Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting

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

2 Apologies / Members on Leave of Absence

Cr Sally Smith was an apology for this meeting.

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

The following questions and statements were received at the meeting. This is not a verbatim record of questions and statements made at the meeting.

3.1 John Viska of North Perth – Item 12.3

· Spoke against the proposal

· Stated that the park is a place to get away from commercial activities

· Mentioned that there are strong smells in the area proposed for the kiosk

· Advises that the is a zone of considerable significance

· Urges Council to reject the proposal

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Viska for his comments.

3.2 Jocelyn O’Donnell of Perth – Item 5

· Spoke against the decision to stop collecting commercial waste

· Representative for a new owner on Lord Street, in a complex of 16 strata commercial suites

· The site has only 3 red bins, no recycling bins or green waste bins, so the impost on the Council is low

· Mentioned that she has audited the bins and the amount of waste does not support commercial collections

· Commercial bins are bigger and attract misuse

· Stated that some of that waste could come from passing traffic or from HBF Arena visitors

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Ms O’Donnell for her comments.

3.3 Rodney O’Brien of West Perth – Item 12.3

· Spoke against the proposal

· Mentioned that he believes there is a document that states the park is not a trading zone

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr O’Brien for his comments.

3.4 Simon Chester of Mt Lawley – Item 12.3

· Spoke against the proposal

· Mentioned that no administrative costs, for preparing business cases, prepare tender documents, do appraisals and reviews, etc have been included, so the costs would be higher than suggested

· Suggested that maintenance will be expensive

· Urges Council to reject the proposal

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Chester for his comments.

3.5 Melissa Ledger of Mt Hawthorn – Item 9.1

· Spoke in opposition to the proposal

· Mentioned she is a public health professional working in cancer prevention

· Listed the products that would be on sale in the shop

· Mentioned various illnesses caused by smoking and is the leading cause of preventable death and disease in Australia

· Evidence suggests that e-cigarettes are a gateway for non smokers and a dual use product for current smokers

· Water pipe use can increase the risk of 16 types of cancer, including bystanders

· Stated that the proposal does not meet a key tenet of the Town Planning Scheme and is at odds with the Public Health Plan

· Urges Council to reject the application

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Ms Ledger for her comments.

3.6 Islam Bouyahia of Perth – Item 12.3

· Spoke against the proposal

· Owns and operates the food truck “What the Flip”

· Suggested it was not appropriate to allow a private commercial entity in a public place

· Mentioned using the kiosk as a library or for educational purposes

· Suggested that, if approved, the lessee should give part of their income to maintain the park

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Bouyahia for his comments.

3.7 Dudley Maier of Highgate

1 Will the proposal to take out a $7.5 million loan affect the ability of the City to borrow money for other potential future projects such as underground power – is there an externally applied cap on borrowings?

2 Can you confirm that, contrary to the City’s Consultation Policy, the City has not advertised the annual budget for community review, before adoption, for the last three years at least?

3 Given that the city proposes to stop collecting commercial waste from 1 July, and given that FOGO won’t start until late October, what will happen, in the period between 1 July and the introduction of FOGO, to the city’s staff and machinery that currently collect commercial waste?

4 In March the administration has stated that it was in the process of visiting all businesses to provide guidance and information about the collection of commercial waste. When you say ‘visit’ does this mean face-to-face contact or simply dropping off a flyer or anonymously placing a sticker on the bins? How many businesses have been visited as of today, 18 May, just six weeks before collection will stop?

5 In March the administration said it was investigating a micro-business three bin system to be introduced with FOGO. What is the estimate of the number of businesses that could take advantage of such a system? When will they be informed of this alternative? What are they supposed to do in the period between 1 July and the introduction of FOGO?

I’ve spoken to over 80 businesses about this issue. People were angry and confused – most could not understand why the city could not just continue with the current system because their needs were very similar to residential properties.

I’m not going to go through all the issues they raised because they would be more eloquent and authentic. But if I needed to summarise the overall underlying issues they would be: the city does not understand the business community, especially the small businesses which probably account for 85% of businesses; and the consultation and communication has been appalling.

The lack of proper consultation can be explained by the fact that the Manager Waste and Recycling actually told one business, by email, that because the impact of the City’s actions were anticipated to be minimal, further consultation prior to the council decision [to stop collecting waste] was not deemed necessary. Also, you’ve been communicating for seven months, and the first question most people asked me was ‘why are they doing it’, so I’d suggest that the communication has failed.

There are only six weeks to go, and you need to do something soon, unless you want to see bags of rubbish left on the footpath like the result of some European garbage strike. It might require a rescission motion and it might require a special council meeting, but you need to do something soon.

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Maier for his comments.

3.8 Vern Gardam of Mt Lawley – Item 3B

· Spoke about the response to his question taken on notice at the 27 April 2021 Ordinary Council meeting, included in the agenda

· Mentioned that only one appendix is referred to in the consultant’s report, on page 16, paragraph 3.

· Stated that his question “(v) what, if any, feedback did Administration provide to the panel. And if feedback was provided, when was it provided?” was not answered.

· Stated he believes that feedback was provided to 14 December 2020 meeting by Administration on 16 February 2021 and went out without its only attachment

· Referred to the consultant’s report which said problem/definition – (a) there is a trust by Elected Members in the community engagement activities undertaken by Administration, which impacts on decision making by the Council. Under What’s Working Well it says “Elected Members were most concerned with the following elements” and the third one was “the process being followed.” This report listed as a challenge “in house skills and training around neutral survey design.”

· Noted that the mini roundabout survey was the first that did not contain leading questions.

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Gardam for his comments.

3.9 Robert Pintabona of Perth – Item 5

· Queried where did the figures to compensate small business for removal of commercial waste come from and what does small business pay towards the Council?

· Also queried if small business is subsidising residential rates?

· Mentioned that there has been no communication from the City

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Pintabona for his comments and advised that she is happy to meet with him privately to discuss.

3.10 David Basell of Perth – Item 5

· States that there is a difference between domestic waste and industrial and commercial waste

· States that City should not deal with industrial waste, but commercial waste is normal rubbish from an office

· Most commercial waste is from retail food and beverage industries

· Stated that the City has been collecting waste for some time and a precedent has been set

· Queried how the service can be removed with no corresponding reduction in rates

· Queried if businesses have been categorised as to what they produce and how much rubbish they produce?

· How many of the 2,000 businesses are retail, food and beverage establishments that produce the most amount of commercial rates?

· Proposed deferring the introduction of the changes until there is a microbusiness service plan when FOGO is implemented in October 2021

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole, thanked Mr Basell for his comments

The following questions and statements were submitted prior to the Meeting and were read out by the A/Executive Manager Corporate Strategy & Governance. Administrations’ responses will be provided in the Agenda for the 22 June 2021 Ordinary Council Meeting.

3.11 Milly Main of North Perth

Can you please consider implementing a cat curfew in city of Vincent.

Many councils have brought in cat curfews to prevent nuisance cats from wandering at night, disturbing people on their own property and stalking and killing native animals.

I live on Fitzgerald Street and we often hear cat fights at night.

We have up to five cats that regularly wander onto our property. We own a small dog who becomes disturbed and barks all night, and wakes up our four month old baby.

We are not allowed to let our dog wander onto other people’s property at night and it does not seem right that cats can be allowed to trespass on ours?

Can you please confirm the council’s position on this?

3.12 Geraldine Box of North Perth - Item 10.1 Public Consultation Results: Mini Roundabout Survey Report

I read with interest the Report by Council Officers based on the results of the Survey conducted regarding the proposed Mini Roundabout Trial on Norfolk and other streets.

Reading through the 73 responses, I compared the figures of those who Support, Oppose and are Unsure provided in the Report with those I calculated from the actual written responses provided in the Item 6.1.

I can only comment on the total responses, as there is no way for me to separate out those who live in the areas proposed to have mini roundabouts directly near their houses from those who live in other areas of Vincent.

The Report states (p.2 Item 6.1):

Support the proposed mini roundabouts 30 of 73 (41.1%)

Oppose the proposed mini roundabouts 30 of 73 (41.1%)

Unsure of this proposal 13 of 73 (17%)

On review, I found:

Support the proposed mini roundabouts 27 of 73 (37%)

Oppose the proposed mini roundabouts 40 of 73 (55%)

Unsure of the proposal 6 of 73 (8%)

My questions to Councillors are:

How arbitrary has been the process in assessing the support, opposition or uncertainty to the proposal of some respondents?

What attention have Council Officers given to the detailed responses, alternative suggestions, and other relevant queries raised by residents who opposed the proposal?

Rather than directing these questions back to Council Officers, I do hope that as our elected members you each would take a few minutes to look at this Report and assess whether the figures provided by Council Officers give an accurate overview of what residents who responded, actually want with regards to this proposal.

Thank you for taking time to read my correspondence and I do hope to hear from you with your assessment of the interpretation of this Survey.

There being no further speakers, Public Question Time closed at approximately 6.39pm.

(B) Response to Previous Public Questions Taken On Notice

The following questions were received at the Ordinary Council Meeting on 27 April 2021.

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

Leave of Absence

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Hallett, Seconded: Cr Wallace

That Cr Alex Castle’s request for leave of absence from 13 – 18 July 2021 for personal reasons be approved.

Carried Unanimously (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Leave of Absence

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Fotakis

That Cr Jonathan Hallett request for leave of absence from 19 – 23 May 2021 for business reasons be approved.

Carried Unanimously (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

5 The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations

At 6.39pm, Cr Joshua Topelberg left the meeting.

5.1 Cam Sinclair submitted a petition with 101 signatures requesting that Council reconsider the discontinuation of commercial waste collections for the 2,111 small businesses in our community who rely on it every week; and look at a range of alternatives such as the City acting as an agent to purchase the services required by local businesses.

Every petition complying with sub-clause (1) shall be presented to the Council by the CEO. (3) The presentation of a petition shall be confined to the reading of the petition.

Petition

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Hallett, Seconded: Cr Castle

That the petition be received and a report be prepared.

Carried Unanimously (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

5.2 Nick Catania submitted a petition with 273 signatures requesting that Council withdraw their decision to cease collection of waste/rubbish from the business premises in the green and yellow wheelie bins because:

· These bins are the same as these used by residences and do not require any additional vehicles for the collection,

· The businesses will be burdened by extra costs to employ waste collectors,

· Private waste collectors will add to the busy Vincent streets, especially around town centres,

· Private contractors will also dump their waste in landfill and cause environment damage,

· Businesses will be paying the same rates and will receive no waste collection services,

· The City of Vincent has offered no assistance to the businesses that have suffered greatly as a result of the COVID-19 restrictions and indeed are adding cost pressures to these vulnerable establishments.

Petition

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Wallace

That the petition be received and a report is prepared.

Carried Unanimously (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Mayor Cole mentioned that the City of Vincent froze commercial rates this financial year and it is proposed to freeze commercial rates again this year. This is contained in the differential rate setting statement that will be discussed later this evening and is proposing an increase for residential ratepayers with no increase for commercial ratepayers. The commercial rate in the dollar is falling in relation to the residential rate in the dollar and CPI. There is also an one off rebate will go to all commercial ratepayers which was calculated by working out the total number of landlords in the City and giving an equal amount to all ratepayers. The rebate will appear on the rates notice and be deducted from the total.

Residential waste subsidises commercial waste, this will be made clearer in the report.

Executive Director Infrastructure and Environment said:

Shortly after the decision by Council to discontinue the service a letter was sent to all affected commercial ratepayers, asking the landlords to let tenants know. Since then staff have visited 1748 businesses in person to explain the reasoning for the change. During those visits the bin 4066 bins were stickered for removal.

Some businesses have already transitioned to a new service. Information about how businesses can find out about how to be considered for the microbusiness service after the move to FOGO will be added to our website shortly. At present 15 business are being considered for that service. Those businesses will need to fit in with domestic service, for example which will be 140 litre rubbish bin that will be collected once a fortnight and will be a charged service.

An explanation of why the City did not go out to tender to service existing businesses was provided at the AGM. Further information will be included in the report.

6 Confirmation of Minutes

Council Decision

Moved: Cr Fotakis, Seconded: Cr Loden

That the minutes of the Ordinary Meeting held on 27 April 2021 be confirmed.

carried Unanimously (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

7 Announcements by the Presiding Member (Without Discussion)

The Presiding Member, Mayor Cole made the following announcement:

7.1 Consultation

There is a lot of consultation happening at the moment, including:

· Community and Stakeholder Engagement Framework

· Design Leederville – which includes the Leederville Precinct Plan and Place Plan for Leederville, which includes significant decisions around density, heights, zonings,etc in Leederville

· Robertson Park Development Plan

· Liveability Census

· Beaufort Street Town Centre Plan

· Smoke Free Town Centres

· Vibrant Places Policy

· Signs and Advertising Policy

· Assets Sustainability and Management Strategy

The City is holding an information session at the Administration Centre on the morning of Saturday 29 May 2021, where Elected Members and staff will be in attendance to answer questions.

There are engagement sessions in parklets, parks, Tennis Centre and in Leederville as well.

8 Declarations of Interest

8.1 Cr Sally Smith declared an impartiality interest in item 12.4 Report 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.

8.4 Cr Joshua Topelberg declared a financial interest in Item 5.1 The Receiving of Petitions, Deputations and Presentations. The extent of his interest is that he operates a business which will be directly affected by the proposed changes. He will not remain in Chambers while this matter is discussed.

Reports

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, advised the meeting of:

(a) Items which are the subject of a question, comment or deputation from Members of the Public, being:

Items 9.1, 10.1 and 12.3.

(b) Items which require an Absolute Majority decision which have not already been the subject of a public question/comment, being:

Items 11.5.

Items 10.1 and 11.1.

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole, requested Council Members to indicate:

(d) Items which Council Members wish to discuss which have not already been the subject of a public question/comment or require an absolute majority decision and the following was advised:

COUNCIL MEMBER	ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED
Cr Gontaszewski	10.2
Cr Hallett	9.3, 13.1
Cr Loden	10.3
Cr Topelberg	12.2

The Presiding Member, Mayor Emma Cole therefore requested the Chief Executive Officer, David MacLennan, to advise the meeting of:

(e) Unopposed items which will be moved “En Bloc”, being:

Items 10.4, 11.2, 11.3, 12.1, 12.5 and 12.6

(f) Confidential Reports which will be considered behind closed doors, being:

Nil

Items Approved "En Bloc":

The following Items were adopted unopposed and without discussion “En Bloc”, as recommended:

RECOMMENDATION

That the following unopposed items be adopted “En Bloc”, as recommended:

Items 10.4, 11.2, 11.3, 12.1, 12.5 and 12.6

10.4 E-Permits Implementation Progress Report

Attachments: Nil

Recommendation:

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

Council Decision Item 10.4

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

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.

Council Decision Item 11.2

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

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.

Council Decision Item 11.3

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

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.

Council Decision Item 12.1

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

12.5 Information Bulletin

Attachments: 1. Unconfirmed Minutes Arts Advisory Group (AAG) 7 April 2021

2. Unconfirmed Minutes Children and Young People's Advisory Group 21 April 2021

3. Unconfirmed Minutes of Tamala Park Regional Council Meeting held on 15 April 2021

4. Unconfirmed Minutes of Mindarie Regional Council Special Meeting held on 29 April 2021

5. Director General signed Endorsement letter - City of Vincent's Waste Plan - 2021

6. Statistics for Development Services Applications as at April 2021

7. Quarterly Street Tree Removal Information

8. Register of Legal Action and Prosecutions Monthly - Confidential

9. Register of State Administrative Tribunal (SAT) Appeals - Progress report as at 29 April 2021

10. Register of Applications Referred to the MetroWest Development Assessment Panel - Current

11. Register of Applications Referred to the Design Review Panel - Current

12. Register of Petitions - Progress Report - April 2021

13. Register of Notices of Motion - Progress Report - April 2021

14. Register of Reports to be Actioned - Progress Report - April 2021

Recommendation:

That Council RECEIVES the Information Bulletin dated May 2021.

Council Decision Item 12.5

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

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

Attachments: 1. Intramaps image of PTA portion of Summer Street

2. Deposited Plan

3. Intramaps image of Summers Street (current)

4. Transfer of Land Form

Recommendation:

That Council:

1. APPROVES the Public Transport Authority’s (PTA) request to transfer a portion of Summers Street, East Perth (Road), as identified on the Intramap annexure at Attachment 1 and Deposited Plan, at Attachment 2 to the City;

2. NOTES the transfer will be in accordance with section 168(5) of the Planning and Development Act 2005, pursuant to which the Road will:

2.1 Be dedicated to public use; and

2.2 Form part of road reserve of Summers Street

upon the transfer being registered;

3. NOTES the PTA will pay the City’s legal fees (capped at $1,000) associated with preparing verification of identity statements to allow registration of the transfer at Landgate; and

4. AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer and the Mayor to affix the common seal and execute the Transfer of Land form in respect of the Road.

Council Decision Item 12.6

Moved: Cr Castle, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be adopted.

Carried Unanimously “En Bloc” (8-0)

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 18 May 2021

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.

Moved: Cr Topelberg, Seconded: Cr Loden

That the recommendation be adopted.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Fotakis, Seconded: Cr Castle

That Recommendation 1.7 be amended as follows:

~~1.7~~ ~~Within 28 days from the date of this determination, all signage the subject of this approval is to be i~~~~nstalled 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~~

1.7 Signage

1.7.1 Within 14 days from the date of this determination, an amended Elevation E01 plan shall be submitted to the City for approval. This plan shall:

a) remove each of the four window signs; and

b) reduce the remaining extent of signage to be no more than 10 percent of the total area of the building façade, inclusive of the wall and awning, in accordance with the standard set out in the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising;

1.7.2 All signage indicated on the amended Elevation E01 plan is to be installed within 28 days from the date of the City’s approval of this plan.

Thereafter the signage shall be:

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

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

c) be wholly contained within the subject lot; and

REASON:

The extent of signage area on the Beaufort Street facade is excessive, repetitive and superfluous. The extent of signage is not consistent with the intent of the City’s Policy No. 7.5.2 – Signs and Advertising which seeks to allow for the display of advertisements on properties that provide an appropriate exposure of activities or services.

Amendment carried (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Council Decision Item 9.1

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

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;

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

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

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

17.Signage

1.7.1 Within 14 days from the date of this determination, an amended Elevation E01 plan shall be submitted to the City for approval. This plan shall:

a) remove each of the four window signs; and

1.7.2 All signage indicated on the amended Elevation E01 plan is to be installed within 28 days from the date of the City’s approval of this plan.

Thereafter the signage shall be:

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

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

c) be wholly contained within the subject lot; and

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

2.3 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:

2.4 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.

carried (6-2)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Cr Gontaszewski and Cr Hallett

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Ordinary Council Meeting Minutes 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.

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Wallace

That the recommendation be adopted.

Amendment

Moved: Cr Fotakis, Seconded: Cr Gontaszewski

That the recommendation be amended as follows:

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, subject to:

1.1 the amendment of the following actions:

§ Action 3.1: Manage the Town Team Grant Program and support the Pickle District to become recognised as precinct that is synonymous with creative events.

· Action 5.1: Host a visioning workshop for owners and occupiers of the Pickle District and analyse the findings to develop a vision and objectives for the future and to help inform the most appropriate planning instrument to pursue this with.

· Action 6.1: Work with inner city local governments and State and Federal Governments to identify incentives and support mechanisms to retain and establish creative spaces, creative industries and live music in the Pickle District; and

REASON:

The Place Plan enables a range of initiatives identified in the City’s suite of informing strategies and plans, and The Pickle District’s Action Plan, to be prioritised and resourced appropriately.

Some of the City’s informing strategies and plans provide high level guidance for the direction and type of initiatives the City should be undertaking, while others provide specific actions.

Additional information has been added to actions 3.1, 5.1 and 6.1 to provide additional guidance with regards to the action and work that will be undertaken.

Amendment carried (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Council Decision Item 9.2

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, subject to:

1.1 the amendment of the following actions:

§ Action 3.1: Manage the Town Team Grant Program and support the Pickle District to become recognised as precinct that is synonymous with creative events.

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.

carried Unanimously (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

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.

Moved: Cr Gontaszewski, Seconded: Cr Loden

That the recommendation be adopted.

Amendment 1

Moved: Cr Loden, Seconded: Cr Hallett

That the recommendation be amended as follows:

1. ADOPTS the Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030, subject to removing the words “and new roundabouts (where deemed appropriate)” from Action 1.2.3.

Amendment lost (1-7)

For: Cr Loden

Against: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Amendment 2

Moved: Cr Hallett, Seconded: Cr Topelberg

That Recommendation 1 be amended as follows:

1. ADOPTS the Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030, subject to:

1.1 Inclusion of the following action, associated explanation, and subsequent renumbering of actions included under Objective 3 of the Strategy;

“Consultation identified the need for a better and more consistent approach to be applied to issues raised by residents and ratepayers around traffic volumes, speed, and parking matters throughout Vincent. The effective management of this can ensure that we achieve peak network function and that the network provides a higher level of safety for all users.

Action 3.3.3: Develop, document, and implement a transparent process for the assessment of resident and ratepayer concerns relating to traffic volume, speed, and parking matters.”; and

REASON:

There have been previous resident/ratepayer concerns raised relating to traffic volume, speed, and parking. At present the City does not have a process outlining how these complaints are to be managed. This has resulted in an inconsistent approach being taken and a lack of community expectation management.

There is an opportunity for an action to be added to the Accessible City Strategy which will result in the development of a transparent process for the assessment of resident and ratepayer concerns relating to traffic volume, speed, and parking matters. The intent of this amendment is to create a consistent approach and better manage community expectations.

Amendment carried (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)

Council Decision Item 9.3

1. ADOPTS the Accessible City Strategy 2020-2030, subject to:

1.1 Inclusion of the following action, associated explanation, and subsequent renumbering of actions included under Objective 3 of the Strategy;

Action 3.3.3: Develop, document, and implement a transparent process for the assessment of resident and ratepayer concerns relating to traffic volume, speed, and parking matters.”; 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.

carried Unanimously (8-0)

For: Mayor Cole, Cr Gontaszewski, Cr Castle, Cr Fotakis, Cr Hallett, Cr Loden, Cr Topelberg and Cr Wallace

Against: Nil

(Cr Smith was an apology for the Meeting.)