immediately within the vicinity of the premises:

o   The operating hours of the premises is between 10:00am and 7:00pm. These operating hours are similar to the operating hours of other businesses located along Beaufort Street, and would not have an adverse impact on surrounding residential properties, including those in the mixed use developments at No. 250 and No. 273 Beaufort Street. In particular Tom Fisher House operates between 5:30pm and 8:30am every day of the year, while ASeTTS operates between 9:00am and 5pm Monday to Friday. This results in an overlap of operating times with the Restricted Premises. During these hours there would be exposure of and availability to purchase products on offer to passers-by; and

o   Administration is unaware of any evidence to support or substantiate the claim that clientele to the premises would be responsible for anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour perpetrated by any person would be a matter for the Police to investigate and take appropriate action.

 

Matters to be considered by Local Government

 

Clause 67(2) of the Planning Regulations contains matters to be considered as part of the application. In exercising its discretion Council is to have due regard to these matters. Clauses 67(2)(m) & (n) have been detailed above. The other relevant matters are set out below.

 

1.   Clause 67(2)(a) – Aims of LPS2

 

LPS2 contains broader aims applicable to the entire Scheme area, separate to more specific objectives of the Commercial zone that have been previously detailed.

 

The use is consistent with the aim to facilitate and encourage businesses which cater for a diversity of interests and lifestyles. Shisha refers to the smoking of tobacco or other product through a water pipe known as a ‘Hookah’, and is a common past time amongst family and friends in Middle Eastern, African and Indian cultures. The use of shisha is becoming increasingly popular within Australia. This is potentially due to the diverse cultural backgrounds as well as the prominence of shisha bars and restaurants located within Australia and overseas.

 

The use is inconsistent with the aim to protect and enhance the health and welfare of inhabitants and the social environment. Although the use is not illegal and tobacco is not being sold from the site, smoking implements are being offered for sale and there is a public health impact related to smoking. Smoking has been proven to lead to a range of cancers, as well as other health impacts relating to the cardiovascular system and ongoing issues associated with addiction. There is also a perceived social impact on the health and wellbeing of those members of the community accessing the support and services provided for by Tom Fischer House and ASeTTS, as well as those utilising the nearby public open space at Birdwood Square and school children who may pass the premises. Notwithstanding this the use is permissible under the provisions of LPS2.

 

2.   Clause 67(b) – Orderly and Proper and Planning

 

Orderly and proper planning requires the consideration of whether an application is consistent with the objectives of the Scheme and relevant planning policies. The Development Assessment Panel Practice Notes: Making Good Planning Decisions 2017 provides the following clarification on the basis of which orderly and proper planning decisions can be made:

 

‘…considerations are irrelevant unless they manifest in a physical impact on amenity. If a use is permitted under the scheme, and is not illegal in a general sense, then there are no grounds to refuse it on that basis alone. That said, a development application can be refused provided the decision is made on proper planning grounds…. it should [not] turn its back on considerations of urban amenity and aesthetics’

 

As detailed in this report, the suitability of the use has been assessed having regard to the relevant scheme objectives, the City’s local planning framework, and the impact of the premises on the local amenity, consistent with the principles of orderly and proper planning.

 

3.   Clauses 67(2)(c) & (f) - State Policies

 

There are no State Planning Policies approved by the WAPC which relate to a premises of this nature.

 

State Public Health Policy

 

As referenced in the submissions received through consultation, there are broader state policies which would be relevant to the premises. These include:

 

·       The Sustainable Health Review 2019 (SHR) – The purpose of the SHR is to provide direction for the WA health system. The SHR identifies collaborating and investing in prevention to maximise good public health outcomes, including through tobacco control;

·       The Western Australian Health Promotion Strategic Framework 2017-2021 (HPSF) – The purpose of the HPSF is to set out a strategic plan for reducing the prevalence of chronic disease and injury. The HPSF identifies strategic measures related to the ‘make smoking history’ campaign. These measures include the development and implementation of healthy policies, legislation and regulation, economic and targeted interventions, development of supportive environments, and public awareness and engagement; and

·       The State Public Health Plan 2019-2024 (SPHP) – The purpose of the SPHP is to support local governments in the preparation of their own public health plans to ensure consistency with the objectives and priorities of the State. The SPHP identifies making smoking history as a policy priority. The SPHP identifies measures to include which includes lowering smoking rates, eliminating exposure to second-hand smoke, reducing smoking in groups with higher smoking rates, improve regulation of contents, product disclosure and supply, and monitoring emerging products and trends.

 

These documents include broader objectives and aims in relation to smoking, but do not identify opportunities for this to be controlled or influenced by the current planning framework.

 

While the premises does sell smoking implements, the activity is not illegal and there are other controls in place through tobacco legislation to control how this is sold and used. Smoking-related products being visible from shopfronts is also not regulated and is not prohibited where a tobacco retailer’s licence is not required.

 

City’s Public Health Plan

 

The State public health framework has fed into the preparation of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020-2025. This identifies reduced smoking in the community as one of the long term health outcomes.

 

Amongst other initiatives, the Public Health Plan seeks to deliver smoke-free town centres by 2025. The Public Health Plan also seeks to support the implementation of smoke-free environments including festivals, events, activities and/or clubs, and to advocate for reduced exposure to tobacco advertising, marketing, promotion and sponsorship.

 

There is evidence that a greater tobacco outlet density within a community can result in an increased uptake of smoking, reduce the number of smokers who wish to quit, increase exposure to young people, and contribute towards the normalisation of tobacco use. The subject premises does not sell tobacco, and Administration is not aware of any evidence which indicates that premises selling smoking implements results in a similar public health impact.

 

The City’s Public Health Plan itself is not a specific relevant consideration under the planning framework. The initiatives of the Public Health Plan do not extend to private property or contemplate strategies to restrict premises selling smoking implements.

 

4.   Clause 67(2)(fa) - Local Planning Strategy

 

The City’s Local Planning Strategy was approved by the WAPC in December 2017 and identifies the subject site as being located outside of the Beaufort Street town centre. Beaufort Street is identified as providing a conduit between Mount Lawley and Northbridge, with commercial activities to be focused along this corridor.

 

The commercial nature of the use is consistent with this intent of the Local Planning Strategy by providing for commercial activity along this corridor.

 

5.   Clause 67(2)(s) – Adequacy of Parking

 

The premises utilises existing vehicle access and there is parking available on site. The adequacy of car parking available on site is acceptable and discussed in greater detail below.

 

6.   Clause 67(2)(x) – Impact on the Community

 

As detailed above, the use would have limited impact on the immediate area, aside from perceptions related to the nature of the use. The premises does not sell tobacco, and the selling of smoking-related implements is not illegal. While smoking has been demonstrated to have a broader health impact on the community, this is not reflected in the local planning framework as it does not restrict premises located on private property that involve the retail sale of smoking-related implements.

 

LPS2 specifically defines such a land use which sells smoking implements and sets out that it is permissible in the subject Commercial zone. By doing so it could be argued that the broader impacts of this use have been contemplated and deemed acceptable through the preparation of LPS2. The impact on the community needs to considered in the context that the land use is specifically contemplated and is a permissible use, and weighted in Council’s decision accordingly.

 

There are existing uses in the area that sell tobacco and products related to tobacco smoking, and venues that serve alcohol that already exist in the area and that would reasonably have an impact on the community. In this regard, the associated impacts on the community inherent with the Restricted Premises land use is not deemed to have a broader social impact than that which currently exists in the locality as a result of these other premises.

 

7.   Clause 67(2)(y) – Submissions Received

 

16 submissions were received in response to community consultation. This included 15 objections and one submission which expressed concerns.

 

A summary of the submissions received is included as Attachment 4, where Administration has provided a response to the issues raised.

 

The issues raised in the submissions have been considered as part of Administration’s assessment of this application. Receiving objections to the proposal alone is not a valid reason for the application to be refused.

 

Acceptability of Land Use

 

The Restricted Premises land use is provided for and contemplated in the Commercial zone as per the planning framework. The premises also satisfies the matters to be given due regard in considering an application under the Planning Regulations.

 

Accounting for the immediate surrounding context of the subject site and broader context of Beaufort Street, the nature and operation of the use would not further diminish the existing amenity.

 

Administration notes the perception of approving a use of this nature would be in contrast with the efforts of the State and the City to reduce public health impacts from smoking. The consideration of this application against relevant matters demonstrates that these public health initiatives do not translate to a planning system that restricts or prohibits businesses from offering smoking implements by retail sale. Given the legality of the use of smoking implements associated with shisha, and the lack of any detailed guidance in respect to uses of this nature under the local planning framework, the application is recommended for approval, subject to conditions.

 

Should Council be of the view that the land use is not appropriate at the subject site and in having due regard for the matters to be considered under the Planning Regulations, it would be open to Council to refuse this application.

 

In refusing the application, the use would be required to cease and roller shutters and signage be removed from the tenancy, with enforcement by Administration to be undertaken in accordance with the City’s Enforcement Policy. The applicant would also have the ability to seek a review of Council’s decision through the State Administrative Tribunal.

 

Car and Bicycle Parking

 

Car Parking

 

The parking requirements for the development for three premises on the site approved by the WAPC in 2013 consisted of:

 

·       16.1 parking bays were required for the entire development, being:

o   10.1 bays for the two shop tenancies (which equates to five bays for each tenancy); and

o   6 bays for the staff of the night shelter; and

·       13 bays were approved on-site. This was a shortfall of 3.1 bays. A cash in lieu contribution was paid for 1.45 bays for the entire development.

 

The WAPC approval did not specify the number of bays to be provided for each premises, and the strata plan does not allocate parking bays to any of the tenancies.

 

The subject site is configured to provide three parking bays located at the rear of each of the two premises fronting Beaufort Street (which includes the subject Restricted Premises tenancy), and seven parking bays (one of which is an accessible bay) located in front of the building located to the rear.

 

In accordance with the City’s current Policy No. 7.7.1 – Non-Residential Development Parking (Parking Policy), a Restricted Premises requires the provision of 4.9 parking bays (rounded to five). The applicant’s cover letter outlines that there are three bays located at the rear of the tenancy, which would be used by staff. This results in a shortfall of two bays.

 

During the consultation period the City received submissions in relation to the adequacy of parking in the area to accommodate customers.

 

A Parking Management Plan has been submitted by the applicant as justification for the parking arrangement. This is included Attachment 6 and is summarised as follows:

 

·       Three on-site bays will be available for staff. Staffing numbers would typically be one staff member to open the premises, and be on-site during the morning and early afternoon periods. From mid-afternoon until close of business there would typically be a second staff member on-site. Customers would utilise existing parking in the area, and are anticipated to spend approximately 20 minutes in the premises at any time;

·       Access is available to 237 public parking bays, including 35 on-street bays within 150 metres of the subject site and 202 bays within the Brisbane Street car park which is within 250 metres;

·       The subject site is approximately one kilometre from McIver Station and within 250 metres of bus stops which connect to five different routes along Beaufort Street; and

·       Beaufort Street provides for pedestrian paths connecting to local amenities, as well as dedicated bus, taxi and cycle ways.

 

The 13 on-site parking bays are located behind an access gate. Condition 16 of the WAPC approval required the gate to be appropriately managed to ensure that these bays are readily accessible. This was to ensure that access to on-site bays is managed and readily available for staff and customers of the homeless shelter and the (then) shop tenancies. This condition is not proposed to be modified as part of this application.

 

The parking provision is suitable for the following reasons:

 

·       The parking standards under the Parking Policy are the same for Restricted Premises and Shop uses. The Restricted Premises does not result in any increased parking requirement or intensity of activity compared to the previous Shop use. These parking arrangements are not being altered or modified as part of this application;

·       A review of the on and off-street parking provided in the vicinity of the subject indicates that there is capacity to accommodate customer parking for the premises, detailed as follows:

o   There are 35 two hour ticketed on-street parking bays located along Beaufort Street within approximately 130 metres of the subject site. The City’s parking survey data captures Beaufort Street between Newcastle Street and Walcott Street, but does not break this down to smaller stretches along the street. In light of this a review of the aerial mapping was undertaken. This identifies that there are on average 30 bays available at any one time. This 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:

-      Saturday 27 February 2021 – 10 cars parked (25 bays available);

-      Sunday 3 January 2021 – three car parked (32 bays available);

-      Friday 20 November 2020 – 12 car parked (23 bays available);

-      Saturday 10 October 2020 – one car parked (34 bays available);

-      Saturday 30 August 2020 – two cars parked (33 bays available); and

-      Sunday 3 May 2020 – four cars parked (31 bays available);

o   There are 49 on-street parking bays along Brisbane Street that are located approximately 55 metres from the subject site. Of these bays, 45 are two hour ticketed parking, two bays are 15 minutes and two bays are 30 minutes. The City has parking data resulting from a survey undertaken on Wednesday 28 November, Friday 30 November and Saturday 1 December 2018 and captured the occupancy of bays for the hours of 9:00am to 11:00am, 1:00pm to 2:00pm, 3:00pm to 5:00pm, and 6:00pm to 8:00pm. The City’s parking data identifies that there are on average 17 bays available at any one time. The busiest period was identified as being between 12:00pm and 2:00pm on Friday and Saturday where nine bays were available; and

o   The City’s parking survey data identifies that there are 214 parking bays located within the Brisbane Street car park which is located approximately 115 metres from the subject site and provides for ticketed parking between 7:00am to midnight Monday to Sunday. The City’s parking survey data identifies that there are on average 178 bays available at any one time. The busiest period was identified as being between 6:00pm and 8:00pm on Saturday where 153 bays were available;

·       The subject site is located along Beaufort Street and is serviced by bus routes 67, 68 and 950 which provides high frequency services between the Morley, Mirrabooka and Perth Busports. There are four bus stops associated with these services which are located between approximately 177 metres and 273 metres from the subject site. The accessibility of these bus routes support travel to and from the subject site by means other than car; and

·       Bicycle parking facilities are recommended to be provided as a condition of the approval. Two short term bicycle parking bays can be provided in the verge area in front of the subject tenancy. This is discussed in further detail below, and would provide for conveniently located bicycle spaces for use by customers and would support cycling as a convenient alternative to driving to the venue.

 

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 use, without the need for a cash-in-lieu contribution from the applicant.

 

Bicycle Parking

 

The Restricted Premises requires a total of two short term and one long term bicycle parking bays under the current Parking Policy. The applicant has not proposed the provision of any on-site bicycle parking spaces for the subject tenancy.

 

Condition 17 of the development approval issued by the WAPC in 2013 required the provision of bicycle parking facilities. It did not specify the number, however the approved plans show one bicycle rack to be provided in the enclosed courtyard which forms part of the rear building. This area is not readily accessible to customers of the tenancies on-site fronting Beaufort Street. There are currently no on-site bicycle parking spaces provided for either of the two street fronting tenancies.

 

The applicant’s Parking Management Plan, included as Attachment 6, identifies there being seven bicycle parking spaces located in the verge on the opposite side of Beaufort Street. Administration has confirmed that there are 10 bicycle parking spaces in close proximity to the subject site, being:

 

·       Eight bicycle bays located within the verge area in front of No. 273 Beaufort Street; and

·       Two bicycle bays located within the verge area in front of No. 283-289 Beaufort Street.

 

While these bicycle parking spaces are available for use by the public, they are not necessarily convenient for use by customers of the Restricted Premises given they would need to cross Beaufort Street to do so. These bicycle parking spaces are located in front of three Restaurant/Café tenancies, and may be used by the customers of these businesses. This may mean that these spaces are not always readily available.

 

Administration recommends that two short-term bicycle parking spaces be provided for within the Beaufort Street verge in front of the premises. While this is one space less than that required by the current Parking Policy, it is consistent with the number of bicycle bays considered appropriate for these tenancies set out in the previous approval issued by the WAPC.

 

Bicycle parking standards for a Restricted Premises use is the same as that for the previous Shop use under the City’s Parking Policy. The floor area of the tenancy is not being increased and as a result there is no intensification of activity.

 

The City’s Technical Services confirmed that there is adequate space within the verge for two bicycle spaces to be provided which would comply with AS2890.3 and maintain adequate space so as to not impede pedestrian movement along the path.

 

The nature of the Restricted Premises is such that it is 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 more suitable than a dedicated long-term bicycle bay in a locker. Adequate parking is also available on-site to cater for the demands of staff as noted above.

 

The provision of two short-term bicycle spaces within the verge is consistent with the objectives of the Parking Policy as it would be adequate to cater for the demand of customers attending the premises, be conveniently located for use by customers of the premises, and support cycling as an alternative to driving.

 

Façade Design

 

The Built Form Policy requires developments to provide uninterrupted activation to street frontages to maximise street surveillance. The Built Form Policy also requires any security measure to be visually permeable and located internally or to be recessed between elements in the façade.

 

Visually impermeable roller shutters have been installed to all street facing windows and doors that reduce activation to Beaufort Street. The roller shutters are located externally and are not recessed between elements of the façade.

 

The City received comments during the community consultation that raised concerns in regards to adverse visual impacts as a result of the roller shutters. The applicant has advised that the roller shutters were installed in response to graffiti and damage to the windows of the tenancy.

 

The roller shutters do not meet the local housing objectives of the Built Form Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The roller shutters are proposed to be open during business operating hours and closed outside of the operating hours. The roller shutters would be closed between 7:00pm and 10:00am Monday to Sunday based on the operating hours of the Restricted Premises. The roller shutters would affect the visual connection of the tenancy with adjoining public spaces outside of the business operating hours;

·       The roller shutters provide a solid, blank and unarticulated facade that results in a bulky and visually imposing structure to the street. The solid form of the roller shutters appear obtrusive to the streetscape and are not in keeping with the scale and character of the established streetscape or locality. The roller shutters adversely impact the quality of the pedestrian environment and the overall appeal and aesthetics of the area;

·       The Built Form Policy promotes commercial developments within Activity Corridors to have an ‘active frontage’ providing interaction between the development and the street. While the roller shutters are closed, all visual connection and passive surveillance from the shopfront into public spaces is absent. As a result, the liveliness, interest, comfort and safety of the surrounding public spaces is reduced; and

·       The WAPC’s Designing Out Crime Guidelines (the Guidelines) detail that active frontages have a positive impact on safety. The Guidelines advise that the inclusion of roller shutters could detract from the amenity of an area, resulting in an increase in the perception or fear of crime, and that all other security measures should be investigated prior to introducing roller shutters. As the subject site is located within an activity corridor area, an active and engaging frontage is fundamental to providing actual and perceived surveillance which is lost as a result of the installation of the roller shutters.

 

The applicant has indicated that they are willing to remove the roller shutters and investigate other alternative security measures which would be consistent with the Built Form Policy.

 

Signage

 

The signage which forms part of this application has already been installed on the premises and consists of:

 

·       Four ‘logo’ signs, with one on each of the windows. The ‘logo’ sign consists of the operator’s branding ‘Up in Smoke’;

·       One ‘shop info’ sign above the door, displaying operating hours; and

·       One sign on the awning which consists of the ‘logo’ and ‘shop ethos’. The ‘shop ethos’ displays the website and products available. The products described on this sign are gifts, accessories, charcoal, vapes and e-juice.

 

The signage complies with the requirements of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signage and Advertising (Signage Policy), with the exception of the total area of signage. This is required to not exceed 10 percent of the total area of a wall. The extent of signage as a result of those signs listed above covers 19.3 percent of the front façade.

 

The extent of signage satisfies the principles of the Signage Policy for the following reasons:

 

·       The scale of the signage is minimal and does not detract from the building due to the design. The ‘logos’ have a cumulative area of 2.4 square metres on the windows. The signage on the windows occupies approximately 15 percent of the glazed area, leaving 85 percent unobscured. This maintains the opportunity for passive and active surveillance of the street;

·       The awning signage is consistent with the deemed-to-comply standard of the Signage Policy which does not include any size limitations on an awning sign;

·       The building is of a relatively modest design and the signage does not obscure or impact any architectural detailing;

·       The signage is compatible with the surrounding development context. The surrounding context consists of a mix of commercial uses, all of which include advertising signage, and is similar in nature to the subject signage. The signage is not detrimental to the amenity of the locality in this respect; and

·       The extent of the signage that advertises products available from the premises is minimised, and is generic in describing the types of products available. The signage relates to the premises, has not been designed to target particular demographics, and is commensurate with the realistic need to advertise products available from the site.

 

As part of its assessment, Administration has identified that the current ‘logo’ signs installed on each of the windows are larger than what is indicated on the elevations plan (‘Elevation 01’, included as Attachment 2). In response the applicant has confirmed that they are seeking approval for the signage as shown on the elevation plan - not what is currently installed, and would make the necessary modifications to bring this into accord with the plans if approved. A condition is recommended for these modifications to the existing signage to be made within 28 days should the application be approved.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

9.2          Draft Pickle District Place Plan

Attachments:             1.       Draft Pickle District Place Plan  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the Draft Volume 7: Pickle District Place Plan for the purpose of advertising in accordance with the City’s Policy No. 4.1.5 – Community Consultation; and

2.       NOTES that the outcomes of advertising and Draft Volume 7: Pickle District Place Plan will be presented to Council for endorsement following the 42 day advertising period.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider endorsing the Draft Volume 7: Pickle District Place Plan (PDPP) for advertising.

Background:

On 23 August 2016 (Item 9.1.5) at its Ordinary Meeting of Council, Council endorsed Administration’s approach to Place Management and the preparation of a Town Centre Place Plan for each of the City’s five town centres.

 

Volume 1: Vincent Town Centres Place Plan (VTCPP) and Volume 2: North Perth Town Centre Plan (NPTCPP) were adopted in April 2018 and Volume 3: Mount Hawthorn Town Centre Place Plan (MHTCPP) was adopted September 2019.

 

On 17 November 2020 (Item 9.5) at its Ordinary Meeting of Council, Council endorsed the Place Plan Minor Review of the Vincent Town Centre Place Plan (VTCPP), which included the Pickle District in West Perth as the first place in the City that is not an established town centre to progress a Town Centre Place Plan.

 

A draft version of the PDPP was prepared in late 2020 and the draft actions and initiatives were workshopped with the local town team, The Pickle District, on 19 November 2020. Based on feedback, the document was further refined and a revised version of the PDPP has been prepared and is included as Attachment 1.

Details:

The Pickle District is situated in West Perth between Leederville and Northbridge. It is a creative precinct, home to new and diverse creative businesses including art galleries, artist and design studios, a boutique theatre, photographic studios and creative co-op working spaces.

 

Inspiration for the name ‘Pickle District’ comes from the vinegar brewing and pickle and jam manufacturing factories in the area, which operated from around 1912. These included R.H. Maskiell and Co Ltd sauce, jam and pickle manufacturers, originally located on Golding Street in 1912, later moving to 567 Newcastle Street.

 

PDPP has been prepared to guide the City’s allocation of funding and resources in the Pickle District.

 

PDPP captures and builds upon the City’s existing strategies and plans and those developed by the local town team, The Pickle District. The Pickle District Action Plan is a strategic action plan designed to proactively shape the Pickle District’s future direction and identity. The Pickle District Action Plan was developed in consultation with the local community and has directly informed the development of the PDPP.

 

To inform the development of the PDPP, Administration has completed an analysis of the Pickle District in relation to the following informing strategies and plans:

 

·       The Pickle District Action Plan 2020;

·       Greening Plan 2018-2023;

·       Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024;

·       Safer Vincent 2019-2022;

·       Disability Access and Inclusion Plan 2017-2022;

·       Reconciliation Action Plan | Innovate 2019-2021;

·       Public Open Space Strategy 2018;

·       Economic Development Strategy 2011-2016;

·       Youth Action Plan 2020-2022;

·       Public Health Plan 2020-2025;

·       Arts Development Action Plan 2018-2020;

·       Draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030; and

·       Draft Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy.

 

The PDPP has been structured to align with the priorities set out in the City’s Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028. This structure is reflected in the draft Volume 4: Leederville Town Centre Place Plan (LTCPP) and draft Volume 5: Beaufort Street Town Centre Place Plan (BSTCPP), which Council endorsed for advertising on 27 April 2021.

 

PDPP outlines the schedule of work proposed to be undertaken in the Pickle District over a four year period. If endorsed, the PDPP would enable the City to better manage service delivery and resources to support the Pickle District now and into the future.

Consultation/Advertising:

If endorsed, the PDPP would be advertised for a period of 42 days by way of local public notice, display at the City of Vincent Library, information postcards to Pickle District businesses, workshopping with the local town team, The Pickle District, and publication on the City’s website and social media platforms.

Legal/Policy:

The Integrated Planning and Reporting Framework outlined by the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 requires the City to adopt a Strategic Community Plan and a Corporate Business Plan (CBP) to be supported by the Annual Budget and a range of informing strategies. The PDPP is outlined as a project in the City’s CBP.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to endorse the PDPP for the purpose of advertising.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

Our urban forest/canopy is maintained and increased.

 

Accessible City

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

 

Connected Community

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

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

We recognise, engage and partner with the Whadjuk Noongar people and culture.

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

 

Thriving Places

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

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

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

 

Sensitive Design

Our built form is attractive and diverse, in line with our growing and changing community.

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

 

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

 

Urban Greening and Biodiversity

Sustainable Transport

Waste Reduction

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Increased mental health and wellbeing

Increased physical activity

Financial/Budget Implications:

The cost of advertising will be met through the City’s existing operational budget.

 

The implementation of actions within the PDPP would be supported through allocations within current and future City operating and project budgets as follows:

 

Actions to be implemented through existing operating budgets or existing project budgets:

1.2, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 5.1, 6.1

Actions that have requested budget for 21/22:

4.1 – Streetscape Audit

$10,000

4.2 – Art for Artlets

$10,000

Actions that may require additional budget from 22/23 onwards:

2.3, 2.4, 4.2, 4.3

 

Any artwork created through the PDPP will be maintained through the Artwork Maintenance Budget.

Comments:

PDPP aligns the City’s activities and services with a clear plan for the area that is informed by the community. The ongoing review of the document would ensure that the City’s service delivery in the area keeps pace with emerging trends and community aspirations and ensures that the Pickle District continues to thrive as a place for people to live, work and visit.

 

The City will continue to work closely with The Pickle District to support the continued improvement of the Pickle District Action Plan, which would continue to inform the evolution of the PDPP.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 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

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

9.3          Accessible City Strategy - Outcomes of Advertising

Attachments:             1.       Submission Report

2.       Accessible City Strategy  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ADOPTS the Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030; and

2.       NOTES the adopted Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 will be subject to further formatting, styling and graphic design as determined by the Chief Executive Officer prior to publication.

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to consider the City’s responses to public submissions, and to consider adopting the updated Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030.

Background:

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

The City began the process of developing the ACS by undertaking a series of investigations inclusive of community and key stakeholder engagement to identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) associated with the existing transport and land use network. In line with the result of this investigation, the ACS has been developed.

 

The draft Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030 (draft ACS) was approved by Council for public advertising on 13 October 2020.

 

The intent of the consultation was to gain feedback on:

 

a)       Whether the vision and objectives of the draft ACS align with community expectations;

b)       Whether the proposed actions are important to our community, and what impact they might have; and

c)       Whether we missed anything.

Details:

The draft ACS was advertised from 3 December 2020 to 19 February 2021 via the following methods:

 

·       Notice in a local newspaper;

·       Notices on the City’s website, social media and e-newsletter;

·       Dedicated project page on Imagine Vincent, providing opportunity to comment generally or fill out a survey;

·       Notices at the City’s Administration Centre and Library;

·       Distribution of flyers around key locations in Vincent;

·       Targeted engagement with key stakeholders; and

·       An open day workshop inviting people to comment in person on the draft ACS.

 

The results of the public consultation period are as follows:

 

·       Unique page views – 396

·       Document downloads – 172

·       Survey participants – 43

·       Email submissions – 10

 

Responses via the survey and email submissions were generally supportive of the intent of the draft ACS, with many suggestions on how to make the document clearer, which actions to prioritise, and which actions aren’t as important.

 

A submission report is included as Attachment 1. In the report, each page comprises an action, a chart showing the importance of the action, a summary of the comments received in relation to that action, Administration’s response to the comments, and any proposed changes to the ACS as a result.

 

There were a series of changes were made to the ACS as a result of the comments received, with 5 key changes as follows:

 

1.       Comments demonstrated general support for the vision and objectives, with some suggestions that the City should also be aiming for physical and mental health improvements, and consistency in application of the ACS.

 

Administration agrees that these are important to highlight, especially since a number of the proposed actions work towards this outcome. As a result, the ACS has been modified to include ‘healthy’ and ‘consistent’ in the objectives.

 

2.       58 percent of respondents supported reducing speed limits to 40km/h on residential streets, 28 percent did not support it, and 14 percent were unsure. Comments on this item suggested the results of the trial did not show a sufficient change to broaden the speed reduction to the rest of the City. Comments also suggested there were alternative methods to get the desired outcome.

 

Administration agree that there is more that could be done to support this action, specifically around infrastructure improvements, education, and data collection. For that reason, the ACS includes a number of different actions that work to support a 40km/h speed limit. In order for the 40km/h speed limit to be successful in reducing speeds, other actions such as preparing the Link and Place Guidelines should be prioritised in the near future. Administration does not agree with comments that there is unlikely to be any increase in safety, as evidence from around the world demonstrates that reduced speeds lead to fewer and less serious crashes. No changes are proposed to this action.

 

3.       Comments suggested that some actions are outside of the City’s control, such as improving east-west public transit connectivity, and implementing a carbon emissions budget.

 

Administration agree that east-west public transit can only be improved by the Public Transport Authority. The wording of that action is recommended to be changed to give the City more of an advocacy role in this regard. In terms of a carbon emissions budget, it would be appropriate for the City to adopt its own budget, as is identified in the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy; however, applying this to the local government area would likely be unachievable on such a small scale. The wording of this action has been changed so the City advocates for introduction of an emissions budget at a State or Federal level.

 

4.       Comments suggested that some actions were unclear, or that the explanation of an action was inconsistent with the action itself.

 

Administration agree that some actions were unclear or mismatched with their explanation. Changes have been made throughout the document to improve clarity and consistency.

 

5.       Some comments also suggested that ‘accessibility for all’ was not clear enough.

 

Changes have been made to the wording of pedestrian and cycling actions to ensure that accessibility for all is identified as a priority.

 

Some comments made also referred to the background section of the draft ACS. These have been outlined as per Attachment 1 and relevant changes made to the ACS. The modified ACS showing all of the above changes is included at Attachment 2.

Consultation/Advertising:

The next phase of consultation will commence when undertaking each identified action in the ACS. The consultation for each project will be determined on a case-by-case basis.

 

Consultation on the ACS itself will occur during the major review in 2025.

Legal/Policy:

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

 

·       Strategic Community Plan 2018-2028;

·       Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024;

·       Greening Plan 2018-2023; and

·       Local Planning Strategy 2014.

 

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

Risk Management Implications

Low: It is low risk for Council to adopt the ACS. The vision and objectives of the ACS are guided by community sentiment and each of the actions have been determined based on quantitative evidence and advice from an expert transport engineering firm. Some actions within the ACS will require further risk analysis during the scoping phase to determine their feasibility and scale.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Accessible City

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

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

We have embraced emerging transport technologies.

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Sustainable Transport

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Financial/Budget Implications:

The approximate total cost of the standalone project items included in the ACS’ 10 year Implementation Plan is $3,065,000. This includes staff resourcing to deliver on these actions.

 

The first year of implementation and associated resourcing has an approximate cost of $425,000. This is being funded through carry-forward budget from the 2020/21 financial year, 2021/22 capital expenditure budget, the City’s Cash in Lieu Reserve and secured Main Roads funding. The ongoing cost of implementing the ACS will continue to be funded through these channels, as well as other external funding opportunities.

Comments:

The ACS is the City’s first integrated transport planning document. It is a crucial part of ensuring connection and opportunities for all people to access aspects of daily life including work, education, shopping, leisure, healthcare and other services. The ACS will be implemented through the completion of its many actions. The City will decide through its annual budget process which actions will be completed each year. The ACS will be reviewed annually, with a major review to occur in 2025.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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                                                                                            18 May 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


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

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                                                                           18 May 2021

10          Infrastructure & Environment

10.1        Public Consultation Results - Mini-Roundabout Pilot Project

Attachments:             1.       Plan of Proposed Locations of Mini-Roundabouts

2.       Map of Proposed Project Area

3.       Letter - Mini Roundabouts URSP Consultation - Resident Letter

4.       Mini-roundabout Correspondence Responses

5.       Monash Institute of Transport Study - Understanding Safety and Driver Behaviour Impacts of Mini-roundabouts on Local Roads  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the public consultation results on the ‘mini roundabout’ pilot program contained in this report. 

2.       APPROVES the implementation of the Urban Road Safety Program ‘mini roundabout’ pilot project within the area bounded by Raglan Road, Hyde, Vincent and Fitzgerald Streets, North Perth/Mt Lawley in May/June 2021, as shown on Plan 3612-CP, Attachment 1.

3.       NOTES that the pilot project will be fully funded by Main Roads WA. 

4.       APPROVES the subject area moving from 50kmh to 40kmh during the pilot project period in liaison with Main Roads WA as shown in Attachment 2.

5.       REQUESTS Administration to inform the respondents of Council’s decision.

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the results of the Public Consultation of the proposed installation of nine ‘mini-roundabouts’ within the area bounded by Raglan Road, Fitzgerald, Vincent, Hyde Streets, North Perth/Mt Lawley, in conjunction with Main Roads WA under their Urban Road Safety Program.

Background:

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

 

The aim of the URSP is to:

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

A report was subsequently submitted to Council at its Ordinary Meeting of 15 December 2020 where the following, in part, recommendation was adopted:

 

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

 

Given that the standard 50kmh urban speed limit currently applies within the pilot project area, Main Roads has advised that they support, through the pilot program, making the area a 40kmh speed zone in conjunction with the introduction of the Mini-Roundabouts treatment. The area where the speed reduction will be applied is shown in attachment 2. This project will support the principles of the City’s draft Accessibility Strategy and its aim to reduce speed limits across Vincent to 40kmh.

Details:

In mid-March the City commenced an extensive public consultation process inclusive of a 670 letter drop to all of the properties within the area bounded by Fitzgerald, Forrest, William and Vincent Streets, encompassing the project, an Image Vincent EHQ web page, email and written responses. The letter was to inform residents who lived in the proposed pilot area of the consultation but the survey was available to all residents via the website.

 

The consultation opened 18 March and by the close of consultation on 12 April 2021 some 74 responses had been received.  The web portal receiving 52 responses, with the remainder, 22, via email and written correspondence.

 

One respondent replied via both email and web portal, and therefore the response only included once (hence the total of 73 in the tables below).

 

The on-line survey asked the following:

 

1)   Do you support the ‘mini roundabouts’ pilot project and you have any comments or thoughts you’d like to add?

 

2)   Do you live or own property in the area, bounded by Fitzgerald, Forrest, William and Vincent Streets?

 

3)   Do you live or own property within the City of Vincent?

 

All web portal and email responses were reviewed (see attachments) and results were determined to be as follows:

 

Support Implementation

30 of 73

41.1%

Oppose Implementation

30 of 73

41.1%

Unsure or did not indicate

13 of 73

17.8%

 

When only the responses received by directly affected residents within the aforementioned consultation area were tallied, the results from the 50 responses were:

 

Support Implementation

25 of 50

50.0%

Oppose Implementation

17 of 50

34.0%

Unsure or did not indicate

8 of 50

16.0%

 

Public Concerns

 

Respondents that did not support the project were generally of the view that roundabouts were not suitable for pedestrians and cyclists.  Further, some noted that the City has indicated that a possible Safe Active Street will be routed through some of the intersections within the pilot project area.

 

It should be noted that the implementation will be of mini-roundabouts, not standard, or typical, roundabouts.  The former having an annulus diameter of 3m, with the latter 6m.  The mini-roundabout does not cause cars to deflect out around the annulus as far as if they were negotiating a standard roundabout, which can be disconcerting for cyclists.  Secondly, and most significantly, the selected area has low traffic speeds and low traffic volumes with good sight distances which provides significant levels of safety to pedestrians and cyclists alike.  A full roundabout already exists just north of the project area. No comments were received about removing it.

 

Other feedback noted that the effectiveness of a mini-roundabout is yet to be confirmed, in the Western Australian context, which is the point of the pilot project.  Main Roads URSP team are of the view that the grid pattern installation of a mini-roundabout will result in reduced speeds and improved safety for all road users within the ‘cell’ and that this will be borne out by future traffic data collection and accident statistics

 

Safe Active Street.

 

City Officers subsequently met with the Department of Transport Bicycle Network Team in relation to the implementation of the mini-roundabouts at intersections that form part of the proposed Norfolk St Safe Active Street (SAS) route, with the exact route yet to be determined.

 

While they had some reservations about ‘mini-roundabouts’ they were scheduled to meet with Main Roads URSP team to discuss the matter. They accepted that the pilot project may aid in the speed reductions necessary to meet the Safe Active Street criteria, and that they would support any SAS implementation program to start at the Walcott Street end of the route rather than Vincent Street while the success, or otherwise, of the pilot project was assessed.

 

Consultation/Advertising:

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

 

Administration undertook a Public Consultation process initiated by a 670 letter drop, which directed responses to the Image Vincent EHQ page, and email or written options. The letter was to inform residents who lived in the proposed pilot area of the consultation but the survey was available to all residents via the website. The consultation was open from the 18 March to the 12 April 2021.  All correspondence received are shown in the attachments.

Legal/Policy:

While all of the roads within the project area come under the care and control of the City prior to any works proceeding the associated regulatory lines and signs have to be approved by Main Roads WA Traffic Services Directorate.

Risk Management Implications

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

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

We have minimised our impact on the environment.

 

Accessible City

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Sustainable Transport

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Reduced injuries and a safer community

Financial/Budget Implications:

The works, estimated to cost $230,000, would be fully funding by Main Road’s WA Urban Road Safety Program.

 

Comments:

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

 

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



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 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                                                                             18 May 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

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

10.2        Advertising of new/amended policy - Memorials in Public Places and Reserves (2.1.5)

Attachments:             1.       Memorials in Parks and Public Reserves Policy (2.1.5) - February 2010

2.       Memorials in Parks and Public Reserves Policy (2.1.5) - Reviewed and amended April 2021  

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       APPROVES the reviewed and updated Memorials in Public Places and Reserves Policy (2.1.5) as shown at Attachment 2, for the purpose of public notice.

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to provide local public notice of the proposed new policy and invite public comments for a period of at least 21 days; and

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

 

Purpose of Report:

For Council to approve the proposed amendments to the Memorials in Public Places and Reserves Policy (2.1.5) for public notice

Background:

At its 22 August 1997 Meeting, Council adopted the Memorials in Public Places and Reserves Policy (2.1.5).

 

The policy has not been reviewed since February 2010.

Details:

The findings of the review of Policy 2.1.5 are as follows:

 

Consideration of Policy Objectives

 

The Policy does not outline the policy objectives in a simple format. It is proposed the objectives are simplified in order to:

·      Ensure the conservation of commemorative memorials within the City; and

·      To facilitate a consistent approach to the inclusion of commemorative memorials.

 

Responsibility of Metropolitan Cemeteries Board

 

The Policy lacks emphasis on the responsibility of the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board in memorialising deceased persons, and that plaques within City owned or maintained public places and reserves should be considered as a secondary option. It is proposed this information is included within the Policy.  

 

Council’s Approval of Applications

 

Clause 2 (i) requires a report to be submitted to the Council to consider each application for a memorial. It is proposed that a report to Council is only necessary where the applicant disagrees with decision of Administration.

 

Commemorative Trees or Park Furniture Guidelines

 

The Policy did not specify whether a plaque is permitted to be erected alongside a commemorative tree. In the interest of public safety and reducing trip, slip and fall hazards, a subclause outlining that plaques are not permitted with a commemorative tree is proposed.

Memorials on Main Roads Controlled Roads

 

The Policy does not communicate the responsibility of an applicant to apply to Main Roads WA to erect a roadside memorial on Main Roads WA controlled roads. A subclause is proposed under Roadside Memorials to include this information.

 

Distribution of Ashes

 

The Policy allows for the distribution of ashes on Council owned and managed property, as set out in clause 5. Given the availability of specialised facilities operated by the Metropolitan Cemeteries Board, it is deemed not appropriate to allow the burial or distribution of ashes of a deceased person on City owned land.

 

The changes in relation to these findings are highlighted in red and the policy has been drafted into the new City policy template as shown in attachment 2.

Consultation/Advertising:

In accordance with the City’s Community Consultation Policy (Appendix 2), public notice of all new and significantly amended policies must be provided for a period exceeding 21 days in the following ways:

 

·           notice published on the City’s website;

·           notice posted to the City’s social media;

·           notice published in the local newspapers;

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

·           letters distributed to relevant local businesses and community groups

 

Public notice of this proposed new policy will be provided from 24 May 2021 subject to Council approval to proceed as recommended.

Legal/Policy:

Section 2.7(2)(b) of the Local Government Act 1995 provides Council with the power to determine policies.

 

The City’s Policy Development and Review Policy sets out the process for the development and review of the City’s policy documents.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to provide public notice of the proposed amended policy.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Enhanced Environment

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This does not contribute to any specific sustainability outcomes of the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024, however the ability to opt for a commemorative tree to be planted within a City owned or managed reserve assists in greening and tree canopy increase.

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:

There is negligible financial impact to the City. All associated costs of memorials shall be covered by the applicant.

Comments:

Administration is proposing these changes to the policy in order to bring it in line with current practices as well as to provide the community with up to date information. It is therefore recommended Council approve the recommended amendments to the Memorials in Public Places and Reserves Policy (2.1.5) for the purpose of public notice.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

10.3        Tender no IE105/2020 Design, Supply and Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems at City of Vincent Sites

Attachments:             1.       Evaluation Worksheet - RFT IE105-2020 - Solar Panel RFT - Confidential  

2.       Comparison table and relevant information - Confidential   

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

 

1.     That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by DNX Energy Pty Ltd for Tender No. IE105/2020 for the Design, Supply & Installation of Solar Photovoltaic Systems at various City of Vincent sites.

 

2.     NOTES the purchase and installation of solar PV systems in a City-owned premises under lease or licence will only proceed where:

a.   The lease or licence holder (“lease holder”) agrees to fund the cost of purchase and installation, commensurate with the proportion of lease holder electricity utilisation, in return for achieving a reduction in utility expenses at the premises; and

b.   payment terms and conditions are formally documented, with the City being able to recoup the costs of the system over its lifetime.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider the awarding of Tender No. IE105/2020 – Design, Supply and Install Solar Photovoltaic Systems at various City of Vincent facilities.

 

The contract between the successful Tenderer and the City will reserve the right for the City not to proceed with any individual installation if either budget approval is not obtained for the installation costs, or due to failure to reach agreement with the lessee in respect to the recouping of solar costs.

Background:

The City developed an Energy Management Plan in 2012 for the highest energy use sites owned and managed by the City. The Plan included recommendations for large-scale solar photovoltaic (PV) installations at the Library and Local History Centre, Beatty Park Leisure Centre, Administration and Civic Centre and the Works Depot. These four installations were completed between 2019 and 2020 under phase 1 of the City’s Solar Program.

 

The primary objective of the solar program is to improve the environmental performance of the City’s buildings and facilities via onsite generation of renewable energy (in line with the City’s Sustainable Environment Strategy 2019-2024).

 

A secondary objective of the program is to generate direct energy cost savings at City-operated sites, which can be reinvested in future projects.

 

For leased facilities at which energy savings from solar are realised by the tenant, Administration proposes to recoup the cost of solar installations through the lease mechanism in the first instance. Administration proposes to negotiate lease amendments where longer leases are already in place and to include the repayment of solar costs in new lease negotiations taking place in 2021/22 and 2022/23. For this reason, lease renewal date was one of the factors considered in prioritising the order of installations presented Council at its meeting on 23 March 2021. Where the leaseholder prefers to take responsibility for procurement and installation, a self-supporting loan mechanism may be offered as an alternative. Administration is currently developing a procedure to govern community funding requests via a self-supporting loan mechanism.

 

The phase 2 solar feasibility study completed in 2019/20 involved a first-pass screening of the City’s remaining 114 sites at which solar PV is not yet installed, some City-operated, others tenanted. This produced a shortlist of twelve (12) sites based on solar orientation (energy generation potential), annual electricity consumption and time of electricity use.

 

Only two City operated sites made it on the shortlist. The remainder did not meet the basic criteria for financial viability. Battery storage systems were considered as a means of improving these sites’ viability but were ultimately discarded as an option due to lengthy payback periods ranging from 14 to 23 years. With expected battery life being around 10 years, the addition of a battery would be counterproductive in terms of cost savings.

 

The shortlist of sites and solar feasibility study was presented to Council as part of the 2020/21 Budget process. As an outcome of the 2020/21 budget process, budget was approved for the installation of solar PV at the four sites listed for 2020/21. These sites were Mt Hawthorn Community Centre, North Perth Town Hall, Britannia Reserve Pavilion and Bethanie Living Well Centre, 40 Violet St.

 

At its meeting on 23 March 2021 Council was requested to appoint a tenderer for 11 proposed solar PV system installations. Council deferred its decision to appoint a tenderer and requested additional information including but not limited to system and facility sizes, financial modelling information (for sites where the City is not the direct beneficiary), heritage requirements and warranty information. These items are covered within this report and attachment 2.

 

At the Budget workshop on 30 March, 2021 Council and Administration discussed the option of deferring installation of all solar PV sites proposed for 2021/22 to 2022/23. As a result of this potential deferral and uncertainty about budget approval pending funding mechanisms acceptable to Council, six sites were removed from the tender scope. These will be subject to a future Council decision and a separate procurement process.

 

Administration has also chosen to defer the installation at North Perth Town Hall, which was listed on the 2020/21 Budget. This is due to the need for roofing upgrades that may not be completed in time to accommodate the addition of solar in 2021/22. Solar at North Perth Town Hall is also subject to heritage approval that will need to be resolved before installation can take place.

 

Installation of solar PV by 2022/23 at the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries building located at 246 Vincent Street, Leederville is a condition of the current lease, which commenced in 2020. For this reason, this site has been retained within the current tender scope and a lease amendment will not be negotiated to recoup PV system costs.

 

The table below shows the sites contained in the revised tender scope and contains additional details including lease renewal dates, size of PV system, who benefits from electricity cost savings and planned installation year:

 

Site

Estimated electricity cost saving

($/year)

Who saves $

System Size

Dates for lease renewal

Estimate Simple Payback period (years)

Planned year to install

Mt Hawthorn Community Centre

1,300

City of Vincent

6.6kW

N/A

5.2

2021/22

Britannia

Reserve  Pavilion (Leederville Cricket Club and Floreat Athena Juniors Football Club)*

1,360

Leederville Cricket Club/Floreat Athena Juniors Football Club (95%)

City of Vincent (5%)

6.6kW

March 2022

5.0

2021/22

(Bethanie Living Well Centre) 40 Violet St**

2,750

Bethanie

13kW

August 2025

5.7

2021/22

DLGSC Building

46,055

DLGSC

100kW

December 2029

2.4

2022/23

 

* Leederville Cricket Club and Floreat Athena Juniors share the lease for Britannia Reserve Pavilion, for six months of the year each. A new lease will be negotiated in 2021/22 in accordance with the City’s Property Management Framework, which will result in each club being responsible for 95 per cent of the electricity cost during its six-month season. As part of those lease negotiations, Administration proposes to include a solar repayment amount proportionate to the benefit received by each club from the installation of solar PV. Repayments will be for the duration of the lease unless cost recovery can be achieved earlier.

 

**The Bethanie Living Well Centre is the only site proposed for installation of solar PV in 2021/22 financial year where the City does not receive any direct benefit from electricity savings. The current lease extends to 2025, but includes options for extension to 2035. Administration has commenced discussion with the leaseholder regarding a lease amendment recoup the City’s solar costs for the site. The payment amount and the duration of payments will depend on the outcome of this tender approval as the price and projected savings vary between tenderers.

 

If an acceptable agreement cannot be reached for either Britannia Reserve Pavilion or the Vincent Community Centre, the City can choose not to proceed with any specific site/s under the terms of the Tender. 

Details:

Tender Advertising

 

The approved budget for the project in the 2020/2021 financial year is $110,000. As the proposed total budget for the three-year program of $481,000 exceeds $250,000, Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing requires an open public Tender process.

 

Under CEO Delegation 1.19, the Director Infrastructure and Environment approved the Procurement Plan, which included the following Evaluation Criteria:

 

Qualitative Criteria

Weighting

1.    Relevant Experience of the contractor

 

a.   Provide details of similar projects undertaken including scope of the Tenderer’s involvement and confirming successful completion of the project; and

 

b.   Provide details of issues, if any that arose during the projects and how those issues were managed or resolved.

 

25%

2.    Key Personnel Skills and Experience

 

Tenderers to provide as a minimum information of the proposed personnel to be allocated to this project such as:

 

a.   Their role in the performance of the Contract;

 

b.   Resumes of key staff (including Subcontractors) inclusive of memberships of any professional or business associations, qualifications etc.

 

25%

3.    Demonstrated understanding of the Project & Project Methodology

 

a)    A project delivery plan including key stages and timelines;

b)    Proposed methodology for this project to be completed on time and within budget.

c)    Evidence of successful results.

d)    Understanding of the required service by identifying the key issues and risk associated with delivering the project. 

50%

 

The Request for Tender IE105/2020 was publicly advertised on 28 November 2020 and invited submissions until 22 December 2020.

 

At the close of the advertising period, 8 Tender responses were received from the following companies:

 

·       DNX Energy Pty Ltd;

·       Perdaman Advanced Energy Pty Ltd;

·       Eco-White Pty Ltd;

·       Future Bus (non-compliant);

·       Fos Electrical Pty Ltd;

·       Quality Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd;

·       Solargain PV Pty Ltd (conforming); and

·       Solargain PV Pty Ltd (alternative).

 

Tender Assessment

 

The Tenders were assessed by members of the Tender Evaluation Panel (below) and each Tender was assessed using the above Evaluation Criteria, with a scoring system being used as part of the assessment process.

 

Title

Role

Manager Engineering

Voting

Co-ordinator City Buildings

Voting

Sustainability & Innovation Advisor

Voting

Eco Advance Consultants

Technical Advice

(non-voting)

 

Evaluation

 

A summary table for each compliant Tenderer is provided below. A full outline of the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria for each tenderer and pricing is contained within Confidential Attachment 1.

 

Company

Qualitative Score/100

Ranking

DNX Energy Pty Ltd

85

1

Eco-White Pty Ltd

71.25

2

Fos Electrical Pty Ltd

70

3

Solargain PV Pty Ltd (alternative)

67.5

4

Perdaman Advanced Energy Pty Ltd

67.5

4

Solargain PV Pty Ltd (conforming)

65

5

Quality Engineering and Construction Pty Ltd

20

6

 

Based on the evaluation panel discussion, the submission from DNX Energy Pty Ltd was the highest ranked submission against the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria.

 

Once the Tenders were ranked on the Qualitative Evaluation Criteria, the evaluation panel made a value judgement as to the cost affordability, qualitative ranking and risk of each Tender, in order to determine which Tender presented the best value for money to the City.

Consultation/Advertising:

The Request for Tender IE105/2020 was advertised in the West Australian on 28 November 2020 and on both the City’s website and Tenderlink portal between 28 November and 22 December 2020.

Legal/Policy:

·       Section 3.57 of the Local Government Act 1995;

·       Part 4 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996; and

·       City of Vincent Policy No. 1.2.3 – Purchasing.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to award a tender to carry out the specified works.

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.

 

The City’s Corporate Business Plan 2018/19 – 2021/22 states:

 

1.3    Solar Photovoltaic Panel System Installation: Installation of large-scale solar photovoltaic panels at various sites.”

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Sustainable Energy Use/Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction

 

Financial/Budget Implications:

The costs associated with this contract for the first year of the program would be met from the City’s 2020/21 Annual Budget, which has $37,782 listed to complete the first year of the contract and will be carried forward to the 2021/22 financial year. The price of the recommended contractor was within the allocated capital budget for 2021/22 and well within the overall project budget.

 

The budget for the PV installation at the DLGSC leased building (246 Vincent Street) will be listed for consideration in the 2022/23 budget.

Comments:

The submission from DNX Energy Pty Ltd complies with all the Tender requirements, including demonstrated understanding of the project and project methodology, as well as demonstrating relevant experience, expertise and a qualified project team. The response included a well thought out project plan that included reasonable timeframes. The products chosen for the installations are fit for purpose.

 

Reference checks were conducted for DNX Energy Pty Ltd in relation to recent solar photovoltaic panel system installations and no issues were raised.

 

The Evaluation Panel recommends that DNX Energy Pty Ltd be accepted for Tender No. IE105/2020 as they presented the best overall value for money to the City.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

10.4        E-Permits Implementation Progress Report

Attachments:             Nil

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the progress in the implementation of the E-Permit system.

 

Purpose of Report:

To provide an update to Council on the progress of the implementation of the e-permits system.

Background:

At the Ordinary Council Meeting of 23 March 2021, Council requested Administration to provide a monthly report on the progress of the implementation system.

 

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 3,326 residents who have created an account and are utilising the new system. This number consists of current permit holders and new residents. Of the current permit holders who were notified of the new system, approximately 78% have created an e-permits account.

 

There are 907 current permit holders who have not yet created an account despite two letters sent, an email and some have also been contacted by telephone. These residents have not made any contact with the City and so it appears that many of these existing permit holders either no longer live in Vincent or no longer require permits (e.g. have sufficient off street parking). 

 

Telephone calls to current permit holders who have not yet registered will continue with the hope that they can be contacted to ascertain if they no longer reside within the City, or if they are experiencing any difficulty in accessing the system.  From the 1st of April, Rangers began informal enforcement by issuing a caution to residents displaying paper permits. This approach did not occur over the Easter break period. The process does not attract a parking fine and the intention is to encourage eligible residents to make contact with the City or to register. To date there have been a total number of 53 cautions issued, which resulted in 14 accounts created and/or vehicle registrations activated.

Consultation/Advertising:

Two letters and an email have been sent to all current paper permit holders who have not registered for e-permits. Phone calls have also been made and will continue.

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 has identified several opportunities to improve its management of the information captured by e-Permits and is working on its own policies and also with the software vendor on suitable changes.

 

The City’s Register of delegations, authorisations and appointments’ identifies which users within Administration 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.

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 financial saving of $6,200 per annum.

 

E-permits also provides a more efficient and reliable system for enforcement of the residential parking permit policy to ensure only those residents entitled to the permits are using them. 

 

 

  


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

11          Community & Business Services

11.1        Authorisation of Expenditure for the Period 1 March 2021 to 31 March 2021

Attachments:             1.       Payments by EFT and Payroll March 2021

2.       Payments by Cheque March 2021

3.       Payments by Direct Debit March 2021  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the list of accounts paid under delegated authority for the period 1 March 2021 to 31 March 2021 as detailed in Attachments 1, 2 and 3 as summarised below:

 

EFT payments, including payroll

 

$8,235,049.34

Cheques

 

$715.15

Direct debits, including credit cards

 

$123,757.69

 

 

 

Total payments for March 2021

 

$8,359,522.18

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To present to Council the list of expenditure and accounts paid for the period 1 March 2021 to 31 March 2021.

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 March 2021 to 31 March 2021, covers the following:

 

FUND

CHEQUE NUMBERS/

BATCH NUMBER

AMOUNT

Municipal Account (Attachment 1, 2 and 3)

 

EFT Payments

2649 – 2661

$6,387,874.66

Payroll by Direct Credit

March 2021

$1,847,174.68

Sub Total

 

$8,235,049.34

 

 

 

Cheques

 

 

Cheques

82654 - 82657

$965.15

Cancelled cheque

82626

-$250.00

Sub Total

 

$715.15


 

Direct Debits (including Credit Cards)

 

 

Lease Fees

 

$395.84

Loan Repayments

$100,782.60

Bank Charges – CBA

 

$19,303.30

Credit Cards

 

$3,275.95

Sub Total

 

$123,757.69

 

 

 

Total Payments

 

$8,359,522.18

 

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                                                                                            18 May 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                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

11.2        Investment Report as at 31 March 2021

Attachments:             1.       Investment Statistics as at 31 March 2021  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the Investment Statistics for the month ended 31 March 2021 as detailed in Attachment 1.

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To advise Council of the nature and value of the City’s Investments as at 31 March 2021 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

 

·       A new term deposit has been opened with Defence Bank which is a non fossil fuel investment bank. The deposit relates to the City’s reserve funds. 

(a)            

·       The City’s non-fossil fuel exposure has maintained its low levels for the past few months due to the following reasons:

 

§  Record low interest rates offered by banks divested in fossil fuel activities; and

§  Smaller divested banks have capped the number of term deposits they can undertake due to surplus cash positions primarily fuelled by low borrowing costs in the market.

 

Investment Status

 

As at 31 March 2021, the total funds held in the City’s operating account (including on call) is $35,043,974. Interest bearing term deposits account for $33,515,536 and the remaining $1,528,439 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

$38,678,150

$33,457,047

February

$35,377,640

$33,681,961

$38,487,371

$30,813,182

March

$33,969,162

$28,466,025

$35,043,974

$31,443,637

April

$30,832,893

$25,975,451

 

 

May

$28,935,398

$22,319,031

 

 

June

$25,079,463

$17,565,310

 

 

 

Interest Status

 

Total accrued interest earned on investments as at 31 March 2021 is:

 

Total Accrued Interest Earned on Investment

Original Budget

Revised Budget

Budget YTD

Actual YTD

% of FY Budget

Municipal

$230,000

$100,000

$54,840

$55,575

101.34%

Reserve

$180,205

$130,205

$115,865

$69,340

59.85%

Subtotal

$410,205

$230,205

$170,705

$124,915

73.18%

Leederville Gardens Inc. Surplus Trust*

$0

$0

$0

$57,115

0.00%

Total

$410,205

$230,205

$170,705

$182,030

106.63%

*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 0.51% for current investments whereas the Reserve Bank 90 days accepted bill rate for March 2021 is 0.03%.  Further Commonwealth bank have advised Administration that the online Saver interest rate of 0.2% will be reduced to 0.1% from the 1st April 2021.

 

Due to the impact of the current economic situation the interest forecast will be adjusted in the third Budget review in May 2021.

 

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 will potentially 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 daily interest rates published by banks.

 

As at 31 March 2021, $1,191,330 (3.4%) of the City’s non fossil fuel investments was held at Defence Bank, considered to be divested in non-fossil fuel related activities. In February 2021, the City had $2m in divested funds, however these funds had to be re-invested in March. At the point of re-investment only $1.1m was available to be re-invested as the balance of the funds was required to fund capital projects.

 

Investment Guideline update

 

Administration has updated the investment guidelines which is the supplementary document to the Council Investment Policy. The new investment guidelines conform with the Investment policy objective to give preference to institutions that:

 

·       are assessed to have a higher social and environmental responsibility rating; and

·       have been assessed to have no current record of funding fossil fuels, providing that doing so will secure a rate of return that is at least equal to alternatives offered by other institutions.

 

As a result, the maximum exposure limits to divested institutions  have been increased to 90% as reflected in the below table. The majority of divested institutions lie within A2 and A1 categories.

 

 

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

Direct Investments Maximum %with any one institution

 

Maximum % of Total Portfolio

 

Guideline

 

Current position

 

Old Guideline

 

New Guideline

 

 

Current position

 

 

A1+

30%

10.2%

90%

90%

49.3

A-1

25%

9.6%

80%

90%

9.6%

A-2

20%

17.8%

60%

90%

41.1%

 

 

 

 

 

100%

 

Administration will continuously explore options to ascertain if a balanced investment strategy can be developed where investments in divested banks can be increased with a minimal opportunity cost of loss in interest rate returns for instances when banks not divested in fossil fuel activities offer a higher rate of return.

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 report has no implication on 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                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

11.3        Financial Statements as at 31 March 2021

Attachments:             1.       Financial Statements as at 31 March 2021  

 

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Financial Statements for the month ended 31 March 2021 as shown in Attachment 1.

Purpose of Report:

To present the statement of financial activity for the period ended 31 March 2021. 

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 March 2021: -

 

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 $2,290,164 (17.2%). The following items materially contributed to this position:

 

·       A favourable variance of $467,446 relating to increased revenue from activities at Beatty Park, public halls, and sporting grounds (Recreation and Culture) within the City and higher than anticipated Swim School and Retails revenues.

·       A favourable variance of $1,604,610 (Transport) for revenue generated from parking activities within the city and grant funding from Main Roads (restricted grant funds) being released to unrestricted grant.

 

Revenue by Nature or Type is favourable compared to the YTD budget by $2,387,989 (4.9%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       A favourable variance of $105,811 resulting from increase in interim Rates (Rates).

·       A favourable variance of $1,656,993 resulting from increased activity at Beatty Park and parking facilities within the City (Fees and charges) and higher than anticipated Swim School and Retail revenues.

 

Expenditure by Program is favourable, attributed by an under-spend of $1,840,491 (4.1%) compared to the year-to-date budget. The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       A favourable variance of $277,931 mainly contributed by a budget to actuals timing variance relating to legal and subscription costs, management & operating initiative programmes in the CEO’s section, IT software maintenance and records management (Governance).

·       A favourable variance of $436,245 primarily contributed by a budget to actuals timing variance relating to the provision of waste tipping, bulk verge, and recycling services (Community Amenities).

·       A favourable variance of $284,833 due to timing variance relating to the delivery of events, recreational programmes, and donations. (Recreation and Culture).

·       Favourable variance of $752,538 mainly attributed to reduced vehicle maintenance costs, delay in some scheduled programs and projects as planned and other timing variances relating to various works (Other Property Services).

 

Expenditure by Nature or Type is favourable, attributed by an under spent of $1,770,748 (3.9%). The following items materially contributed to this position: -

 

·       There is a favourable variance of $791,020 primarily attributed to an underspend and timing variance of works (Materials and Contracts):

 

o   Waste services - $299,923 relating to tipping, bulk verge & recycling costs.

o   Vehicle maintenance costs - $130,470 relating to fuel & repairs; and

o   Maintenance works - $353,000 relating to building maintenance; various sites & street cleaning works.

 

·       Employee costs reflects a favourable variance of $322,364 mainly attributed to the following items:

 

o   Staff training courses and agency labour costs yet to be required due to timing variance.

o   Vacant staff positions still to be filled.

 

·       There is a favourable variance of $529,111 relating to Other Expenditure largely contributed by timing variance in the delivery of works in multiple service areas:

 

Leisure & Strategic planning programmes (Policy & Place services) and Statutory planning services timing variance -$213,977.

Recreational programmes, community arts programmes, community safety programmes, artwork maintenance and public relations timing variance -$237,034

Health Programmes (syringe disposal strategy) and Library services local history programmes timing variance-$56,287.

 

Surplus Position – 2020/2021

 

There is movement in the closing deficit position for 2020/21 from $553,475 to a surplus of $21,215 in March 2021. This is attributed to Mid-Year Budget Review adjustments.

 

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 March 2021 is $10,646,168.

 

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 March 2021 was $2,779,910 excluding deferred rates of $115,535. The outstanding rates percentage as at 31 March 2021 was 7% compared to 5% for the similar period last year. This is comprised of: -

 

·        56 ratepayers opting to pay their rates by Special Payment Arrangement of weekly, fortnightly, or monthly through direct debit.

·        46 ratepayer hardship deferred rates. Administration is reviewing and finalising the hardship rebate of $500 for these applications.

 

8.         Receivables (Note 8 Page 56)

 

Total trade and other receivables as at 31 March 2021 was $2,139,218

 

Below is a summary of the significant items with outstanding balance over 90 days: -

 

·        $1,325,457 (89%) relates to unpaid infringements (plus costs) over 90 days. Infringements that remain unpaid for more than two months are referred to the Fines Enforcement Registry (FER), which then collects the outstanding balance on behalf of the City for a fee.

 

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

 

$181,310 has been provided for doubtful debt (Current – Up to 12 months).

$238,616 has been provided for doubtful debt (Non- Current. Over 12 months). This complies with Australian Accounting standard (AASB 9).

 

 

·        $138,326 (9%) 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.

 

However, 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 have been 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 March 2021, the Centre’s operating surplus position was $28,505 (excluding depreciation) compared to the year to date budgeted deficit amount of $219,185. This is primarily contributed by the increased activity relating to fitness initiatives at the Centre and increased retail sales.

 

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 with the above, all material variances as at 31 March 2021 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                                                                             18 May 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                                                                           18 May 2021

11.4        Differential Rating Strategy 2021/22

Attachments:             1.       Rate Setting Statement by Nature & Type 2021/2022  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       ADVERTISES by local public notice for a period of 21 days, in accordance with Section 6.36(1) of the Local Government Act 1995, its intention to levy the following differential rates and minimum rates in 2021/2022 as set out in the Statement of Objects and Reasons for Differential Rates - 2021/2022;

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to invite submissions from electors and ratepayers on the below proposed differential rates and minimum payments for 2021/2022:

 

2021/2022

Rating Category

Rate in the Dollar

Minimum Rate

Residential

0.08012

$1,247.05

Vacant-Residential

0.07460

$1,160.00

Vacant-Commercial

0.12817

$1,516.40

Other

0.06718

$1,197.70

 

3.       NOTES any public submissions received in response to 1 and 2 above will be presented to Council for consideration;

4.       NOTES that Administration will be maintaining a funding of up to $100,000, when finalising the 2021/2022 budget, to support the City in responding to ratepayers in financial crisis.

 

Purpose of Report:

To obtain Council’s approval to advertise the proposed differential and minimum rates for the 2021/2022 financial year and invite community feedback.

Background:

The City imposes differential rates based on the purpose for which land is zoned or for which the land is held or used.

 

In accordance with section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995, the City is required to give local public notice of its intention to impose differential general rates prior to adopting its 2021/2022 budget.

Details:

2021/2022 Proposed Differential Rates

 

The City proposes the following differential rates be advertised for public comment:

 

 

2021/2022

Rating Category

Rate in the Dollar

Minimum Rate

Residential

0.08012

$1,247.05

Vacant-Residential

0.07460

$1,160.00

Vacant-Commercial

0.12817

$1,516.40

Other-Commercial/Industrial

0.06718

$1,197.70

 

In preparing the above Differential Rates and Minimum Rates for 2021/2022, the City has used following Rates Modelling assumptions:

 

·       Residential properties - 2.9% increase in minimum payments and rate-in-the-dollar;

·       Vacant - Residential properties - 2.9% increase in the rate-in-the-dollar;

·       Commercial & Industrial properties, and vacant commercial properties - zero increases;

·       Vacant - Residential properties - decrease of 4.28% in the minimum payments.

 

With respect to the decrease of the minimum rate for vacant – residential properties, this has been reduced by 4.28% to comply with the Local Government Act 1995, Section 6.33 (3) that the minimum payment cannot be imposed on more than 50% of the total rated properties in each differential category.

 

The Draft Rate Setting Statement (Attachment 1) has also provided for the following items:

 

·       inclusion of an estimated opening balance of $1,500,000;

·       anticipated growth in rateable properties resulting in issuing of interim rates during the year of

        approximately $300,000; and

·       an allowance for waiver of rates to particular community and sporting groups.

 

Commercial and Industrial Properties

 

The major project and strategic priority for the financial year is the introduction of the Food Organics Garden Organics (FOGO) residential waste system.

 

Council also resolved to end the outdated two-bin service for commercial ratepayers on 30 June 2021.  The current commercial service is an extension of the two-bin system for residents, rather than a tailored commercial waste service, and it isn’t designed to meet the needs of different businesses or encourage the diversion of waste from landfill. It was important for the City to review the commercial waste service ahead of the planned roll out of the three-bin FOGO system for residents – as FOGO is not suitable for businesses.

 

Commercial ratepayers will receive a rebate of about $520 each in 2021-22 to facilitate the change to private waste providers.

 

These is a total once off rebate for all commercial ratepayers a $921,000.

 

No increase is proposed to the rate-in-the-dollar and minimums for commercial ratepayers for 2021/22 to reflect this transition.

 

Budget Setting for 2021/2022

 

The City’s budget discussion relates to a DRAFT budget and is subject to change.

 

Subject to Council approval, in 2021/2022 the City of Vincent plans to focus on supporting local businesses, community groups, residents and ratepayers with the Vincent Rebound & Recovery plan.  Financial hardship strategies remain in place for ratepayers hardest hit by COVID. 

 

The 2021/2022 DRAFT budget also reflects a period of recovery for the City of Vincent.  The City’s focus is on conservative and pragmatic spending, designed to maintain amenities and services for the community.

 

The City managed its budget conservatively during 2020/2021, and in 2021/2022 plans an increase in capital expenditure to $18,184,568, thereby addressing asset management priorities that were postponed the previous year.

 

This program includes a Federal Government grant for the ‘Local Roads and Community Infrastructure Program’ of $1,141,444, which will fund repairs to the Beatty Park Grandstand, indoor pool concourse tiling and Britannia Reserve sport ground lighting.

 

The City plans to implement major changes to waste management services, including introducing a FOGO collection service involving a third bin, introducing an on-demand “verge valet” bulk waste service and ceasing commercial waste services.

 

The City also plans to increase its debt by $7.5M in relation to operational changes likely to be made as a result of a strategic review of Mindarie Regional Council (MRC). The loan is self-supporting and repayments can be funded from savings in the cost of waste disposal as a result of MRC’s strategic review.

 

Savings generated by these service changes are intended to fund a once-off rebate of $921,000 which will be provided to commercial businesses to assist in transitioning to a new service.

 

Employee costs are expected to rise by $1.9M as Enterprise Bargaining payments (which were frozen in 2020//2021) recommence, and superannuation payments increase from 9.5% to 10%. Materials and contract expenditure are likely to remain comparable to previous year levels.

 

Finally, with Council approval, the City intends to support the Robertson Park and Britannia North Master Plans with improved community facilities at both locations.

 

Comparative view of Residential Rates – 2021/2022

 

In developing an equitable rating model, it is useful to undertake a comparison with other metropolitan local governments.

 

The following table details how the rate in the dollar and waste collection charges (where they are applied separately) levied in 2020/21 impact on the rate levied on an individual residential property at each of the local governments, based on a nominated Gross Rental Value (GRV) of $17,160, being the City of Vincent Residential category average.

 

In a residential rating context, this table demonstrates that in 2020/2021, when the waste collection and security collection charges are factored in the City had:

 

1.         the seventh lowest minimum rate in the metropolitan area (Table 2); and

2.         the sixth lowest combined rates/waste charge (Table 3) of the 29 local governments listed for a residential property with a GRV of $17,160.

 

 


 

Table 2: Comparative View of Residential Rates in Metro LGAs for 2020/2021 – Minimum Rate Payable

 

 


 

Table 3: Comparative View of Residential Rates in Metro LGAs for 2020/2021 – Average Rates Payable

 

 

Rates Growth

 

Rates revenue generated from property development and improvement in the previous 12 months will be redirected into subsiding ratepayers for 2021/2022 and has been built into the City’s LTFP assumptions.

 

The City has been experiencing a moderate level of growth in the number of rateable properties over recent years, averaging nearly 1.83% annually since 2014. 

 

Table 3 demonstrates that growth in the number of rateable properties in 2020/21 is slightly higher than the recent average, at 1.84%. This year we have seen a significant increase in new growth and improvements and is in par with growth in 2017. This is a very optimistic outlook for the City but unfortunately cannot be relied on as it is subject to change from year to year.

 

For the 2021/22 rates cycle an organic growth rate of 1.5% has been included in the rates modelling. This growth includes 1% general growth and 0.5% relating to the ABN building completion.

 


 

Table 3: Growth in the rates base (organic growth)

 

 

Rate Payments

 

The City will provide 3 payment options namely:

 

·       pay in full;

·       pay by instalments (four instalments); and

·       pay by rates smoothing.

 

Rates Smoothing and Financial Hardship

 

The City introduced rates smoothing in 2020/21 where ratepayers could pay their rates weekly, fortnightly or monthly payments by direct debit only. This year the City propose to lengthen the period of the rates smoothing giving ratepayer a longer period to pay off their debt within the rateable year.

 

A provision of $100,000 for financial hardship has been included in the draft budget for

 

Statement of Objects and Reasons for Differential Rates 2021/2022

 

The overall objective of the proposed rates in the 2021/2022 Budget is to provide for the net funding requirements of the City of Vincent's various programs, services and facilities.

 

The Objects and Reasons that have been proposed are:

 

Residential

 

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate have been set on the basis that ratepayers make a reasonable contribution to the cost of local government services and facilities.

 

Vacant - Residential

 

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate has been set in an effort to promote development of these properties thereby stimulating growth and development in the community.

 

Vacant – Commercial

 

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate for all Commercial/Industrial Vacant land has been set in an effort to promote the development of these properties by attracting business and industry to the City thereby stimulating growth and economic development in the community.  There is no increase to Vacant-Commercial differential rates, or minimum rate, reflecting the financial impact resulting from the cessation of the City’s commercial waste service.

 

Other – Commercial/Industrial

 

The rate in the dollar and minimum rate for all Commercial/Industrial Improved property has been set to provide an acceptable standard of infrastructure and parking needs due to the greater volumes of people and vehicular traffic.  Examples of properties that fall within this category are retail shops, wholesalers, warehouses, offices, service stations, hotels, taverns, and properties generally used for business purposes.

There is no increase to Commercial/Industrial differential rates, or minimum rate, reflecting the financial impact resulting from the cessation of the City’s commercial waste service.

ConsuLtation/Advertising:

In accordance with section 6.36 of the Local Government Act 1995 (the Act), public comments will be invited through publication of a local public notice, with the consultation period being open for a minimum of 21 days.  All submissions received will be submitted to Council for consideration.

 

According to the new regulations gazetted in November 2020 the City is required to advertise the intention to levy differential rates on four media platforms. Once approved by Council, advertising of the City’s intention to levy the Objects and Reasons for the 2021/2022 Differential Rates will be on the following forums which will satisfy the regulation requirements:

 

1.         State paper advert

2.         City of Vincent Website

3.         Social media post (news subscribers, Facebook, etc)

4.         Noticeboard in Library, Beatty Park and Administration offices

5.         Vincent Reporter and Perth Voice advert

 

Advertising the City’s intention to levy 2021/22 differential rates and the objects and reasons on the 22nd May 2021 which will be open for submission for 21 days closing at 5pm Friday, 11 June 2021.

Legal/Policy:

‘6.33.    Differential general rates

(1)        A local government may impose differential general rates according to any, or a combination, of the following characteristics –

(a)        the purpose for which the land is zoned, whether or not under a local planning scheme or improvement scheme in force under the Planning and Development Act 2005; or

(b)        a purpose for which the land is held or used as determined by the local government; or

(c)        whether or not the land is vacant land; or

(d)        any other characteristic or combination of characteristics prescribed.

6.35.     Minimum payment

(1)        Subject to this section, a local government may impose on any rateable land in its district a minimum payment which is greater than the general rate which would otherwise be payable on that land.

(2)        A minimum payment is to be a general minimum but, subject to subsection (3), a lesser minimum may be imposed in respect of any portion of the district.

(3)        In applying subsection (2) the local government is to ensure the general minimum is imposed on not less than –

(a)        50% of the total number of separately rated properties in the district; or

(b)        50% of the number of properties in each category referred to in subsection (6),

on which a minimum payment is imposed.

6.36.     Local government to give notice of certain rates

(1)        Before imposing any differential general rates or a minimum payment applying to a differential rate category under section 6.35(6)(c) a local government is to give local public notice of its intention to do so.

(2)        A local government is required to ensure that a notice referred to in subsection (1) is published in sufficient time to allow compliance with the requirements specified in this section and section 6.2(1).

(3)        A notice referred to in subsection (1) –

(a)        may be published within the period of 2 months preceding the commencement of the financial year to which the proposed rates are to apply on the basis of the local government’s estimate of the budget deficiency; and

(b)        is to contain –

(i)         details of each rate or minimum payment the local government intends to impose; and

(ii)        an invitation for submissions to be made by an elector or a ratepayer in respect of the proposed rate or minimum payment and any related matters within 21 days (or such longer period as is specified in the notice) of the notice; and

(iii)        any further information in relation to the matters specified in subparagraphs (i) and (ii) which may be prescribed; and

(c)        is to advise electors and ratepayers of the time and place where a document describing the objects of, and reasons for, each proposed rate and minimum payment may be inspected.

(4)        The local government is required to consider any submissions received before imposing the proposed rate or minimum payment with or without modification.

(5)        Where a local government –

(a)        in an emergency, proposes to impose a supplementary general rate or specified area rate under section 6.32(3)(a); or

(b)        proposes to modify the proposed rates or minimum payments after considering any submissions under subsection (4),

 

it is not required to give local public notice of that proposed supplementary general rate, specified area rate, modified rate or minimum payment.’

Risk Management Implications:

Low:       Reputational risk if the City does not advertise its intention to levy differential rates and minimums.

Strategic Implications:

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

·                  

Innovative and Accountable

12.5We are open and accountable to an engaged community.

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Achieving an effective rating strategy is an important part of the City’s overall financial management, which will progressively enable the City to meet all its operational obligations, including asset renewal to ensure the current standard of service can be maintained for future generations.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure in this report facilitates the achievement of the Plan.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The advertising of the proposed differential and minimum rates is critical in the development of the annual budget.  The level of rates generation is linked to the delivery of service and level of funding for capital works, debt servicing and consolidation of reserve funds.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

11.5        May Budget Review 2021/22

Attachments:             1.       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature and Type

2.       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program

3.       Rate Setting Statement by Program

4.       Capital Expenditure Report

5.       Cash Backed Reserves  

 

Recommendation:

That Council ADOPTS BY AN ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the May budget review for the 2020/21 financial year as detailed in this report and Attachments 1 – 5, in accordance with Regulation 33A of the Local Government (Financial Management) Regulations 1996.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider and adopt the proposed budget amendments for the May 2021 Budget Review.

Background:

The mid-year budget review was adopted by Council in March 2021. Due to the unpredictable environment we are experiencing, Administration have agreed to perform budget review on a quarterly basis. This is the final review for the year and therefore includes the anticipated capital and operating initiative that will be carried forward to the 2021/22 budget.

Details:

A review has been undertaken to both the operating and capital budgets.

 

The detail of the draft budget review is included in the following documents:

 

·       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Nature or Type (Attachment 1);

·       Statement of Comprehensive Income by Program (Attachment 2);

·       Rate Setting Statement by Program (Attachment 3);

·       Capital Expenditure Report (Attachment 4); and

·       Cash Backed Reserves (Attachment 5).

 

Operating Budget

 

As shown in Statement by Nature or Type (Attachment 1) and Statement by Program (Attachment 2), the overall impact of all proposed budget amendments has increased comprehensive income by $1,360,867. The table below outlines some of the major movements in this review cycle and refers to Attachment 1.

 

Operating revenue has been increased by $255,002, this analysis can be found below:

 

 

Mid-year Budget

2020/21

Proposed Revised Budget

2020/21

Budget Increase/

(Decrease)

 

Comments

 

 

REVENUE

$

$

$

 

Fees and charges

14,793,882

16,200,349

1,406,467

Revenue generated from ‘Fees and charges’ has increased due to the normalising of activities at Beatty Park and Parking facilities (including infringements). These estimated revenues have now been updated based on current capacity. The major changes are as follows:

·      Beatty Park - $ 608,766; and

·      Parking facilities - $ 808,291.

 

Interest earnings

495,705

460,000

(35,705)

Reduction in interest earnings due to low interest rates offered by financial institutions.

Operating Grants, subsidies and contributions

1,915,011

729,390

(1,185,621)

Reallocation of Local Roads and Community Infrastructure (LRCI grant) of $1,141,444 to capital grants, as this grant allocation has been set aside for capital expenditure

Other revenue

1,307,835

1,377,696

69,861

Increase mainly due to increases in revenue for withholding taxes of $30,000 relating to Tamala Park land sales and also adjustments to variable outgoing income for leases of $30,000

 

Operating expenditure is proposed to be increased by $104,864. The significant changes are for the following items:

 

 

Mid-year Budget

2020/21

Proposed Revised Budget

2020/21

Budget Increase/

(Decrease)

 

Comments

 

 

EXPENSES

$

$

$

 

Employee Costs

24,263,354

24,410,619

 

(147,265)

 

Employee cost for group fitness has increased by $170,000 due to the increase in fitness activities at the centre.

 

Other expenditure

3,294,033

3,421,833

(127,800)

Due to increase activity at Beatty Park this has resulted in an increase of expenditure of $57,000. Further there has been increase in maintenance costs for plant, equipment, and CCTV maintenance of $80,000.

 

 

Rate Setting Statement Position

As shown in the Rate Setting Statement by Program (Attachment 3), the overall impact of all proposed budget amendments is a projected budget surplus of $135,440.  The following are some of the major capital changes in the current budget review:

 

Capital and Operating Grant Income

 

The LRCI grant income of $1,141,444 has been reallocated to capital grant from operating grant. This re-allocation has no impact on the Rate Setting statement.

 

Capital Expenditure Budget Amendments (Attachment 4)

 

The revised capital expenditure budget is projected to reduce by $ 276,270 due to projects not proceeding or savings from completed projects.  The details of the individual capital projects to be amended is at Attachment 4.

 

Cash Backed Reserves Transfers

 

The total reserves for 2020/21 including the budget amendments is proposed to be $10,500,607 as per Attachment 5. There has been a net increase of $1,275,815 to reserves and breakdown is as follows:

 

·       Transfer from reserves is proposed to decrease by $14,725 as a result of reserves adjustments required to balance the reserve accounts

 

·       Transfers to Reserves is proposed to increase by $1,261,090. This is a result of:

-      Decrease in interest income from reserve investments of $38,910;

-      Increase in Transfer to Asset sustainability reserve of $1,300,000 resulting from savings achieved in this   budget review.

Consultation/Advertising:

Not applicable.

Legal/Policy:

This is not a mandatory budget review; however it is considered good governance practise to perform this additional budget review. The review is in accordance with the functions of the CEO as set out in section 5.41 of the Act:

 

5.41(d)   “manage the day to day operations of the local government.”

Risk Management Implications:

Low:     Conducting this budget review ensures the City’s financial situation and budgeting is updated to reflect the current economic climate.

Strategic Implications:

-            This budget review is keeping in line 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

We are open and accountable to an engaged community

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Not applicable.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Expenditure in this report facilitates the achievement of the Plan.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The overall impact of the proposed budget amendments results in deficit of $85,440.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

12          Chief Executive Officer

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

Attachments:             1.       26 Strategic Projects Update - Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 - 2023/24  

 

Recommendation:

That Council NOTES the updates to the 26 Strategic Projects outlined in the Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24 as at Attachment 1.

 

Purpose of Report:

To receive an update on the progress of the City’s 26 Strategic Projects outlined in the City’s Corporate Business Plan 2020/21 – 2023/24 (CBP).

Background:

Council adopted the CBP at its 15 September 2020 Meeting. The CBP is aligned with the City’s Long-Term Financial Plan (LTFP), which was adopted at the 18 August Council Meeting, and the City’s annual budget 2020/21.

 

The CBP includes a list of 26 Strategic Projects, which are aligned to the most relevant Strategic Community Plan priority. These projects have been identified as having the greatest City wide impact and importance.

 

The project plans outlining the details of these projects including the project milestones and timeframes, budget, scope, risks and key stakeholders were presented to Council for annual endorsement at its 20 October 2020 Meeting. Council approved 21 of these project plans, with the remaining five project plans endorsed by Council at its 17 November 2020 Meeting.

 

Administration informed Council that they would receive a summary and a status update of each project quarterly. The first update was provided to Council at its 16 February 2021 Meeting.

Details:

The 26 Strategic Projects outlined in the CBP are listed below and are outlined in Attachment 1:

 

1.       Implementation of the Sustainable Environment Strategy

2.       Three Bin Food Organics Garden Organics Collection System

3.       Accessible City Strategy

4.       Monitor and report on the 40kph speed zone trial

5.       Bicycle Network Improvements

6.       Wayfinding Strategy

7.       Arts Relief Project

8.       Arts Development Action Plan

9.       Youth Action Plan (YAP)

10.     Community Engagement Framework

11.     Woodville Reserve Master Plan

12.     Britannia Reserve West Development Plan

13.     Leederville Oval Master Plan

14.     Public Open Space Strategy

15.     Banks Reserve Master Plan

16.     North Perth Common

17.     Robertson Park Development Plan

18.     Axford Park Upgrade

19.     Vincent Rebound Plan

20.     Leederville Activity Centre Plan

21.     Character Retention and Precinct Planning

22.     Beatty Park 2062

23.     Beatty Park Leisure Centre Upgrade

24.     Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy

25.     Implementation of the City’s Public Health Plan 2020–2025

26.     Marketing Plan.

 

The key milestones achieved over the last quarter are set out in Attachment 1 and are summarised below:

 

·       Accessible City Strategy: Advertising has concluded and results have been collated to inform the required changes to the Strategy. The revised strategy and overview of community consultation is presented to Briefing/OMC in May for endorsement.

·       Wayfinding Strategy: The Request for Quotation was distributed to the identified suppliers within the procurement plan. These responses were received by 19 April 2021 and are currently being reviewed through the evaluation panel meeting and due diligence process.

·       Community Engagement Framework: The Draft Strategy and accompanying Policy was presented to Council for approval to advertise in April 2021, following workshopping with community, administration and receiving feedback from Council. This is now being advertised.

·       Robertson Park Development Plan: The Draft Development Plan was presented to Council for approval to advertise in April 2021, following workshopping with key stakeholders and receiving feedback from Council. This is now being advertised.

·       Asset Management and Sustainability Strategy: The Strategy and the associated Discussion Paper were approved for advertising by Council in December 2020. Advertising has been extended and is still being conducted.

·       Marketing Plan: Draft Plan is currently being reviewed and will be presented to Council Briefing/OMC in June/July in conjunction with the Community Engagement Framework.

 

Below is the health status tracker which outlines what constitutes the three different levels of health risk shown in Attachment 1.

 

 

Significant

Medium

On-track

Cost

Actual or forecast cost more than 10% over current approved budget

Actual or forecast cost more than 5 to 10% over current approved budget

Actual or forecast cost less than 5% over current approved budget

Time

Actual or forecast delivery more than 40% over timeframes in approved project plan

Actual or forecast delivery more than 20% over timeframes in approved project plan

Actual or forecast delivery less than 20% over timeframes in approved project plan

Health Status

Both cost and time at significant risk

Either cost or time at significant or medium risk

No cost and time risk evident at report date

 

There are no projects that are of significant risk.

 

The health status of all 26 projects remains the same as when their project plans were first adopted by Council on 20 and 17 November 2020. The seven projects that remain a medium risk are outlined below:

 

·       Woodville Reserve Master Plan: A report regarding the Woodville Reserve Master Plan is being presented to Briefing/OMC in June for approval to advertise. The risk level for this project is medium due to funding constraints, therefore an interim Landscape Plan is being developed for the site to address short-term issues. This and the associated consultation details will be presented to Council.

·       Britannia Reserve West Development Plan: The City has worked with key stakeholder, FAFC to progress the draft Concept Plan options and associated feasibility analysis and costings. Based on this work the draft Concept Plan is being presented to Briefing/OMC in June for approval to advertise.

·       Public Open Space Strategy: Amenities review to be undertaken in 2020/21. The risk level is medium as there is currently insufficient funding to implement the actions. Implementation of the basic level amenities identified in the review are the first priority.

·       Banks Reserve Master Plan: Master Plan complete. A Section18 is required for additional works. The risk level is medium as the funding allocated and approvals gained is for the first stage of implementation, with remaining funding and approvals to be secured. There is also a risk identified with the proposed demolition of the pavilion. The costings and options for this are being identified.

·       Axford Park Upgrade: The health status for this project is medium due to funding for this project needing to be confirmed. Administration submitted an application for RAC Reconnect WA: Transforming Streets and Spaces Trial funding but the application was not selected as a preferred project. A State election commitment of $200,000 for a new skate/scooter park in Mt Hawthorn could be utilised for this site, with additional City funding.

·       Leederville Activity Centre Plan: The Draft Precinct Structure Plan was presented to Council for approval to advertise in April 2021, following workshopping with key stakeholders and receiving feedback from Council. This is now being advertised in conjunction with the Leederville Place Plan.

·       Beatty Park 2062: Administration are seeking input from a Heritage Architect to advise on the proposed reopening of the original customer entry hall of the main grandstand. Once we receive this heritage brief an agenda paper will be prepared to outline this project’s options and direction. We have noted asbestos within the putty of the grandstand mezzanine and higher level windowsills and as such a number of tenants were relocated while further testing and required treatment was undertaken. The City will provide an overall Project brief to the new Sports and Heritage Ministers, following the recent WA election.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Regulation 19DA of the Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 provides that:

 

(4)      A local government is to review the current corporate business plan for its district every year.

 

(5)      A local government may modify a corporate business plan, including extending the period the plan is made in respect of and modifying the plan if required because of modification of the local government’s strategic community plan.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:   It is low risk for Council to note the updates to the 26 Strategic Projects outlined in the CBP.

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Nil.

Financial/Budget Implications:

The budget for each project is outlined in the annual budget for 2020/21, the CBP and the LTFP.

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

12.2        New Lease to the Western Australian Volleyball Association Inc.- portion of 413 Bulwer Street, West Perth

Attachments:             1.       Premises plan

2.       Market Rent Valuation Report - Confidential  

3.       Maintenance Schedule

4.       Volleyball WA 2020 Health Check

5.       Proposed Lease Comparison with Property Management Framework  

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       APPROVES a lease of part of 413 Bulwer Street, West Perth (Premises) to the Western Australian Volleyball Association Inc. (Tenant) on the following key commercial terms:

1.1.

Initial term:

two (2) years.

1.2.

Option:

two x two (2) year terms, exercised upon mutual agreement by the City and the Tenant.

1.3.

Premises area:

452m2 (buildings) and 1,200m2 (volleyball courts).

1.4.

Rent:

$15,000 per annum (plus GST).

1.5.

Rent Review:

CPI on 1 July each year of the term, commencing on 1 July 2021.

1.6.

Outgoings:

the Tenant to pay all ESL, rubbish and recycling bin charges, utilities (including scheme water, electricity and gas) and minimum level of service statutory compliance testing (including RCD, DFES and pest inspection fees and charges), applicable to the Premises.

1.7.

Insurance:

the Tenant to maintain a public liability insurance policy for not less than $20million per one claim, in respect of the Tenant’s use and occupation of the Premises and car park.

The Tenant to reimburse the City for the building insurance premium payable in regard to all buildings, structures and improvements within the Premises area. If the Tenant requests the City make a claim on the Tenant’s behalf (under the building insurance policy) the City may require the Tenant to pay any excess payable in respect to that claim.

1.8.

Repair/maintenance: 

the Tenant is responsible for:

(a)   general minor maintenance of premises which includes replacement of fittings and fixtures including light globes and taps;

(b)   re-painting of painted surfaces within the premises to ensure they remain in good repair; and

(c)   cleaning (including carpets annually),

see the maintenance schedule at Attachment 3 for more information.

1.9.

Capital upgrades:

The Tenant is responsible for capital upgrade and capital expansion of all assets within the leased or licenced area and the maintenance of the Premises fit-out.

1.10. 

Inspections:

The City will inspect the premises annually or as required.

1.11. 

Responsibilities of the City:

The City is responsible for maintenance of roofing and main structure of the Premises (unless the damage is caused by the tenant) and the capital renewal and upgrade of existing assets at the City’s discretion.

1.12. 

Special Condition:

Car park licence

(a)   The City grants the Tenant a licence to use:

(i)    ten (10) car bays at the Premises for the Tenant’s employees parking (Staff Car Bays); and

(ii)    five (5) car bays at the Premises for tenant visitor car parking (Visitor Car Bays),

as identified on the Premises plan (Licensed Area) between the hours of 8:00 am and 5:30pm Monday to Friday for the duration of the Term and at no extra cost to the Tenant (Licence).

(b)   A valid parking permit must be displayed in the front windscreen of all tenant employees’ cars using the Staff Car Bays.

(c)   A three-hour time limit applies to the Visitor Car Bays at all times.

(d)   The Tenant must at all times keep and maintain the Licensed Area free of litter and in particular oil spillage or leakage and in a reasonable state of cleanliness.

(e)   The Tenant indemnifies the City from and against all losses arising from damage to any property or the death of or injury to any person caused by:

(i)    the Tenant or the Tenant’s employees and visitors in a vehicle while on the Licensed Area; or

(ii)    the use of the Licensed Area by the Tenant or the tenant’s employees and visitors,

except to the extent that the loss or damage is caused or contributed to by the City or the City's employees, agents or contractors.

(f)   The Tenant must ensure its public liability insurance policy extends to cover public liability resulting from the use by the Tenant and the Tenant’s employees and visitors of the Licensed Area.

(g)   The Licence will come to an end upon the expiry or determination of this Lease.

 

Garage/shed

The parties acknowledge and agree that:

(a)   the external garage on the land has a large crack in its eastern wall;

(b)   the rent for the premises does not incorporate a charge for use of the garage by the Tenant;

(c)   if the garage become structurally unsound or unsafe during the Term of the Lease, the City may (in its absolute discretion) elect to either rectify the defect or demolish the garage entirely; and

(d)   if the City demolishes the garage (in accordance with this special condition), the Tenant has no right or entitlement to compensation or rent abatement due to the garage no longer being available for use.

 

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

 

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider entering into a new lease with the Western Australian Volleyball Association Inc. in regard to the offices, external garage and volleyball courts located at 413 Bulwer Street, West Perth (Premises).

Background:

The Western Australian Volleyball Association Inc. (Tenant) has leased the Premises since 1 July 1999, as included on the plan at Attachment 1. The lease was for a term of 10 years, commencing 1 July 1999 and expiring 30 June 2009, with two further 5-year terms, the second of which expired on 30 June 2019. The Tenant has been holding over on a monthly tenancy of the Premises since 1 July 2019.

 

Administration engaged a commercial property valuer to complete a market rent appraisal of the Premises in February 2020 at Confidential Attachment 2. Due to the disruptions caused by COVID-19, the negotiations of the new lease were put on hold. Administration recommenced negotiations of new lease terms with the Tenant late 2020, once the COVID-19 restrictions had eased.

Details:

The land must be used for recreation as per the requirements of Local Planning Scheme No. 2. Due to the nature, age and layout of the Premises building and surrounds (in particular, the outdoor sand volleyball courts) it would be difficult to use the Premises in its current state for a different recreational purpose.  In particular, alternative recreational uses would require changes to the outdoor volleyball courts (to maximise the use of the land) and an update of change rooms and toilets would likely also be necessary.

 

Condition of Premises

 

The Premises were constructed in the late 1950s/early 1960s. The last update/capital upgrade of the Premises occurred in the early 2000s, no substantive upgrade or improvement has been undertaken since this time. 

 

The Premises are in a condition consistent with its age. The City has not planned to undertake any substantial works or capital improvements on the Premises. The Tenant has been informed of this.

 

The external garage/shed (that forms part of the Premises area) has a large crack running along the eastern wall of the structure. Currently, the garage is structurally sound. However, if the crack worsens and the garage become structurally unsound or is no longer safe for use, the Tenant would not be able to use this building. The Tenant has been informed of this. Administration has also informed the Tenant that (in the event the garage does become unsafe to use) the City cannot guarantee it will rectify the issue rather than demolish the building entirely.

 

The City’s and Tenant’s maintenance obligations are set out in the Maintenance Schedule at Attachment 3. Subject to available budget, the City may choose (at its discretion) to replace certain items at the Premises that come to the end of their economic life. However, whether the City would undertake any replacement will be assessed on a case-by-case basis at the time the replacement is required and is unlikely to occur (if at all) until the Sport and Recreational Facilities Plan has been finalised. 

 

Sport and Recreational Facilities Plan

 

The City has started preparing a Sport and Recreation Facilities Plan (Plan). It is anticipated that the Plan will be presented to Council in 2022. The purpose of the Plan is to guide the location and types of sports and recreation facilities across the City.

 

The benefits and outcome of the Plan will guide the rationalisation of any surplus assets, reduce the City’s maintenance budget and prioritise the improvements to the City’s sport and recreation facility provisions. The Plan will consider all sport and recreation facilities owned by the City and address the large amount of single use facilities within the City.

Administration would not recommend additional investment into the Premises until the Plan is completed.

 

It is also possible that an alternative location for Volleyball within the City may be an outcome of the Plan. To allow for this, the proposed lease includes an initial 2-year lease term followed by two further 2-year option terms (which may be exercised upon the mutual agreement of the City and the Tenant).

 

Community benefit

 

The Tenant itself is a State sporting association and does not have its own individual members. The primary user of the courts has 365 members of which 79 are City residents. The Premises are used for a number of training sessions and events over the course of the year and the courts are available for hire to local schools, including:

 

·           the primary user club (The Hub) holds sessions four nights a week at the Premises, these are open to the public;

·           the Tenant operates holiday programs during school holidays;

·           development squad activities (open to all members) are hosted at the Premises;

·           the Tenant hosts CaLD and Masters events; and

·           the Tenant hires the courts to local schools (including Phoenix Academy, Milner College, SEDA, Mates-in-Oz and North Metropolitan TAFE).

 

The Tenant also uses the hardcourt volleyball courts at Loftus Recreation Centre for the WA Volleyball League every Sunday from early morning until evening during the winter season (April to September).

 

Commercial lease terms

 

The Premises comprise ground floor change rooms, first floor admin/office area, external garage and outdoor beach volleyball courts. Currently, the Tenant pays rent of approximately $11,500 per annum (including GST).

 

The current GRV for the Premises is $53,000. Administration also obtained a market rent valuation of the Premises in February 2020. The Premises was valued at $41,350 per annum based on the following breakdown:

 

Area

m2

$ pa

Ground floor change rooms

200m2

$10,000

First floor offices

214m2

$21,400

External garage/shed

38m2

$950

Volleyball Courts

1,200m2

$9,000

Total

1,652m2

$41,350

 

Due to condition of the external garage (described above), it has a negligible amount of commercial value. On this basis, the market rent for the Premises would be approximately $40,000 per annum (plus GST).

 

The Tenant was affected by the COVID-19 lockdown between April and June in 2020. Upon application by the Tenant, the City’s COVID-19 Relief and Recovery Committee granted the Tenant rent and outgoings payment assistance (decisions of 12 May 2020 and 8 September 2020). The Tenant received a waiver and deferral of rent in the amount of $1,081.25 and a small waiver (approximately $140) on recouped utilities/outgoings for the April to June period.

 

The COVID-19 emergency period expired on 28 March 2021. Upon Administration contacting the Tenant to negotiate repayment of the deferred amount, the Tenant has opted to pay the amount ($1,081.25) in one full payment rather than enter into a payment arrangement to repay the amount in instalments.

 

The effect of the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown and the Tenant’s position as a State sporting association were taken into account by Administration during the lease negotiation process. The proposed rent of $15,000 per annum (plus GST) was negotiated between Administration and the Tenant based on the primary use of the premises (as offices) with a discount to the market value of the offices (valued at $21,400) due to their condition and the nature of the Association.

 

The rent will be increased by CPI annually on 1 July of each year of the lease (commencing 1 July 2021).

 

In accordance with the City’s Property Management Framework, the Tenant will be responsible for paying ESL, rubbish and recycling bin charges, minimum level of service statutory compliance testing and building insurance premiums for the Premises.

 

Administration recommends that Council grant a new lease to the Tenant on the key commercial terms as outlined above.

Consultation/Advertising:

As the Tenant is an incorporated sporting body and its members do not receive any pecuniary profit from its transactions, public notice is not a statutory requirement and is not proposed to occur. The Tenant has confirmed that the proposed lease terms are acceptable.

Legal/Policy:

This lease falls within the scope of Category 3 of the City’s Property Management Framework. The

terms proposed are consistent with the Property Management Framework, including negotiation of the rent based on the GRV or a market rent valuation of the Premises. A detailed comparison between the proposed lease and the Property Management Framework is included at Attachment 5.

 

Local Government Act 1995 (Act) – s 3.58(5)(d) (Disposing of Property).

 

Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 – Regulation 30.

 

In accordance with a section 3.58(5)(d) of the Act, Regulation 30 of the Local Government (Functions and General) Regulations 1996 provides a range of dispositions that are exempt from the application of s 3.58 of the Act, including dispositions to:

 

(b) the land is disposed of to a body, whether incorporated or not —

(i)       the objects of which are of a charitable, benevolent, religious, cultural, educational, recreational, sporting or other like nature; and

(ii)      the members of which are not entitled or permitted to receive any pecuniary profit from the body’s transactions…

Risk Management Implications:

Low: It is low risk to enter into a new two year lease with the Tenant.

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.

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This does not contribute to any environmental sustainability outcomes.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

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

 

Increased physical activity

Financial/Budget Implications:

The current rent for the Premises is approximately $11,500 per annum including GST. The proposed new rent is $16,500 per annum including GST, equating to an approximate increase of $5,000 per annum. The rent is proposed to be increased by CPI annually during each year of the lease.


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

12.3        Results of Consultation - Proposal for a Commercial Kiosk at Hyde Park

Attachments:             1.       Summary Diagrams of Hyde Park Kiosk Consultation Results

2.       Detail of Hyde Park Kiosk Consultation Results

3.       Community Consultation Additional Comments  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       NOTES the results of the consultation on the proposal to install a commercial kiosk at Hyde Park, as summarised at Attachment 2;

2.       INVITES public tender submissions for the operation of the commercial kiosk for a period of 4 weeks, including the following criteria:

2.1     Proposed commercial lease terms including lease term, rent and rent reviews;

2.2     A business case to support the business model/proposal (including forecast customer numbers);

2.3     Estimated cost of the applicant installing a warm kitchen/alternative facilities in the shed and proposed internal fit out and layout of the kiosk;

2.4     How customer traffic/queuing will be managed by the kiosk operator to avoid any significant plantings and trees surrounding the kiosk;

2.5     Plans of the proposed aesthetic elements/design of the kiosk to ensure that it fits within the Park’s current aesthetic;

2.6     Food/menu options (including a range of healthy foods) that will be available for purchase at the kiosk and how the applicant will comply with the City’s Public Health Plan or (if a café/kiosk is not proposed) the service(s) or products proposed to be sold from the shed;

2.7     Proposed price points for products sold at the kiosk;

2.8     How rubbish and rubbish disposal will be managed by the kiosk (e.g. location of additional public bins, who will be responsible for emptying the bins and how the kiosk will arrange for its waste and rubbish to be collected);

2.9     Proposed hours of operation for kiosk;

2.10   Environmental and sustainable operation options (e.g. no plastics, bio-degradable utensils and cups, emphasis on re-usable coffee cups etc.); and

2.11   A plan for managing the environmental impact of the kiosk on the Park in compliance with the Hyde Park Conservation Plan.

3.       NOTES that the public tender submissions will be assessed and presented to Council for a decision on the operation of the commercial kiosk; and

4.       REQUESTS the Chief Executive Officer to provide advice to Council on the future operation of food vans within Hyde Park in the same report responding to Recommendation 3 above with advice on the nature of the preferred proposal for a potential commercial kiosk. This advice should consider whether the preferred commercial kiosk proposal should have exclusive use of Hyde Park or be in addition to the operation of food vans. If food vans are recommended to continue in Hyde Park then further advice should be provided on:  

4.1     Locations of existing power sources and potential locations of new power sources;

4.2     Preferred trading locations for any mobile food vendors, considering proximity to other infrastructure such as amenities;

4.3     Annual fees for mobile food vending permits;

4.4     Vehicular access to trading locations; and

4.5     Other factors that could impact the implementation of Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors.

 

Purpose of Report:

To consider approving the conversion of the storage shed located on the western edge (bordering Throssell Street) of Hyde Park to a commercial kiosk.

Background:

The City has considered fixed food and beverage opportunities within Hyde Park (Park) for a number of years as either an alternative or in addition to the mobile food vendors (Food Vans) that operate at the Park.

 

At its Ordinary Meeting of 20 October 2020 (Item 9.5), Council adopted amendments to Policy No. 3.8.12 – Mobile Food Vendors (Mobile Food Vendor Policy). Council also considered a proposal to install a commercial kiosk at Hyde Park and resolved in part as follows:

 

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

 

The City provided public notice of the consultation period between 8 March 2021 and 2 April 2021 by:

·       Public notice and article in the Perth Voice (20 and 27 March 2021);

·       Public notice in the Stirling-Vincent Reporter (18 March 2021);

·       Consultation notice on Imagine Vincent (EHQ) (from 8 March 2021 to 2 April 2021);

·       Notices on the City’s website and social media accounts; and

·       An item in City’s e-newsletter (25 March 2021).

 

The consultation material asked whether the community wished to see a permanent kiosk in the park and, if so, whether this would be in addition or as an alternative to the food vans that operate from the park under the City’s Mobile Food Vendor Policy.

Details:

The project page had a total of 1,200 visits during the consultation period and 658 users interacted with the information provided on the project page to learn more. There were 314 survey responses and a further 64 email submissions. A breakdown of responses is as follows and reflected in Attachment 1:

 

Support permanent kiosk and food vans

211 (56%)

Support permanent kiosk without food vans

61 (16%)

Do not support a permanent kiosk, support food vans only

81 (21%)

Do not support any option

23 (6%)

Unsure

2 (1%)

 

From the 272 respondents who supported the kiosk proposal, some of the main repeating comments were:

 

·      The kiosk could positively affect the amenity of the park;

·      The kiosk should offer a mix of healthy foods and good/barista coffee;

·      Food and drink sold from the kiosk should be reasonably priced and accessible to all;

·      The kiosk should operate for extended hours, including staying open after 3pm to provide after school service;

·      The design of the kiosk should be eco-friendly and take into account the surrounding environment;

·      The kiosk should minimise disposables use (i.e. no take-away coffee cups or single-use plastics and only biodegradable utensils should be offered);

·      Local businesses/cafes/food van vendors should be offered the chance to tender for the kiosk operation;

·      Retaining the food vans and installing a kiosk will increase healthy competition between vendors;

·      The kiosk should be licensed to sell alcohol; and

·      The kiosk should also offer some seating for patrons.

 

These comments are valid and can be included in the public tender process for a prospective operator as desirable criteria. Alcohol sale was not specifically a part of this community consultation, so Administration do not support including this in the public tender.

 

The 104 Respondents who did not support the kiosk proposal provided the following main comments:

 

·       There are cafés and coffee shops in easy walking distance of the Park, therefore, a kiosk is not necessary;

·       A kiosk could adversely affect the nearby cafes/food vans;

·       The Park is of historic horticultural significance, increased commercial activities in the Park could adversely affect the Park and its environment;

·       The food vans adequately service the Park, therefore, a kiosk is not necessary;

·       A kiosk is likely to increase the rubbish and litter in the Park;

·       There is insufficient parking in the area already, a kiosk will only exacerbate this;

·       It will not be possible to ensure the quality of the food/beverages offered by the kiosk;

·       Concern about the economic rationale for spending the City’s money to establish a kiosk when there are other cafes and shops within the area;

·       The food vans should be preferred as they are not permanent and can move out of the Park when not in high demand (unlike a permanent kiosk);

·       Food vans are a better use of the City’s resources and create little expense for the City; and

·       The kiosk will be too expensive to eat at.

 

These submissions raise good points, especially around impact on the market, feasibility for the City and potential for adverse amenity impacts. However, it is Administration’s opinion that a lot of these factors can be considered and dealt with through the public tender process, through ongoing management, and through annual reviews of the kiosk operation. Therefore, they are not reasons in and of themselves not to go ahead with the public tender.

 

Food Vans

 

The City also asked the community if food vans had a positive impact on the Park. 66% of respondents thought they did, with the following comments:

·       The food vans add to the ambience of the Park;

·       The variety and change of the food vans is enjoyed; and

·       If electricity is supplied by the City, the food vans will not need to use generators making them a more attractive option.

 

18% of respondents thought that food vans had a negative impact on the park, providing the following comments:

 

·       The generators used to power the vans are noisy, smelly and bad for the environment;

·       There has been an increase in rubbish at the Park since the food vans started operating from the area;

·       Issues around the environmental impact of the food vans on the Park;

·       The food vans do not look good/detract from the appearance of the Park; and

·       The number of food vans allowed to use the Park at the same time should be limited.

 

There remains strong public support for food vans operating in the Park. However, it is not clear what impact a kiosk would have on the food vans that are currently operating in the Park or vice versa.

 

The food van approved area at the Park (set out in the Mobile Food Vendor Policy) is located directly adjacent to the proposed kiosk location. It is recommended that the food vans be allowed to continue operating in the Park following the kiosk opening. A future investigation is required to determine whether the food vans and the kiosk work well together, or whether they conflict. This investigation should also consider connection to a power source, vehicular access, proximity to other infrastructure such as playgrounds and other factors identified in the Mobile Food Vendor Policy. It is proposed the outcome of this investigation be reported to Council along with the results of the public tender.

 

There was overall support for the provision of fixed power to prevent the need for generators with 69% of the respondents in favour of this. A quote to supply power at the current food vendor location was obtained in September 2020, with a cost of $13,145.00. Should the kiosk proceed, other locations would be considered for power installation or food vans could be moved to a location that has power such as near the stage. The City would also have to consider if and how costs could be charged to mobile food vendors.

 

Hyde Park Conservation Plan

 

The Hyde Park Conservation Plan (Conservation Plan) was completed by Kelsall Binet Architects with Irene Sauman (Historian) and John Viska (Horticulturist) in 2003. The following is noted at page 69 of the Conservation Plan:

 

The Town of Vincent’s practice of not granting licences for vendors to operate in the park continues the long standing tradition of the City of Perth preventing the regular operation of kiosks or small businesses in the park.

 

The proposal for a commercial kiosk is not consistent with the above statement. However, as long as the successful tenderer operates in accordance with the policies listed below, there should be no adverse impact on the long term conservation of Hyde Park.

 

Section 8 of the Conservation Plan included a Conservation Policy (at page 155) with 74 policy positions. In considering the proposal to install a permanent kiosk in the storage shed at the Park, it is necessary to consider the relevant sections of the Conservation Policy.

 

Administration has summarised the key elements of the Conservation Policy as they relate to the kiosk proposal below:

 

Policy 8 – New uses for landscapes and buildings at Hyde Park should be compatible with their original use to minimise the amount of adaptive change required and maintain the significance of the place.

All new uses must retain the nature of the landscape, require no adaptation that will adversely affect the significant fabric and should continue to allow public access.

 

Policy 18 – New work, such as the construction of new buildings or structures within the park, may be acceptable where they do not distort or obscure the cultural significance of the place, or detract from its interpretation and appreciation…New buildings or structures should be sympathetic to the significant landscape element on site by utilising appropriate siting, form, scale, colour and material.

 

Policy 34 – The narrow vistas through the mature trees and into Hyde Park from Vincent, William, Glendower and Throssell Streets, as well as those from the side streets that terminate at the park, should not be interrupted nor should they be allowed to become too open.

 

Policy 45 – Where essential new structures or buildings need to be constructed in the park they should be limited in size and scale and when possible they should be of a lightweight construction that could easily be removed when required with the least damage to significant fabric.

 

Policy 63 – The compaction of the ground around the root zones of significant trees must be regularly monitored and vehicle and pedestrian access controlled to prevent damaging the health and longevity of significant trees.

 

Policy 74 – Any new uses within Hyde Park must be compatible with the park, its planting and the current uses of the place for unstructured passive recreation. Compatibility will be determined by the significance of the areas and elements which will be affected and the amount of change required to suit the place to a new use.

 

These policies will be included as part of the public tender and respondents will be required to satisfactorily address them in their response.

 

Works to convert shed to kiosk

 

To use the storage shed as a kiosk, upgrades would be required to bring it to a standard of either a ‘warm kitchen’ or a ‘full commercial kitchen’. A full commercial kitchen can use fryers, stoves and hotplates to prepare any food; however, this comes with increased upfront costs, statutory approvals and higher requirements for exhausts and water waste. The warm and full commercial kitchen requirements and costs are outlined below:

 

Considerations

Warm Kitchen

Full Commercial Kitchen

Food examples

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

Any foods.

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

Exhaust

Nil.

Mechanical exhaust.

Water treatment

Nil.

Grease trap.

Additional utilities

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

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

Estimated upgrade cost

$30,000-$35,000

$150,000

Heritage Approvals

Refer to DPLH for heritage considerations.

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

Refer to DPLH for heritage considerations.

 

As noted in the above table, the Park is a registered Aboriginal Heritage Site (Camp, Hunting Place, Meeting Place). Any works required to the area surrounding the shed, particularly anything that will require the ground to be broken, will require careful consideration of the requirements of the Aboriginal Heritage Act, consultation with the Traditional Owners and an appropriate consent or permit from the Department of Planning, Lands and Heritage.

 

Administration recommends that the kiosk be limited to warm kitchen facilities that do not require any external work to the storage shed or surrounding area of the Park. The cost of upgrades will be the responsibility of the successful respondent.

 

Public Tender

 

Based on community submissions and the City’s investigations, Administration proposes that public tender submissions address the following:

 

·       Proposed commercial lease terms including lease term, rent and rent reviews;

·       Business case to support their business model/proposal;

·       Estimated cost of the applicant installing a warm kitchen in the shed and proposed internal fit out and layout of the kiosk;

·       How customer traffic/queuing will be managed by the kiosk operator to avoid any significant plantings and trees surrounding the kiosk;

·       Plans of the proposed aesthetic elements/design of the kiosk to ensure that it fits within the Park’s current aesthetic;

·       Food/menu options (including a range of healthy foods) that will be available for purchase at the kiosk and how the applicant will comply with the City’s Public Health Plan or (if a café/kiosk is not proposed) the service(s) or products proposed to be sold from the shed;

·       Proposed price points for products sold at the kiosk;

·       How rubbish and rubbish disposal will be managed by the kiosk (e.g. location of additional public bins, who will be responsible for emptying the bins and how the kiosk will arrange for its waste and rubbish to be collected);

·       Proposed hours of operation for kiosk;

·       Environmental and sustainable operation options (e.g. no plastics, bio-degradable utensils and cups, emphasis on re-usable coffee cups etc.); and

·       A plan for managing the environmental impact of the kiosk on the Park in compliance with the Hyde Park Conservation Plan.

Consultation/Advertising:

Advertising of the public tender will be done over four weeks through:

 

(a)      Providing an email or letter to all food/catering businesses within 500 metres of the Park and all residents within 200 metres of the Park;

(b)      A sign or poster erected at the Park or on the storage shed;

(c)      Publication in a local newspaper;

(d)      Publication on the City’s website and social media accounts; and

(e)      Publication in the City’s e-newsletter.

Legal/Policy:

Local Government Act 1995 – s 3.58(2)(b) Disposal of Property:

 

(2)      Except as stated in this section, a local government can only dispose of property to —

 

(a)      the highest bidder at public auction; or

 

(b)      the person who at public tender called by the local government makes what is, in the opinion of the local government, the most acceptable tender, whether or not it is the highest tender.

 

Local Government (Administration) Regulations 1996 – Reg 3A.

Risk Management Implications

Low:  It is low risk for Council to invite public tenders to lease and operate a kiosk/small business from the storage shed at Hyde Park. The commercial risks associated with running a kiosk/café would be managed entirely by the operator. The City would not assume any responsibility for the commercial viability of the operation. 

Strategic Implications:

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

 

Connected Community

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

 

Thriving Places

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

 

Innovative and Accountable

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

SUSTAINABILITY IMPLICATIONS:

This does not currently contribute to any environmental sustainability outcomes. If the proposal to install a kiosk proceeds, it may be possible to require contribution to certain sustainable objectives such as use of FOGO bins, plastic free utensils and a commitment to reusable options. This will largely depend on the submissions we receive, and has been included as a criterion for the tender.

Public Health IMPLICATIONS:

Submitters will need to address Public Health Plan outcomes in their tender submission. A criterion has been included in the proposed tender advertisement that will be assessed and reported to Council.

Financial/Budget Implications:

Based on surrounding commercial tenancy values, it is estimated that the lease income the City could receive from the commercial kiosk would be between $30,000 and $60,000. The public tender will request that the potential kiosk operators provide a proposed lease fee along with other lease terms.



Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                                            18 May 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


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator

 


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                           18 May 2021

12.4        Report and Minutes of the Audit Committee Meeting held on 4 May  2021

Attachments:             1.       Audit Committee Meeting Minutes - 4 May 2021

2.       Attachments to Audit Committee Minutes - 4 May 2021  

 

Recommendation:

That Council:

1.       RECEIVES the City’s Corporate Risk Register as at 8 October 2020; and

 

2.       APPROVES the proposed risk management actions for the high and extreme risks, noting the suggested amendment that the City undertake a reassessment of the risks associated with the 3 grandstand structures (Leederville Oval, Litis Stadium and Beatty Park) using the broader consequence types, specifically to include people (safety) and reputation and present the findings to the next Audit Committee meeting; and

 

3.       NOTES the proposed amendments to the City’s Risk Management Policy, which will be subject to public notice and formal adoption by Council and NOTES that the Risk Management Policy and Procedure report was deferred to the next Audit Committee meeting;

 

4.       APPROVES the Internal Audit Program 2021/22 2023/24 (noting the amendment) and NOTES that the Chief Executive Officer will engage a suitably qualified auditor to undertake the audits in accordance with the Internal Audit Program 2021/22 2023/24.

 

5.       NOTES the findings from Office of the Auditor General’s Application Controls Audit 2021;

6.       NOTES:

 

1.       the status of the City’s Audit Log as at 27 April 2021, at Attachment 1 and as

                   summarised in the table below;

 

          2        NOTES that the completion date for the below items was previously extended:

 

                   2.1     EA:2020/10 (1) (a) and (b) Office of the Auditor General Information Systems                               Audit          Confidential extended from February 2021 to August 2021 and now on                          track for completion;

                   2.2     EA:2020/10 (11) Office of the Auditor General Information Systems Audit –                                  Confidential extended from January 2021 to August 2021 and now on track for                         completion; and

                   2.3     EA:2020/10 (12) Office of the Auditor General Information Systems Audit –                                  Confidential extended from February 2021 to December 2021, as it has been                             planned as a staged approach.

 

3.      APPROVES the amendment to the proposed completion date for the following items:

 

                   3.1     EA:2019/7 Office of the Auditor General's Performance Audit 2019 - Fraud                                   Prevention in Local Government - Findings and Recommendations was                                    proposed for closure at the 2 March 2021 meeting but reinstated until training                             has been completed. Due for completion May 2021; and

 

                   3.2     EA:2020/10 (20) Office of the Auditor General Information Systems Audit –                                  Business Continuity Plan Testing was extended from March 2021 to April 2021                         and now on track           for completion.

 

Purpose of Report:

To report to Council the proceedings of the Audit Committee at its meeting held on 4 May 2021 in accordance with clause 2.21(1) of the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008.

Background:

The City’s Audit Committee is a statutory committee of Council, established in accordance with section 7.1A of the Local Government Act 1995. The role of the Audit Committee is to provide independent advice and assurance to Council over the City’s risk management, internal controls, legislative compliance and financial management. 

 

The Audit Committee meets approximately every two months and comprises of three external independent members (one of which is the Audit Committee Chair) and four Elected Members. 

Details:

At its meeting on 4 May 2021 the Audit Committee considered five agenda items as follows:

 

5.1     Review of the City's Corporate Risk Register

5.2     Amendments to the City's Risk Management Policy and Procedure

5.3     Internal Audit Program 2021/22 - 2023/24

5.4     Auditor General's Application Controls Audits 2021

5.5     Review of the City's Audit Log

5.6     Review of Office of the Auditor General’s Regulation of Consumer Food Safety by the Department of   Health

5.7     Report on the non-structural risks associated with the City’s ageing sporting infrastructure assets

 

Details of the agenda items are set out below. 

 

5.1     Review of the City's Corporate Risk Register

 

The City’s Corporate Risk Register was presented for discussion, noting the addition of three medium risks and two high risks.  An additional recommendation was moved, requesting that the City undertake a reassessment of the risks associated with the 3 grandstand structures (Leederville Oval, Litis Stadium and Beatty Park) using the broader consequence types, specifically to include people (safety) and reputation and present the findings to the next Audit Committee meeting.

 

5.2     Amendments to the City's Risk Management Policy and Procedure

 

The proposed Risk Management Policy and Procedure were presented for discussion.  The Audit Committee suggested some amendments to the Policy and then voted to defer the policy to the next Audit Committee meeting.

 

5.3     Internal Audit Program 2021/22 - 2023/24

 

The draft Internal Audit Program was presented for discussion.  The Audit Committee recommended that the City engage a safety risk expert to do an independent assessment of the current risk controls for the 3 grandstand facilities (Leederville Oval, Litis Stadium and Beatty Park) and present the findings to the next Audit Committee meeting.

 

5.4     Auditor General's Application Controls Audits 2021

 

The findings from the Office of the Auditor General’s Application Controls Audit 2021 were tabled and discussed.

 

5.5     Review of the City's Audit Log

 

A summary of the items completed and ongoing as at 4 May 2021 is below. No items were added to the Audit Log at this meeting.

 

A summary of the Audit Log items is below, including the risk rating:

Audit Log Items

Total

Significant

High

Moderate

Minor

Closed at 2 March 2021

9

 

 

 

 

Open at 4 May 2021

22

1

1

9

11

Confidential items open at 4 May 2021

11

1

1

9

0

Complete at 4 May 2021

15

0

0

5

10

New items at 4 May 2021

0

 

 

 

 

Items outstanding for 18 months + from original due date

0

 

 

 

 

 

2           The two current significant items are:

 

1.       EA: 2020/12 (14) Office of the Auditor General – Financial Audit – Access Levels within Authority; and

2.       EA: 2020/12 (18) Office of the Auditor General – Financial Audit – Adverse trends in financial ratios.

5.6  Review of Office of the Auditor General’s Regulation of Consumer Food Safety by the Department of Health

 

The OAG report was reviewed.  The scope of the audit and recommendations are specific to the Department of Health, not Local Government. The City has no response to provide.

 

5.7  Report on the non-structural risks associated with the City’s ageing sporting infrastructure assets

 

This report was delayed to the 29 June 2021 Audit Committee meeting, due to a lack of resources meaning it was not possible to compile the required information in time for the 4 May 2021 meeting.

 

There were three items of General Business, as below:

 

6.1          E-Permit privacy review

 

The new e-permit system raised the broader issue of the City’s holding of data of residents. Some residents who are eligible for parking permits had queried how the data was kept, maintained and deleted.

 

The CEO advised that vehicle movements are not tracked by the e-permits system. Rangers use the system on to check if a license plate is registered for a valid permit. There was a discussion on the City’s adoption of the Australian Privacy Principles to guide access, use, disclosure and retention of information collected by the City. Upcoming work will include increasing staff awareness and training on the privacy principles.    

 

6.2          Tender evaluation and assessment process

 

A question has been raised about the amount and level of detail provided to Council as part of a tender evaluation panel’s report to Council for approval. The City has confirmed with WALGA that its current tender evaluation process and reporting to Council was in line with industry best practice.  It was requested that the City contact the Department of Local Government, Sport and Cultural Industries for further advice on tender evaluation and what information should be provided to Council.  Administration is benchmarking its tender evaluation process against other Councils and is reviewing the level of detail provided in the report to Council. Further advice on this will be provided to the Audit Committee.

 

6.3          Next meeting

 

Cr Topelberg and Cr Gontaszewski will be on leave of absence for the next meeting.  The City is to investigate rescheduling the next meeting to 8 or 15 June 2021, so that quorum will be achieved.

Consultation/Advertising:

Nil.

Legal/Policy:

Clause 2.21 of the City’s Meeting Procedures Local Law 2008 states that the report and minutes of a Committee meeting are to be provided to Council.

 

The Audit Committee Terms of Reference govern the functions, powers and membership of the Audit Committee.

Risk Management Implications:

Low:            It is low risk for Council to consider the report and minutes of the Audit Committee meeting on 4 May 2021.

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.

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:

Nil.   


Ordinary Council Meeting Agenda                                                                             18 May 2021

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator


 

PDF Creator