B&WLogo_circle&text

 

 

 

 

BRIEFING PAPERS

FOR ELECTED MEMBERS’

BRIEFING SESSION

 

Draft Only

 

 

 

 

 

to be held at

the Civic Centre

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

on 31 January, 2012 commencing at 6:00pm


PROCEDURE FOR FULL COUNCIL BRIEFING

PRINCIPLES

A Council Briefing occurs a week prior to the Ordinary Council Meeting and provides an opportunity for Elected Members to ask questions and clarify issues relevant to the specific agenda items before council.  The briefing is not a decision-making forum and the Council has no power to make decisions.  The briefing session will not be used, except in an emergency, as a venue or forum through which to invoke the requirements of the Local Government Act 1995 and call a special meeting of Council.

 

In order to ensure full transparency the meetings will be open to the public to observe the process.  Where matters are of a confidential nature, they will be deferred to the conclusion of the briefing and at that point, the briefing session closed to the public.  The reports provided are the Officers’ professional opinions.  While it is acknowledged that members may raise issues that have not been considered in the formulation of the report and recommendation, it is a basic principle that as part of the briefing sessions Elected Members cannot direct Officers to change their reports or recommendations.

 

PROCESS

The briefing session will commence at 6.00 pm and will be chaired by the Mayor or in his/her absence the Deputy Mayor.  In the absence of both, Councillors will elect a chairperson from amongst those present.  In general, Standing Orders will apply, EXCEPT THAT Members may speak more than once on any item, there is no moving or seconding items, Officers will address the members and the order of business will be as follows:-

 

Members of the public present may observe the process and there is an opportunity at the conclusion of the briefing for a public question time where members may ask questions (no statements) relating only to the business on the agenda.   The agenda will take the form of:

Ø  Attendance and Apologies

Ø  Declarations of Interest

Ø  Reports for discussion

Ø  Tabled Items

Ø  Public Question Time

Ø  Closure

 

Where an interest is involved in relation to an item, the same procedure which applies to Ordinary Council meetings will apply.  It is a breach of the City’s Code of Conduct for an interest to not be declared.  The briefing will consider items on the agenda only and proceed to deal with each item as they appear.  The process will be for the Mayor to call each item number in sequence and ask for questions.  Where there are no questions regarding the item, the briefing will proceed to the next item.

 

AGENDA CONTENTS

While every endeavour is made to ensure that all items to be presented to Council at the Ordinary Council Meeting are included in the briefing papers, it should be noted that there will be occasions when, due to necessity, items will not be ready in time for the briefing session and will go straight to the Full Council agenda as a matter for decision.  Further, there will be occasions when items are TABLED at the briefing rather than the full report being provided in advance.  In these instances, staff will endeavour to include the item on the agenda as a late item, noting that a report will be tabled at the agenda briefing session.

 

AGENDA DISTRIBUTION

The Council Briefing agenda will be distributed to Elected Members on the FRIDAY prior to the Council Briefing session.  Copies will be made available to the libraries and the Internet for interested members of the public.  Spare briefing papers will be available at the briefing session for interested members of the public.

 

DEPUTATIONS

Deputations will generally not be heard prior to the Council Briefing session and are reserved for prior to the Ordinary Council meeting.

 

RECORD OF BRIEFING

The formal record of the Council Briefing session will be limited to notes regarding any agreed action to be taken by staff or Elected Members.  No recommendations will be included and the notes will be retained for reference and are not distributed to Elected Members or the public. 

 

LOCATION

The Council Briefing session will take place in the Council Chamber in the Civic Centre.


 

 

 

Briefing Papers for Tuesday 31 January, 2012

 

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Reports_ 1

Planning and Sustainability  1

Policies and Studies  1

3.1                         Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre  1

3.2                         Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan  56

3.3                         Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions  246

3.4                         Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access  342

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  363

3.5                         Adoption of Amendment No. 117 to the District Planning Scheme No.2 - Lots 9111 and 9112, Gnangara Road, Darch - Proposed Additional Uses  363

3.6                         Adoption of South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No. 66  370

3.7                         Adoption of Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Rezoning of Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep  402

Other Matters  410

3.8                         Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3.0 Metres in Height - Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch (WAPC 143846) 410

3.9                         Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3.0 Metres in Height - Lots 151 to 159, Lots 172 to 177 and Lot 191 "The Terraces" Subdivision, Archer Street, Pearsall (WAPC 142221) 416

City Businesses  422

Regulatory Services  422

3.10                      Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs  422

3.11                      Fees for Uncertified Existing Structure Applications (Class 1 and 10 only) 427

Infrastructure  430

Asset Management  430

3.12                      Roadside Memorial Policy  430

Infrastructure Maintenance  442

3.13                      Review of "Two Rocks Coastal Management - May 2006" Study Report on the Coastal Erosion North of Two Rocks Marina  442

3.14                      Parks and Reserves Maintenance Service Levels  448

3.15                      Water Conservation Plan  459

Tenders  471

3.16                      Tender No.  01141 - Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years  471

3.17                      Tender No. 01145 - Cleaning of Stormwater Pollutant Traps and Other Drainage Infrastructure for a Period of One  Year  476

Traffic Management  481

3.18                      PT02-09/11 - Cheltondale Drive, Madeley - Request for Road Closure  481

3.19                      PT03-09/11 - Request for Sound Barrier Wall - Lukin Drive/RAAFA Estate, Merriwa  489

3.20                      PT04-09/11 - Wanneroo Road - Request for Dualling of Carriageway Between Joondalup Drive and Menchetti Road  494

3.21                      2011/2012 Pathways Program Budget Variation  497

3.22                      Landsdale - Review of Traffic Flow Post Mirrabooka Avenue Extension  501

3.23                      Perth Bicycle Network Grants 2012/13  510

3.24                      Russell Road and Dalecross Avenue, Madeley - Traffic Management Scheme  516

Community Development  524

Capacity Building  524

3.25                      RAP Working Group Amendment to Terms of Reference and New Member  524

Communication and Events  529

3.26                      2012 Capricorn Festival Sponsorship Request  529

Corporate Strategy & Performance  538

Finance  538

3.27                      Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 December 2011  538

3.28                      Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 November 2011  587

Governance and Executive Services  599

3.29                      Donations to be Considered by Council - February 2012  599

3.30                      Naming of Facilities and Recognition of Outstanding Community Contributions Policy  606

Property  613

3.31                      Proposed Lease of Portion of Lot 105 Marmion Avenue Yanchep  613

Chief Executive Office  616

Item  4_____ Motions on Notice_ 616

Item  5_____ To Be Tabled at the Briefing/Circulated Under Separate Cover_ 616

5.1                         Adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreed Structure Plan No. 61 – Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar  616

5.2                         Suburban Jobs Program Funding Application  616

5.3                         Delegation of Authority to the CEO in Consultation with the Mayor over the Christmas/New Year Recess  616

Item  6_____ Public Question Time_ 616

Item  7_____ Confidential_ 616

Item  8_____ Date of Next Meeting_ 616

Item  9_____ Closure_ 616

 


Agenda

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Item  3      Reports

Declarations of Interest by Elected Members, including the nature and extent of the interest. Declaration of Interest forms to be completed and handed to the Chief Executive Officer.

Planning and Sustainability

Policies and Studies

3.1    Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre

File Ref:                                              5134 – 11/121921

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider final adoption of the revised draft Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre (LPP 5.2).

 

Background

LPP 5.2 expands and elaborates on the existing Wanneroo Town Centre Structure Plan (ASP 23) provisions by applying greater control and influence over development outcomes and the quality of built form in the Wanneroo Town Centre.

 

LPP 5.2 establishes a clear and consistent framework for the assessment and determination of development and subdivision applications within Wanneroo Town Centre. The framework sets out positions relating to various design elements and prescribes acceptable and unacceptable standards that applications for planning approval will be assessed against. LPP 5.2 provides additional guidance to applications that fall within three precincts in the Town Centre being identified as the Department of Environment and Conservation site on the corner of Dundebar Road and Wanneroo Road, Department of Education site on Shaw Road, and the lots enclosed by Dundebar Road, Conlan Avenue and Rocca Way.

 

The draft Policy was presented to Council at its meeting on 23 August 2011, where it was determined that it was satisfactory for the purpose of advertising. A copy of the draft Policy (as advertised) is included in Attachment 1.

Detail

In accordance with Council’s decision, draft LPP 5.2 was advertised for public comment for six weeks between 6 September 2011 and 18 October 2011 during which time twelve submissions were received. A table summarising the submissions, Administration’s response and recommended modifications are included as Attachment 2.

 

Submissions were received from Chappell Lambert Everett planning consultants, Department of Education, and Department of Environment and Conservation expressing their support for the Policy. A submission was also received from Main Roads WA commenting on the development standards contained in Table 2 of the Policy. The remaining submissions from landowners, both within and outside the Policy area, commented on the Long Term Vision, Policy extent and development standards. Administration is not proposing any changes to LPP 5.2 in response to these submissions.

 

However, three of the submissions received have resulted in proposed changes to LPP 5.2, as discussed below.

 

Retention of St Anthony’s School

The advertised draft LPP 5.2 proposed high density urban housing on the north-western portion of St Anthony’s School. St Anthony’s School, on behalf of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Perth, has requested that the School’s land be shown for educational use only due to the likely future expansion of the School. In response, it is proposed that LPP 5.2 be modified to remove the residential uses on the north-western portion of St Anthony’s School in accordance with the School’s submission.

 

Realignment of Policy Boundary

The advertised draft LPP 5.2 proposed an extension of Servite Terrace north and then west to connect to Wanneroo Road. McGees Property, acting on behalf of the Order of The Servants of Mary Incorporated, has requested that the Policy boundary exclude the land owned by the Servite Order. In response, it is proposed to amend LPP 5.2 to exclude the land owned by the Servite Order.

 

Single Use Development

The advertised draft LPP 5.2 sets out the following unacceptable standards related to ‘Land Use’:

 

·        Development that only accommodates a single use; and

·        Development that is structurally incapable of adaptive reuse.

 

Greg Rowe and Associates on behalf of the owner of Lot 520 (950) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo (being the Wanneroo Central Shopping Centre) has requested that these provisions be reworded as they may not apply to all uses in the Town Centre (e.g. the shopping centre). In response, it is proposed to remove the first provision and retain the second provision which will still allow for generational change of land uses to occur.

 

In addition to the above proposed changes to LPP 5.2, Administration also recommends the following two minor amendments to the Policy:

 

·        Amend the Preferred Uses in Table 3 of LPP 5.2 from Residential R60 to R-AC4 to Residential R60 to R-AC3. This is in response to the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC’s) finalised State Planning Policy 3.1: Residential Design Codes which replaced R-AC4 with R-AC3 since the preparation of draft LPP 5.2.

 

The revised Residential Design Codes proposes four types of R-AC codes (R-AC0, R-AC1, R-AC2 and R-AC3). The R-AC codes control the number and type of dwellings that are developed within mixed use development and activity centres. The R-AC3 code will allow for a maximum six storey development that may include commercial uses such as cafes and shops on the ground floor and apartment living above.

 

·        Amend Table 2 Acceptable Standard 4.1c) to remove the minimum 0.5 metre clearance from the kerb face to any awnings overhanging the road reserve. Whilst it is proposed to remove the 0.5 metre clearance from the kerb face to any awnings overhanging the road reserve, this provision still maintains a minimum awning width of two metres. This will facilitate a covered pedestrian footpath and accommodate the variety of road widths in the Town Centre.

 

A revised draft Policy (refer Attachment 3) has been prepared by Administration incorporating the proposed changes described above. These changes affect Figure 1 Policy Area, Figure 2 Long Term Vision, Table 2 Unacceptable Standards 1.1 and 1.2, Table 2 Acceptable Standard 4.1c), Table 3 Northern Sub-Precinct Preferred Uses, Table 3 Western Sub-Precinct Preferred Uses, and Table 3 Northern Sub-Precinct Framework Plan of the Policy. The Policy is otherwise the same as advertised.

Consultation

The draft Policy was advertised for public comment for a period of six weeks from 6 September 2011 to 18 October 2011 by way of:

 

·        Advertisements placed in the 'Wanneroo Times';

·        Display on the City’s website and Facebook page;

·        Letters to landowners and relevant stakeholders; and

·        An information session.

The revised draft Policy was presented to the Wanneroo Town Centre Advisory Group (WTCAG) on 22 November 2011 where it resolved to endorse:

 

1.       The revised draft Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre (LPP 5.2); and

 

2.       Proposed Amendment No. 5 to ASP 23, for the purpose of bringing the Structure Plan and LPP 5.2 into alignment.

Comment

The proposed changes to the Policy are considered to be of a relatively minor nature, do not alter the purpose or intent of the Policy, and are proposed in response to submissions received during advertising. Therefore, it is not considered necessary to advertise the draft revised Policy for further public comment.

 

As a separate but related issue, Council at its 23 August meeting was advised of the following instances where provisions in draft LPP 5.2 (as advertised for public comment) differ from those of ASP 23:

 

·        ASP 23 identifies the Western Sub-Precinct as R40, whereas LPP 5.2 identifies this area as Residential R60 to R-AC4. However, since the preparation of LPP 5.2, the WAPC finalised the Multi-Unit Housing Codes and replaced R-AC4 with R-AC3.

 

·        ASP 23 identifies the Northern Sub-Precinct as R80, whereas LPP 5.2 identifies this area as Residential R60 to R-AC4. Again, since the preparation of LPP 5.2, the WAPC finalised the Multi-Unit Housing Codes and replaced R-AC4 with R-AC3.

 

·        ASP 23 identifies a minimum 6 metre primary street setback in the Western Sub-Precinct, whereas LPP 5.2 identifies a minimum 2 metre primary street setback.

 

·        ASP 23 identifies a minimum 4 metre primary street setback in the Northern Sub-Precinct, whereas LPP 5.2 identifies a minimum of 2 metre, 2.5 metre and 4 metre primary street setbacks.

 

·        ASP 23 identifies a portion of land within the Northern Sub-Precinct as ‘Public Purpose’ whereas the advertised version of LPP 5.2 included this portion of land in the Northern Sub-Precinct mainly for residential development. However, this is no longer proposed in the revised LPP 5.2 and as such, there will no longer be any inconsistency between the Policy and ASP 23 on this point.

 

To bring ASP 23 into conformity with LPP 5.2, it is proposed to pursue a minor amendment to the Structure Plan (Amendment No. 5) to:

 

a)      Amend Map 2B of ASP 23 to recode Lot 500 (4) Shaw Road Wanneroo from ‘R40’ to ‘R60 to R-AC3’;

 

b)      Amend Map 2B of ASP 23 to recode Lot 145 (5) Dundebar Road, Lot 701 (990L) Wanneroo Road and Lot 703 (990) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo from ‘R80’ to ‘R60 to R-AC3’;

 

c)      Amend Clause 6.1d) being Wanneroo Square Precinct Setbacks to allow for 2 metre, 2.5 metre and 4 metre primary street setbacks from ‘Other Streets’; and

 

d)      Amend Clause 6.3d) being Wanneroo Road West Precinct Setbacks to allow for a minimum 2 metre primary street setback from ‘Other Streets’.

 

Pursuant to Clause 9.7.2 of DPS 2, Council may waive public notification of a proposed Structure Plan Amendment, when it considers that the amendment is of a minor nature that does not materially alter the intent of the Structure Plan or cause significant detriment to land within or abutting the Structure Plan area. Following this, Council must consider the Structure Plan Amendment under Clause 9.6 and do one or other of the following:

 

a)      refuse to adopt the Structure Plan Amendment; or

 

b)      resolve that the Structure Plan Amendment is satisfactory with or without modifications.

 

Proposed Amendment No. 5 to ASP 23 is considered a minor amendment to the Structure Plan as it does not materially alter the intent of the Structure Plan or cause significant detriment to land within or abutting the Structure Plan area. Furthermore, advertising has already occurred by way of LPP 5.2 and the Amendment is not proposing any material differences to what was advertised. Administration therefore recommends that Amendment No. 5 to ASP 23 be adopted without the need for further public advertising.

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with DPS 2, Council is required to review the draft Policy in light of any submissions made and must then resolve either to finally adopt the draft Policy with or without modification, or not to proceed with the draft Policy.

 

If Council adopts the draft Policy, then notification of its decision must be published once in a newspaper circulating in the District and a copy of the Policy forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

In relation to proposed Amendment No. 5 to ASP 23, Council can adopt that amendment as a minor amendment to the structure plan without the need for public advertising, in accordance with Clause 9.7.2 of DPS 2.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.4    Improve the quality of the built environment

Policy Implications

The draft Policy will form part of the City’s Local Planning Policy Framework and will provide essential guidance for planning and development control within the Town Centre.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

 1.      NOTES the submissions received in respect of draft Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre and ENDORSES the responses to those submissions prepared by Administration included in Attachment 2;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1(c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS the revised draft Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre included in Attachment 3;

3.       Pursuant to Clauses 8.11.3.1(d) and 8.11.3.1(e) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice of its adoption of the Policy in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times Community newspapers, INFORMS those persons who made submissions of Council’s decision and FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information;

4.       Pursuant to Clause 9.7.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, PREPARES Amendment No. 5 to Wanneroo Town Centre Agreed Structure Plan No. 23 to:

a)      Amend Map 2B of ASP 23 to recode Lot 500 (4) Shaw Road Wanneroo from ‘R40’ to ‘R60 to R-AC3’;

 

b)      Amend Map 2B of ASP 23 to recode Lot 145 (5) Dundebar Road, Lot 701 (990L) Wanneroo Road and Lot 703 (990) Wanneroo Road, Wanneroo from ‘R80’ to ‘R60 to R-AC3’;

 

c)      Amend Clause 6.1d) being Wanneroo Square Precinct Setbacks to allow for 2 metre, 2.5 metre and 4 metre primary street setbacks from ‘Other Streets’; and

 

d)      Amend Clause 6.3d) being Wanneroo Road West Precinct Setbacks to allow for a minimum 2 metre primary street setback from ‘Other Streets’.

 

5.       Pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 and 9.7.2 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, WAIVES public notification of Amendment No. 5 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 23 and, pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of the Scheme, RESOLVES that the Amendment is SATISFACTORY;

6.       REFERS Amendment No. 5 to Agreed Structure Plan No. 23 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for approval in accordance with Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2; and

7.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No. 2, AUTHORISES the Mayor and Chief Executive Officer to ADOPT, SIGN and SEAL Agreed Structure Plan No. 23 once duly modified in accordance with Amendment No. 5 to that plan, and following certification by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 to Council Report (11/91540 and 11/121921) - DRAFT Local Planning Policy 5.2  Wanneroo Town Centre

11/85381

 

2.

Attachment 2 to Council Report (11 121921) Summary of Submitters  Comments of Draft LPP 5.2

11/128686

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 to Council Report (11 121921)  FINAL Local Planning Policy 5.2 Wanneroo Town Centre

11/128688

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                              7


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                            11


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            12


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                            13


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            24


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                            27


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            36


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                            40


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            41


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                            42


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            53


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            56

3.2    Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan

File Ref:                                              2069 – 11/110093

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider final adoption of the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (CFP).

 

Background

In November 2009, State Planning Policy 3.6: Development Contributions for Infrastructure (SPP 3.6) was gazetted to promote the efficient and effective provision of infrastructure required as a result of new urban growth and development.

 

Historically, contributions have only been permitted to be sought for ‘hard’ infrastructure items such as roads and drainage.  SPP 3.6 expanded the list of contribution items to include community facilities, which were defined as:

 

“the structures and facilities which help communities and neighbourhoods to function effectively, including:

 

·        Sporting and recreational facilities;

·        Community centres;

·        Child care and after school centres;

·        Libraries and cultural facilities; and

·        Such other services and facilities for which development contributions may reasonably be requested, having regard to the objectives, scope and provision of this policy.”

 

A requirement of SPP 3.6 is that local governments must undertake the necessary strategic planning (in the form of a CFP) to determine the infrastructure and facilities required to service new developments before contributions are able to be levied through a Development Contribution Plan (DCP).

 

In 2010, Administration prepared a CFP for the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks district structure plan areas that comprise the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor (NCGC).  The CFP identified the required level of community facility provision and the proposed location and staging of these facilities within the NCGC in response to projected population growth.

 

The CFP was considered by Council at its meeting of 21 September 2010 (Item PS01-09/10) where it was resolved:

 

“That Council ADVERTISES the draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment for a period of 42 days by way of:

 

1.       Advertisements in the local paper for two consecutive weeks;

2.       Display on the City’s website; and

3.       Letters sent to and a workshop conducted with relevant stakeholders, as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability.”

 

 

 

Consultation

The CFP was advertised for public comment for a period of six weeks from 12 October 2010 to 22 November 2010 by way of:

 

·        Advertisements placed in the 'Wanneroo Times' and 'North Coast Times' Community Newspapers in the editions dated 12 and 19 October 2010;

 

·        Copies of the public notice and the draft documents publicly displayed at the City's Administration Building, Wanneroo Library, Girrawheen Library, Clarkson Library and Yanchep-Two Rocks Library;

 

·        Copies of the public notice and the draft documents displayed on the City’s website for the duration of the public comment period; and

 

·        Letters to key stakeholders advising of the draft documents along with an invitation to a stakeholder information session.

 

The CFP was advertised concurrently with Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions (LPP 3.3).  The outcome of advertising for LPP 3.3 is dealt with in a separate report on this Council agenda.

 

A stakeholder information session was held on 5 November 2010 to provide an overview of the CFP and LPP 3.3 and an opportunity for stakeholders to ask any questions regarding the proposals.  A number of questions and issues were raised at this session that indicated stakeholders needed more time to prepare their submissions on both draft documents.  Consequently the closure date for submissions was extended to 20 December 2010, resulting in a cumulative public comment period of 11 weeks.

 

Between January and October 2011, Administration met with landowners on three separate occasions, primarily to discuss issues relating to the associated Development Contribution Plans (DCP), but also to discuss the CFP and its relationship to the DCP prior to the CFP being finalised.

Detail

A total of 13 submissions were received during the advertising period from planning consultants representing landowners and developers active in the NCGC and all submitters commented on both the CFP and LPP 3.3.

 

A summary of submissions received, together with Administration’s responses and recommended modifications is included at Attachment 1, however, the key issues raised are outlined below:

 

Inconsistencies with State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP 3.6) and other issues related to the long timeframe of the CFP.

 

Submitters raised the long timeframe of the CFP (i.e. 50 years) as being inconsistent with SPP 3.6 and likely to create issues related to changing community needs over time.

 

SPP 3.6 recommends a maximum operation period for DCPs of 5-10 years, but does not specifically say that community facility plans (on which the DCP is based) cannot apply to a longer period.  Regardless of the timeframe being proposed for the DCPs, it is still considered appropriate and necessary to plan through to full build out of the NCGC to ensure that the City has a full understanding of future community facility requirements.

 

 

Although the long timeframe of the draft CFP may present challenges in terms of accurately predicting growth patterns and community needs (particularly beyond 2031), regular review of the CFP in accordance with the review framework proposed for the final DCP will ensure that the CFP will continue to represent the City’s vision for future community facility provision.  The CFP will therefore effectively serve as a viable blueprint for the future rollout and ongoing review of the DCP.

 

The CFP only proposes facilities once the full population threshold has been reached.

 

Submitters felt that the methodology used to determine the timeframes for delivery of facilities does not allow the early provision of facilities to stimulate development or anchor community development. 

 

The draft CFP does not propose the early provision of community facilities, instead relying on certain population thresholds to be reached to trigger the need for facilities to be provided.  The stakeholder comment is therefore valid.

 

Accordingly, where it is determined by the City that it is beneficial and affordable to bring facilities on early, it is proposed that this be addressed through the operation of the corresponding DCP, with the CFP to remain as a blueprint for subsequent DCP reviews and preparation (acknowledging that the CFP will itself also be subject to regular reviews). 

 

This will ensure that the recommendations of the CFP are consistently based on sound rationale and planning methodology, with the DCP accommodating more immediate needs based on developer staging and intentions that are not reflected in the CFP.

 

Some aspects of the facility planning methodology are questioned (i.e. use of standards), and the need for some facilities is not quantified (i.e. Indoor Recreation/Aquatic Centre in Alkimos).

 

The draft CFP clearly outlines the methodology used to determine facility requirements and this is consistent with industry practice.  Although it has been raised as an issue in some submissions, it has been thoroughly reviewed and subsequently supported by others.  The issue of some facilities not being quantified relates to the identification of regional facilities whose catchments cover both DSP areas.  The need for these facilities was determined by looking at the NCGC as a whole rather than each DSP area in isolation and this approach identified additional facilities to those identified by stakeholders in their planning for their specific DSP area.

 

The scope of the facilities proposed in the CFP is not clear.

 

It is acknowledged that the role, scale and function of facilities proposed in the draft CFP required greater definition.  The scope of the facilities identified in the draft CFP has been subsequently developed as part of the preparation of a cost estimate for the implementation of the CFP.  Administration’s work on this issue is outlined later in this report.

 

Detailed Comments

 

A number of detailed comments were received requesting minor changes to the CFP to better reflect developer intentions and proposed staging.  These detailed comments are outlined in Attachment 1.  As these proposed changes do not alter the intent or principles of the CFP, Administration generally accepts these comments and is proposing to amend the CFP accordingly.

 

Overall, the majority of respondents acknowledged the contents of the CFP and commended the City for attempting to determine the future facility needs of the NCGC.

 

Comment

The draft CFP is the culmination of a significant body of work planning for the future community facility requirements for the NCGC.  It was intentionally drafted as a high level document – addressing district and corridor-wide facilities only – to determine facility requirements through to build out of the corridor in 50 years time and to form a crucial element in the preparation of a DCP for the NCGC.

 

Overall, the comments received during advertising generally support the approach taken by the City to determine an appropriate range of facilities for inclusion in the DCP.  However, there are some changes proposed to the CFP as a result of feedback received during advertising and other work subsequently undertaken on the detailed models for each of the facility types and associated cost estimates.  All of the proposed changes to the draft CFP are shown as tracked changes in Attachment 2 and discussed below.

 

Community Facility Models

 

In order to provide more clarity on the scope of proposed community facilities, and to provide a sound basis for the preparation of cost estimates for the DCP, consultant quantity surveyors were appointed in March 2011 to work with the City to prepare detailed models for each of the facilities listed in the draft CFP.

 

These models represent the standard requirements for each facility and are essentially a high level concept plan without any visual representation.  The models identify the following elements in order to determine the relevant building and lot footprints required for each facility:

 

·        The required rooms and spaces and their associated floor areas;

·        Internal circulation areas;

·        External circulation areas;

·        Landscaping areas; and

·        Carparking areas.

 

As the exact context and location of each facility is yet to be determined, each of the facility models that have been developed represent multipurpose facilities that can adapt to any specific use that may reflect the specific demographics of the future community in which they will be located.  Detailed design processes at a later stage will identify any specific design responses that need to be incorporated into the facility.

 

These models are proposed to be incorporated into the final CFP and have been included at Appendix 17 of the proposed revised CFP (included at Attachment 3).

 

Recommended Modifications to the CFP

 

Recommended changes to the CFP as a result of advertising are outlined in Attachment 1.  However, as a result of preparing the facility models outlined above, it became clear that some additional changes to the CFP were required.  These proposed changes are outlined below:

 

Removal of Performing Arts Centres

 

The proposed provision of performing arts centres in the CFP is based primarily on the standards of provision outlined in the report.  However, during subsequent investigation into appropriate facility examples on which to prepare a model and determine a cost estimate, it was determined that such facilities should be removed from the CFP for the following reasons:

 

·        There were no consistent models on which their provision may be based, and those that were available did not fit into any particular hierarchy;

 

·        Both regional and district level facilities are not considered to be the funding or management responsibility of local government;

 

·        District level facilities are provided already by the Department of Education.  Should community access be required, this could be negotiated outside of the CFP/DCP arrangement, with any funding necessary to facilitate community use considered as part of the annual budget process.

 

Should Council wish to pursue the development of performing arts centres in the future, it is envisaged that the City would play more of a lobbying, facilitating and supporting role rather than that of a direct project and facility manager.  It is therefore considered more appropriate that this be addressed through a strategic approach outside of the CFP.

 

Removal of Art Gallery & Exhibition Centres

 

The draft CFP proposed the provision of a regional Art Gallery and Exhibition Centre within the Yanchep City Centre.  Further, it proposed a number of district galleries within multipurpose community centres.  As a result of public advertising and subsequent investigation into appropriate facility examples on which to prepare a model and determine a cost estimate, it is proposed to delete specific art galleries and exhibition centres from the CFP for the following reasons:

 

·        The provision of purpose built art galleries at a regional level is not considered to be the funding or management responsibility of local government.  Their provision may be considered as part of the university proposed in Yanchep or by some other means.  To this effect, similar to Performing Arts Centres, it is envisaged that the City would play more of a lobbying and facilitation role than that of a direct project and facility manager.

 

·        The specific listing of art galleries at district level caused confusion within stakeholders as to whether they were specific facilities or not, and how their provision needed to be considered as part of a cost sharing arrangement.  Given that such facilities at district level were only proposed to form part of a greater multipurpose community centre, it is not considered necessary to list them as specific items in the CFP.

 

Despite the above, there may still be a need for gallery space, which as the draft CFP stated - “should be incorporated into a library or community centre to create a cultural hub”. Provision of such space is therefore proposed to be linked to regional libraries in the final CFP.

 

Relationship to DCPs

 

The CFP is intended to be used as a blueprint for the ongoing operation and review of the DCPs for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks.  However, not all the facilities included in the CFP will be subject to contributions through the DCPs.

 

In particular, regional facilities are included in the CFP because they are needed, and the role of the CFP is to identify future community facility requirements based on projected and actual population growth.  However, they are excluded from the DCPs because they are proposed to be funded through a different mechanism outside of a Scheme-enforced cost sharing arrangement.

 


 

 

Cost Estimates

 

The facility models were used to prepare cost estimates for each of the facilities, and these estimates in turn informed the preparation of a DCP, which outline how the costs to deliver the facilities would be shared between developing landowners.  Full details of these cost estimates are included in a separate report to Council relating to the DCP, however of relevance to the CFP is the proposal to cost the facilities to achieve a 6-star green star rating, which will require significant enhancements to a base building scope.  This cost allowance is considered appropriate and will ensure that future facilities managed by the City are delivered in a way that would minimise ongoing operational costs and the impact of those facilities on the environment.

 

The proposed revised CFP, included at Attachment 3 incorporating the changes outlined above and in the Summary of Submissions, is now presented to Council for final adoption.

Statutory Compliance

The preparation of a Community Facility Plan is a necessary prerequisite to the preparation and finalisation of a Development Contribution Plan in accordance with SPP 3.6.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.1    Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options

 

2.2    Improve the City’s identity and community well-being through arts, culture, leisure and recreation

 

          3        Economic

                   3.3     Provision of timely and coordinated regional infrastructure.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Endorsement of the Community Facility Plan does not in itself commit the City to delivering all of the facilities proposed therein.  However, the eventual gazettal of DCPs for the area will commit and legally oblige Council to delivering the facilities that are to be funded through the DCPs at the point in time when they are proposed, regardless of whether sufficient funds have been collected from developers to do so.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 


 

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       NOTES the summary of submissions received in respect of the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to and recommendations on those submissions, as included at Attachment 1;

2.       ADOPTS the final Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan as included at Attachment 3; and

3.       INFORMS those persons who made a submission on the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan of Council’s decision in respect of that Plan.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Summary of Submissions - Draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan

11/109628

Minuted

2.

Attachment 2 - NCGC CFP w/ Tracked Changes

11/128440

 

3.

Attachment 3 - NCGC CFP - Final

11/128446

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                            63

Draft NCGC – Community Facilities Plan (CFP)

Summary of submissions

 

ISSUE

SUBMITTER

RESPONSE

RECOMMENDED MODIFICATION

 

Can infrastructure can be predicted, requested and contributed for 50 years ahead?

 

 

 

1

It is considered inequitable for developers to contribute to facilities that are 10, 15, 30 years away from being delivered.  Early developers are disadvantaged as they lose marketing benefit from these facilities.  Early residents are unable to access facilities that they have contributed to, and lose capital appreciation if they sell their properties before the facilities are developed.

 

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd;

Capricorn Village Joint Village;

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Delfin Lend Lease;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

This issue relates to the operation of the Development Contribution Plan (DCP).

 

 

None.

2

Due to demographic changes over a 50 year period the need for a particular facility may alter or may diminish. Therefore resulting in problems trying to forecast facility provision that far into the future.

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd;

Capricorn Village Joint Venture;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & Others

It is acknowledged that the accuracy and relevance of the plan decreases the further it looks ahead, however it is considered appropriate to plan for a 50 year horizon in order to gain an understanding of the likely infrastructure requirements of future communities.

 

This is a review and implementation issue and it is also possible that the need may increase for a certain type of facility.  It is evident that there is a need for ongoing review based on the most accurate data available at the time.

 

None.

3

Considered necessary to identify a flexible process within the DCP for when community need can be met through ways that differ from that outlined in the community facilities plan.

 

Stockland

This issue relates to the operation of the Development Contribution Plan.

 

None.

4

The long timeframe of the CFP is not consistent with the 5-10 year horizon specified in SPP 3.6. 

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & Others;

Urban Development Institute of Australia

SPP3.6 recommends a 5-10 year timeframe for the operation of Development Contribution Plans, however there is no restriction on the timeframes of Community Facility Plans.

 

This issue will therefore be addressed as part of the Development Contribution Plan, with the CFP acting as a blueprint for the progressive rollout of consecutive contribution plans over the lifetime of urban development in the NCGC.

 

None.

 

Impacting on housing affordability

 

 

 

5

Additional infrastructure proposed by the Draft Community Facilities Plan will reduce housing affordability.  The provision of regional and district community infrastructure should be in line with the Yanchep Two Rocks DSP in order to reduce uncertainty and risk.

Chappell Lambert Everett – Australand Holdings Ltd

The ‘additional infrastructure’ referred to primarily results from the City considering the future growth corridor population as a whole, rather than as two separate DSP areas, with the combined population justifying the inclusion of some additional facilities.

 

Although costs are a key risk, there will be a significant demand for facilities throughout the growth corridor.  Grants and other funding sources will be sought to offset costs.

 

Administration has been working closely with landowners on the preparation of the DCP to reduce costs where possible.

 

None.

6

Uncertainty in infrastructure development will result in reduced housing affordability due to the high level of risk

Urban Development Institute of Australia

It is unsure what is meant by “uncertainty in infrastructure development”.  The CFP clearly outlines what infrastructure is required and by when – reflecting the scale of population growth expected in the NCGC. 

 

Comments in relation to housing affordability and high risk have been addressed through considerable consultation and discussion with stakeholders in relation to the inclusion (or otherwise) of the proposed facilities in the DCP.  Stakeholders will have further opportunities to have input into the DCP process should it be approved for public advertising.

 

None.

7

In its current format the DCP will impact on housing affordability due to the lack of appropriate mechanisms for collecting subsidies.

 

Delfin Lend Lease

See response to Issue 6.

None.

 

Population Estimates / Demographics

 

 

 

8

Applying an assumed dwelling occupancy rate of 2.6 persons per dwelling (ppd) could result in the City being liable in terms of refunding developers contributions that are not required, due to differences between what infrastructure is projected to be provided and by when and what in reality could occur.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The rationale behind the population projections used in the report are clearly outlined and have been supported by many of the submissions received during advertising.  It will still be necessary to monitor and review actual progress against projected growth.  As the City is also taking on risk in administering the proposed DCPs, it is in the City’s best interests to ensure that an appropriate review and implementation framework is put in place.

 

None.

9

A continual review and adjustment of current and forecast figures is required to ensure the CFP is relevant (monitor 2.6 pph)

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

See response to issue 8.

None.

10

Clarification between Section 2.3 of CFP and Section 2.5, Point or issue 3. In relation to 2.3 “The population demographics are not considered to have a considerable impact on the provision of community facilities at a district or regional level” and 2.5 issue 3 “The communities being planned for currently don’t exist and there is a need to understand their likely makeup in order to determine their infrastructure requirements”

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted.  The conflict will be removed.

In section 2.5, replace the third dot point with the following text:

 

“The communities being planned for do not currently exist and there is a need to understand the impacts of future growth (through population projections) on future infrastructure requirements;”

 

11

Currently the projections are justified by the high population estimates, however if these estimates don’t eventuate then the rationale behind their inclusion could and should be challenged.  This further emphasises the need for a flexible plan.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others,

See response to Issue 8

None.

12

The population projections differ from what has been produced by Directions 2031 and WA Tomorrow, impacting on proposed facility provision.  Flexibility needs to be built into the CFP to respond to what is ultimately delivered.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture; Taylor Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited

Based on information available to the City, the projections in Directions 2031 and WA tomorrow are considered to be fairly conservative.  The City has used the population projections from the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks District Structure Plans which are considered to be more closely linked to the intentions of the developers and goals of development in the NCGC.  Further, the District Structure Plans have been endorsed by both the City of Wanneroo and the Western Australian Planning Commission.

None.

13

No evidence of consultation with stakeholders or community for Yanchep - Two Rocks region. Consultation should occur to direct the next 10 years of planning for Yanchep – Two Rocks.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The City is aware of the facility requirements of the existing communities in the growth corridor and these have been incorporated into the CFP and are already being addressed in the City’s financial planning.  Existing communities are unable to provide detailed comment on the requirements of future communities and therefore direct consultation has not been undertaken with these groups. However, the CFP was publicly advertised and available for anyone to provide comment on.

 

None.

 

Validity of Provision standards

 

 

 

14

Standards used are generally comparable to those used in the industry, but some are too high, reflecting a trend by local governments to provide less community infrastructure in recent years.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The standards used as a basis for determining preliminary facility requirements are considered to be appropriate for the NCGC.  A review of the standards comparison provided by the submitter revealed them to be relatively consistent with the other examples provided.

 

None.

15

To make standards more robust the CFP should provide generic concept designs for the proposed facilities that include:

-         A comprehensive definition of the facility;

-         Key design components;

-         Floor space areas;

-         Finish and build quality;

-         Relevant examples; and

-         Cost estimates.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

See response to Issue 19.

None.

16

Question the use of a 10km + radius to determine the demand catchment.

 

Delfin Lend Lease

The 10km+ radius used for regional facilities reflects the larger scale nature of these types of facilities and the fact that they will generally be accessed by car or public transport from a greater distance than facilities provided at a local level.  In reality, it is likely that these facilities will be accessed from distances greater than 10km, however as a means of determining primary catchment it is considered appropriate. 

 

None.

17

It is argued that within the NCGC there is insufficient net developable area to achieve the population thresholds of a number of proposed regional facilities. It is considered more effective and beneficial to develop a greater number of district level facilities that can be expanded to a regional standard as need requires.

Delfin Lend Lease

The proposed provision of regional facilities is primarily based on provision thresholds that were reviewed and tested against existing provision.  It is acknowledged that in some cases there were insufficient examples against which to test provision and therefore a threshold that was considered to represent the ideal catchment for that facility was used.  Regardless, it will be critical that a robust review and implementation framework be built into the final DCP that addresses the issue of data variance from that used as a basis for facility proposals.

 

None.

18

Should utilise more information from other growth councils and use established councils as a reality check to ensure provision is adequately met.

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

Noted.  Provision standards were obtained from other growth councils and comparisons made when selecting the preferred standard for use in the report.  A comparison of facility provision was made against the Cities of Joondalup and Stirling to determine suitability of the standards, with the CFP adjusted accordingly where considered necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

None.

 

Specification and Costing of facilities

 

 

 

19

Further information on the type, design and finish of facilities is required. It is recommended that ‘case study’ examples are given to provide guidance to developers and inform cost assumptions. (Landcorp request facility specifications)

Stockland;

Landcorp;

Woodsome Management

Since the time of public advertising, a comprehensive facility modelling and costing exercise has been completed as part of the preparation of the DCP.  This clearly outlines the scope of each facility proposed and provides a basis for determining costs. This facility modelling should be included (as a new Appendix 17) in the CFP.

 

Add “Appendix 17 – Community Facility Models” to the Community Facilities Plan.

20

No definition is provided on ‘Beach Activity Nodes’ or ‘coastal node facilities’. Specifications are required so developers have a clear understanding of what is proposed to be contributed towards.

 

Stockland;

Capricorn Village Joint Village;

Woodsome Management

See response to Issue 19.

None.

21

Land, operational and maintenance requirement costs have not been included. Seek clarification as to whether these items will be factored into the normal budgeting process of council once the facilities have been provided.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others,

SPP 3.6 does not enable ongoing facility costs to be paid for via a DCP. As such, local governments will be responsible for budgeting for the annual operation of such facilities, as is already the case. See response to Issue 19.

None.

22

Provide costing with estimated inflation applied and other factors. Landcorp would like a detailed costing estimate

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Landcorp;

Woodsome Management;

Delfin Lend Lease;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

 

 

 

 

See response to Issue 19.

None.

 

Future development and process of CFP

 

 

 

23

Believe that the CFP is a good starting point however the next phase of the document needs to be complete in order to properly inform the DCP, this includes;

-         A review of relevant research and studies

-         An analysis of population growth and a demographic profile

-         An audit on existing community facilities

-         A review of facility provision standards

-         Comparative analysis, a review of community infrastructure in similar communities

-         Consultation with stakeholders and community organisations to determine existing and future  facility requirements

-         Consider community sporting and recreation funding and other state government funding into any forecast cost estimate.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited

It is uncertain what is intended by this comment.  The stages listed by the respondent have all been completed as part of the CFP process and the consideration of funding sources, which will be incorporated into work on the final DCP.

None.

24

Believe that due to the constant changing environment and its impact on the CFP that the plan should predict infrastructure no further than 20 years to ensure accuracy. The plan would then be reviewed prior to the 20 years expiring

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others,

This is more a DCP issue than a CFP issue. See response to Issue 4

None.

25

Will the CFP be reviewed on a constant basis (likely every 5 years with capital expenditure budget) and annual monitoring of funds

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Delfin Lend Lease;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

 

A review and implementation framework will be incorporated into the final DCP.

None.

26

The provision of facilities and their associated costs need to be continually reviewed. This evaluation process needs to be included in report.

 

Woodsome Management

See response to Issue 25.

None.

27

Methodology used to determine community facility requirements considered to need a lot of work.  It is unclear how some previously uncontemplated facilities are now considered necessary.

Stockland

Methodology utilised in the CFP is consistent with that utilised by other local governments and industry consultants.

 

As mentioned in the CFP, it is not considered appropriate or feasible to undertake a full and comprehensive needs analysis involving review and assessment of existing facility capacity; survey and consultation with community groups and households; and subsequent determination of provision gaps and implications, when the vast majority of the subject area is presently undeveloped.

 

None.

 

Specific Staging, Location or Provision differentiation

 

 

 

28

The District Public Open Space proposed for the Yanchep Strategic Centre should be renamed as “Local Active Open Space Area 8ha” within the CFP in recognition of it forming part of the 10% POS provision in the Yanchep City Structure Plan.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

It is now proposed that the land for the Yanchep District Open Space be acquired by the City of Wanneroo, with the associated costs reimbursed by funds collected through the proposed Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Plan.

 

Regardless, the Public Open Space proposed in the CFP at this location is considered to play a district function in terms of its scale, location relative to the city centre and future relationship to the university, regardless of whether the land component is provided as part of 10% POS allocation or acquired separately by the City.  It is therefore not proposed to be renamed.

 

None.

29

Seek clarification as to why a district aquatic centre co-located with the university and recreation centre within the Yanchep Strategic Centre, has not been included even though it was identified in the YBJV Community Facilities Needs Assessment. They will explore the location of the centre in further detail during the LSP phase.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The City’s original preference for aquatic facilities in terms of maximising physical catchment was to locate the aquatic centre further north, more central to the Yanchep Two Rocks catchment, with an additional aquatic centre in Alkimos addressing the southern catchment.

 

However it is acknowledged that this approach is fundamentally different to that originally planned in the DSPs and will result in additional cost.  Further it is acknowledged that a single aquatic centre for the NCGC may better match the preferred catchment for such a facility.

 

It is therefore proposed to consolidate the provision of indoor aquatic centres through a single regional facility in the Yanchep City Centre, and reassess the provision of district level indoor recreation centres as a result of the proposed removal of the aquatic component from the regional recreation centres proposed in Alkimos and Two Rocks.

 

Delete the Regional Indoor Recreation Centre from the Yanchep City Centre and replace it with a Regional Indoor Recreation / Aquatic Centre.

 

Delete the Regional Indoor Recreation / Aquatic Centre from the Alkimos Regional Centre and the Two Rocks Regional Centre and replace them with a Regional Indoor Recreation Centre in the same location.

 

Delete the District Indoor Recreation Centre proposed for the Two Rocks Regional Centre.

 

Delete the District Indoor Recreation Centre proposed at East Alkimos.

 

Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

 

30

Seek further clarification as to why a District Indoor Recreation Centre is located at South Yanchep, since it was not originally thought to be necessary, especially with the overlapping catchment of the Regional Indoor recreation centre at the Strategic centre.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The district indoor recreation centre was included as a result of existing development at South Yanchep and proposed development in the Yanchep district centre and further east along the southern side of Yanchep Beach Road requiring access to a district facility that can service their needs outside of a large scale regional facility within the regional centre.

 

Yanchep Beach Road was considered to be a major physical barrier to delineate catchments and studies completed as part of LSPs for these areas are clear that whilst individual developments are not large enough to justify a community facility on their own, when combined with neighbouring communities, there may be sufficient justification for such a facility.  This would therefore be best located within the centre to maximise accessibility.

 

It is acknowledged however that this does fall within the catchment of the regional facility and that in the interest of minimising costs it is appropriate to remove the district facility proposed at South Yanchep.

 

Delete the District Indoor Recreation Centre originally proposed for the South Yanchep District Centre.

 

Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

31

Provision of shared use facilities within YBJV land holdings will need to be closely linked with any future “heads of agreement” between the City, university, providers and state government.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted

None.

32

Seeking a statement that co-located facilities will to be based on the development of other infrastructure eg. Rail, university and their implementation may affect the staging of some co located facilities

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted, acknowledging that this is a more detailed planning issue.

After the fourth paragraph of section 5.1 on page 23 of the CFP, add the following text:

 

“Due to the nature of co-located facilities, their ultimate staging will be dependent on the development of other infrastructure such as schools, universities and rail.”

 

33

Exact locations of facilities should be determined by the LSP / consultation with landholders and not be fixed by the staged planning of the CFP.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Agreed.  The CFP shows only indicative locations that are to be refined at a more detailed level of planning.

 

None.

34

Regional Library in Stage 4 is supported, with the preferred outcome being shared-use with the university

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted

None.

35

Regional Performing Arts Centre in Stage 5 is supported, co-located with the university

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted

None.

36

Regional Art Gallery proposed in Stage 8 was not included in the YBJV Community Needs Analysis, but is supported.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted

None.

37

Support the extension of the rail to Yanchep City by 2011-2016 and the accepted alignment north of the Yanchep City Centre.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted, however the inclusion of major rail and road infrastructure (as originally shown in the City’s NCGC Infrastructure Staging Strategy) was for the purposes of context only and is not proposed to form part of the DCP.

 

None.

38

Support the double rail extension in Stage 10

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted.  See response to Issue 37.

None.

39

Lots 201 and 202 Breakwater Drive are shown as urban however they are rural-residential development and will be developed by 2016-2021.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

 

Noted.  No zone classifications were intended to be shown in the CFP maps, only progressive urban development.

None.

40

The location of the SLSC at Yanchep needs to be updated to reflect current thinking that it will remain at the Yanchep lagoon.

 

Capricorn Village Joint Village

Agreed.

Delete the Regional Beach Coastal Node Facilities and Surf Life Saving Australia Club from the Capricorn Coastal Node and replace with District Beach Coastal Node Facilities

 

Delete the District Beach Coastal Node Facilities from the Yanchep Lagoon and replace with Regional Beach Coastal Node Facilities and Surf Life Saving Australia Club.

 

Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

 

41

Suggest that the Capricorn Coastal Node be reclassified as a district beach, with the future location of the marina further north to become a regional beach.

 

Capricorn Village Joint Village

Agreed in principle.  The future classification of  the Marina will be clarified through the City’s Draft Coastal Management Plan.

None.

42

Oversupply of District Indoor Recreation Centre’s in Alkimos – Eglinton or a mistake on Figure 7, 8 or 9 of the document. The Alkimos – Eglinton Draft DCP only accounts for 1, while the CFP has 2.

 

Woodsome Management

The additional District Indoor Recreation Centre was proposed as a result of the NCGC population being considered as a whole rather than as separate DSP areas.

 

It is acknowledged that this is a duplication of the Regional Indoor Recreation Centre proposed in the adjacent regional centre.

 

See proposed change in response to Issue 29.

 

Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

43

An additional regional indoor recreation facility is proposed (in conjunction with an aquatic facility) that has never before been required or discussed.  It is not equitable that district landowners should be the only financial contributors to such facilities just because of location.  Regional facilities should be excluded unless a mechanism is included that facilitates funding from the wider catchment.

 

Woodsome Management

The additional regional indoor recreation & aquatic centre is proposed as a result of the NCGC population being considered as a whole rather than as separate DSP areas.

See proposed change as a result of Issue 29

44

The ‘Mary Lindsay Homestead’ should be classified as an existing facility and further utilised as a district level art gallery

Capricorn Village Joint Village

The Mary Lindsay Homestead was left out of the CFP as its future use is still being investigated by the City.  Its nature as a heritage facility is not considered consistent with the community facilities listed in the plan.

 

None.

45

The provision of Performing Arts Centres seems to be relatively high particularly in Yanchep – Two Rocks.  Needs further justification with relevant evidence of similar levels of provision elsewhere in the City.

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd and others, Capricorn village Joint Venture.

The proposed provision of performing arts centres is based primarily on the standards of provision as outlined in the report.  However during subsequent investigation into appropriate facility models and management responsibilities for performing arts centres it was determined that it may be more appropriate to remove them from the CFP for the following reasons:

 

·           There are no consistent models on which their provision may be based.

 

·           Both regional and district level facilities are not considered to be the funding or management responsibility of local government

 

·           District level facilities are provided already by the department of education and community access could be negotiated outside of the CFP/DCP arrangement.

 

With the exception of “Section 3 - Facility Provision Principles & Considerations”, remove all mention of Performing Arts Centres from the Community Facilities Plan.

46

Potential under-provision of facilities in the Alkimos – Eglinton area due to the combination of  the majority of regional facilities being located in Yanchep – Two Rocks and the Alkimos – Eglinton area being completed well before the Yanchep – Two Rocks region

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

A lack of facilities as an area develops is to be expected in a growing community, however there will also be local facilities available until higher order facilities come on line.  The NCGC has been considered as a whole and facilities have been proposed accordingly, where they can best meet the needs of the community.

 

None.

47

On map 2011 – 2016 the map should indicate two shopping centres on Lots 204 and 102 where district facilities are planned

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

It is outside the scope of this plan to indicate actual development of shopping centres.  Growth and development is shown indicatively through red shading on the plan and on the stage 1 map (2011-2016) is consistent with the intended development timeframe outlined in the comment.

 

None.

48

Map 2011 – 2016, District POS needs to be moved slightly South to be at the junction of the two “Other regional roads”

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

Agreed.

On all “Facility Staging and Location Maps” included at Appendix 10 except Stage 0, relocate the District POS proposed for the Yanchep City Centre further south closer to the junction of the two ‘other regional roads’.

 

49

Map 2012 – 2026, should display the “Stadium” within the Yanchep City Centre, even though the playing surface won’t be for community use the associated facilities will be.

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

As a private facility, the proposed Arena is not considered to be appropriate for inclusion in the community facility plan.

None.

50

The maps should show the location of High Schools and their likely development timeline, even though it will only be accurate for the next 10 – 20 years.

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

The final map shows the DSP frameworks relative to the community facility proposals.  This layer already shows the indicative location of high schools and their basis for determining facility locations and co-location opportunities.

 

To introduce the timing of the high schools would add another layer of uncertainty and complexity to the plan.  The delivery of those facilities that are proposed to be co-located with high schools will naturally be linked to the high school construction timeframe and as a result, subject to ongoing review.

 

None.

51

Map 2026 – 2031 displays the regional library in Yanchep City Centre, it is planned that this facility will be operational by 2016 – 2021 in its initial capacity

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

Noted.  It is proposed to retain the regional library within Stage 4 (2027-2031) as this is when it is considered necessary as a result of population growth.  Should it be delivered early, there is provision within development contribution plans for this to occur.

 

None.

52

Final map needs to be modified as follows:

-         Relocate the District Indoor Recreation Centre North from the Northern Town Centre to the secondary centre

-         Relocate the District Community Centre and Art Gallery from its identified location to the secondary centre

-         Within the Yanchep Strategic Metropolitan Centre, the regional indoor recreation centre should be co located with the proposed stadium.

-         An aquatic centre needs to be located with the Strategic metropolitan centre

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others

The District Indoor Recreation Centre to which this comment refers is proposed to be deleted given its proximity to the proposed Regional Indoor Recreation Centre at the Two Rocks Regional Town Centre which, as a result of the change in approach to the provision of Aquatic Centres (see response to Issue 29) is no longer proposed to accommodate an aquatic centre.

 

The relocation of the District Community Centre to the Two Rocks District Centre is supported.

 

The co-location of the Regional Indoor Recreation & Aquatic Centre with the proposed stadium in the Yanchep City Centre is supported, but no change is considered necessary to the CFP.  This detail can be addressed as part of detailed planning for the City centre.

 

Relocate the District Community Centre from North Two Rocks District Centre to the Two Rocks Regional Town Centre.

 

 

53

Question why District level Art Galleries have been included in the CFP, previously they have been excluded from the provision

Woodsome Management

They were not intended to be stand alone facilities; rather just spaces within district community centres.

 

To avoid confusion it is agreed that district art galleries be deleted from the CFP.

 

Delete all mention of District Art Gallery and Exhibition Centre from the Community Facilities Plan.

 

Amend all maps and tables accordingly.

 

Continual review of CFP

 

 

 

54

Will the CFP be reviewed on a constant basis (likely every 5 years with capital expenditure budget) and annual monitoring of funds?

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Delfin Lend Lease;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others

 

Yes, the facilities plan will be subject to regular review as part of the final DCP.

None.

55

The provision of facilities and their associated costs need to be continually reviewed. This evaluation process needs to be included in report

Woodsome Management

Agreed.  Detailed costing of the facilities plan has been undertaken as part of the preparation of the DCP.  A framework for review will also be included as part of the DCP.

 

None.

 

Seek further clarity in relation to the distinction between ‘Local’ and ‘District’ facilities.

 

 

 

56

Page 10 in the CFP states that both local and district facilities can be ‘medium in scale’ and that ‘district facilities often resource local facilities. Request greater clarity between the two.

 

Capricorn Village Joint Village

The report states that district level facilities are ‘medium scale facilities’ and that local facilities are ‘small to medium scale’.  No further clarity is considered necessary.

None

57

Definitions and hierarchy are different to what has previously been discussed with Alkimos Eglinton and there are discrepancies between the City’s CFP and the AE DCP

Woodsome Management, Landcorp.

The CFP has been developed as an individual body of work, and while it has due regard to other relevant documents, it has considered facility requirements for the NCGC as a whole, which has not previously occurred.  In doing so, the approach has been targeted specifically for a ‘whole of corridor’ approach and consequently there may be some differences to other documents prepared by individual developers, or groups of developers.

 

These differences have been discussed with the Alkimos Eglinton Landowner group as part of the preparation of the DCP and no change is considered necessary to the CFP.

 

This will be addressed as part of a future review of the CFP as part of the finalisation of the DCP.

 

Need to enhance the link and clarity between the CFP and DCP

 

 

 

58

Seek clarification if the CFP is intended to be integrated into the DCP upon its release for community consultation, or whether the release of the CFP as Policy is an attempt by the City to commence advertising for the future DCP.

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

The draft CFP was being advertised for the purpose of being finalised and endorsed by Council as a Community Facilities Plan for the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor.  The review of the CFP following advertising has occurred concurrently with and has directly informed the preparation of a DCP for the NCGC as per the requirements of SPP 3.6.

 

None.

59

CFP should form a component of the overall agreed DCP and should not be considered in isolation

 

Masterplan consultants – P & N Landreach Pty Ltd

See response to Issue 58.

None.

60

A lack of clear and logical sequencing or hierarchy of documents associated with the draft CFP and DCP which links all of the various parts of the strategic planning and implementation for the corridor in a manner that allows a thorough understanding of the costs and implications of the plan. A single document is preferred.

 

Delfin Lend Lease

The relationship between all the documents is clearly set out in SPP3.6.

None.

 

Timeline of delivering facilities 

 

 

 

61

Developers need to know projected infrastructure timeline in order to commence promoting a facility within a specific timeframe. The City should commit to a specific timeframe, if the City doesn’t comply to the timeframe then the City would be required to debt fund any shortfall of funding against future development contribution commitments.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Delfin Lend Lease

This is an issue to be addressed in the final DCP.

None.

62

Staging strategy needs to be highly flexible while still achieving its goals.

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others.

Agreed.  The CFP is proposed to act as a blueprint for the future rollout of Development Contribution Plans.  The CFP maps are staged in 5 year time periods, leaving significant flexibility for DCPs to bring forward or delay the delivery of facilities as considered appropriate.  Future reviews of the CFP will provide additional flexibility to address changing priorities or development assumptions.

 

None.

 

General Comments

 

 

 

63

It is recommended that the CFP be reviewed to determine which facilities need to be provided in advance of demonstrated need to assist with job creation to reach ESS targets.

 

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd, & others,

Any need to deliver facilities earlier than proposed in the CFP will be picked up through regular review of the CFP.  Further, there will be flexibility in the DCP to provide facilities earlier than specified where supported by Council.

 

None.

64

Update nodal arrangements (name and ensure number is correct) of corridor to be in line with Yanchep / Two Rocks DSP and or SPP 4.2. Need for consistency

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Atlantis Cove Pty Ltd & others,

Noted.  The report will be amended to ensure consistency.

In the table on page 21, the “Draft Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Centre Names” map in Appendix 4, the “Deleted Facilities” table in Appendix 9 and the “Facility Justification” table in Appendix 11, replace:

·           “Alkimos Regional Centre” with “Alkimos Secondary Centre”;

·           “South Yanchep District Centre” with “South Yanchep DSP Centre ‘C’”

·           “Yanchep Regional City Centre” with “Yanchep Strategic Metropolitan Centre”;

·           “Two Rocks District Centre” with “Yanchep DSP Centre ‘K’”;

·           “Two Rocks Regional Town Centre” with “Two Rocks North Secondary Centre”; and

·           “North Two Rocks District Centre” with “Yanchep DSP Centre ‘F’”.

 

65

CFP contains no section on implementation, governance or accountability

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture;

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Peet Limited;

Delfin Lend Lease

 

This detail will be included as part of the final DCP.

None.

66

Appendix 3 doesn’t include a column for the hierarchy (Regional, District and Local) and current age / condition of the included facilities.

 

Taylor, Burrell and Barnett – Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Noted.  A column will be added to Appendix 3 to clarify the catchment of existing facilities.

Add a new right hand column to the table in “Appendix 3: Existing Infrastructure in Northern Coastal Growth Corridor” entitled “Catchment”.

 

Populate the new column, classifying each facility as either ‘Local’, ‘District’ or ‘Regional’ as relevant, depending on its catchment.

 

67

Additional research currently being undertaken by developers in terms of community development and infrastructure. The City needs to incorporate this research into its planning

 

Stockland;

Urban Development Institute of Australia;

Masterplan consultants – P & N Landreach Pty Ltd

Noted. This has since occurred through the detailed consultation and collaboration with developers, which has led to the finalisation of the CFP and draft DCPs.

None.

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                            83


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          108


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          110


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          112


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          114


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          117


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          119


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          131


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          140


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          143


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          162


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          166


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          191


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          193


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          195


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          197


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          200


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          202


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          214


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          223


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          226


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          245

3.3    Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions

File Ref:                                              2069 – 11/124797

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       7         

 

Issue

To consider the outcomes of the public consultation on Draft Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions (LPP 3.3) and to consider initiating Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) to incorporate Development Contribution Plans for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks.

 

Background

Administration prepared LPP 3.3 in 2010 to address the issue of development contributions in the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor (NCGC) while a Development Contribution Plan (DCP) was being prepared and to ensure that development did not proceed without a legally binding imposition on active developers to contribute towards community facilities.

 

Put simply, LPP 3.3 proposed the application of a condition on all subdivision applications within the NCGC that would require the applicant to enter into a legal agreement committing to pay a cost contribution towards community facilities once this amount was determined by the City as part of the preparation of the DCP for the NCGG.  The Policy also included a model agreement that could be readily applied to each application when required.

 

LPP 3.3 (along with the draft NCGC Community Facilities Plan) was considered by Council at its meeting of 21 September 2010 (Items PS02-09/10) where it was resolved:

 

“That Council pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1(a) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADVERTISES draft Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions, as contained in Attachment 1, for public comment for a period of 42 days, by way of:

 

1.       Advertisements in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks;

2.       Display on the City’s website; and

3.      Letters sent to and a workshop conducted with relevant stakeholders, as determined by the Director Planning and Sustainability.”

 

Consultation

 

Both LPP 3.3 and the Community Facilities Plan (CFP) were advertised for public comment for a period of six weeks from 12 October to 22 November 2010 by way of:

 

·        Advertisements placed in the 12 and 19 October 2010 editions of the 'Wanneroo Times' and 'North Coast Times' Community Newspapers;

 

·        Copies of the public notice and the draft documents publicly displayed at the City's Administration Building, Wanneroo Library, Girrawheen Library, Clarkson Library and Yanchep-Two Rocks Library;

 

·        Copies of the public notice and the draft documents displayed on the City’s website for the duration of the public comment period; and

 

 

 

·        Letters to key stakeholders advising of the draft documents along with an invitation to attend a stakeholder information session.

 

A stakeholder information session was held on 5 November 2010 to provide an overview of both documents and an opportunity for stakeholders to ask any questions regarding the proposals.  A number of questions and issues were raised at that session, indicating stakeholders needed more time to prepare their submissions on both draft documents.  Consequently, the closure date for submissions was extended to 20 December 2010, resulting in a cumulative public comment period of 11 weeks.

 

A total of 13 submissions were received during the advertising period from planning consultants and landowners active in the NCGC.

 

Overall, LPP 3.3 was not supported by stakeholders for the following reasons:

 

·        it was proposing a legal agreement that was not considered to be voluntary;

·        it was seeking developer agreement to make future contributions without knowing the contribution amount;

·        it was inconsistent with the principles of State Planning Policy 3.6 (SPP 3.6) - primarily those of need & nexus and equity - and the basic prerequisites of Development Contribution Plans as set out in SPP 3.6;

·        submitters felt that the proposed legal agreement should be delayed until the full costs and apportionment details have been determined (i.e. a DCP has been prepared); and

·        it was considered inequitable to combine contributions into one ‘account’ for application across the entire NCGC, given that the District Structure Plans (DSPs) for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks each require a development contribution to be made specific to the relevant DSP area.

 

It was clear from the submissions that opposition to the draft LPP 3.3 related primarily to the principles underpinning that Policy, rather than any particular provision of the Policy.

 

Therefore, as discussed at the Council Forum on 5 July 2011, Administration proposed to abandon LPP 3.3 in its advertised form (as contained in Attachment 1) and instead continue discussions with stakeholders to arrive at an interim approach to development contributions in parallel with further consultation surrounding the DCP framework itself.

 

Administration has invested considerable resources and effort in engaging with affected landowners over the past 12 months, to arrive at a comprehensive DCP framework that now has the support of those landowners.  This consultation and collaboration has included countless discussions, communication and negotiation with landowners individually, collectively and in their two groups (Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks).  This has included detailed landowner workshops held on 5 November 2010, 8 April 2011, 18 July 2011, 19 July 2011 and 14 October 2011.

 

A summary of all submissions received and Administration’s responses and recommendations to each, is provided in the Schedule of Submissions included as Attachment 4.

 

The final DCP framework is now complete and outlined below for Council’s consideration.

Detail

The final DCP framework is made up of three distinct elements, as follows:

 

1.       Development Contribution Plans;

2.       Amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2);

 

3.       An interim approach to development contributions, as set out in a revised LPP 3.3 

 

Each of these three elements is discussed in detail below.

 

1.       Development Contribution Plans

 

As discussed at the Council Forum on 5 July 2011, separate DCPs are proposed to be prepared for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks, each with a similar framework. 

 

Details of the proposed DCPs are outlined below, based on the requirements of SPP 3.6, with further supporting information detailed in the Development Contribution Plan Report included at Attachment 6.

 

Development Contribution Area (DCA)

 

Two distinct contribution areas have been identified within the NCGC:

 

·        Alkimos Eglinton DCA; and

·        Yanchep Two Rocks DCA.

 

These development contribution areas reflect the boundaries of the District Structure Plans for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks and contain all land within the NCGC that is capable of being developed with residential dwellings.

 

Period of operation

 

The following timeframes are proposed to apply for each of the DCPs from the date of gazettal of Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2):

 

·        Alkimos Eglinton DCP - 20 years;

·        Yanchep Two Rocks DCP - 20 years

 

These timeframes represent the maximum period that could reasonably be applied, whilst still maintaining a nexus between the contributing lots and the facilities to be delivered.  Build out for both DCAs is projected to occur beyond the proposed 20 year timeframe.  Subsequent DCPs will therefore be required for both DCAs to enable the collection of contributions for facilities required beyond the period of the initial DCPs.

 

Facilities and administrative costs to be funded through the plan

 

SPP 3.6 only allows the collection of contributions towards the costs of land acquisition, facility construction and administration of the DCP.  Both proposed DCPs accord with these requirements, as discussed below.

 

Facility Costs

 

SPP 3.6 states that only facilities identified in the local government’s CFP may be included in the DCP.  Accordingly, the list of facilities proposed to be funded through the DCPs is consistent with the NCGC CFP, which has been advertised for public comment and is being presented for final approval as the subject of a separate report to Council. In this regard it is worth noting that while the CFP identifies all the community facilities likely to be required for the NCGC to full build-out, not all of those facilities are proposed to be funded through the DCPs.

 

 

 

 

For Alkimos Eglinton, a total of six (6) district facilities are proposed within the initial 20 year period of that DCP, at a total cost of $47.5 million (based on 2011 costs).  This equates to approximately $63,206 per hectare or $3,392 per lot.

 

For Yanchep Two Rocks, a total of eight (8) district facilities are proposed within the first 20 year period of that DCP, at a total cost of $53.5 million.  This equates to approximately $57,418 per hectare or $2,362 per lot.

 

The facility costs mentioned above have been determined by qualified quantity surveyors.

 

Land Costs

 

Englobo land values for Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks have been determined separately by independent qualified valuers and applied to facilities where the acquisition of land is the only mechanism of securing the land for the facility.  Facilities that are generally located within regional recreation reserves, foreshore reserves or public open space do not incorporate land costs in the estimate, as that land will need to be given up free of cost by the developer through the normal subdivision approval process.

 

The only exception to this approach is the District Public Open Space proposed for the Yanchep Metropolitan Centre which has been the subject of negotiation between the City and the developer regarding its early provision.  The DCPs do not universally propose to include land costs for public open space as there is considered sufficient capacity within the statutory 10% public open space (POS) given up through subdivision to meet the land requirement for these facilities.

 

However, in the case of the Yanchep District Open Space, negotiations with the developer have required the land to be acquired ahead of when it might otherwise be provided through the normal subdivision process and it is therefore proposed that land costs be included in the DCP for this public open space only.  Should it be determined as part of future reviews of the DCP that the land for other POS sites cannot be secured through the normal subdivision process, then costs for land acquisition can be included in the cost estimate for additional POS facilities at that stage.

 

Administrative Costs

 

Administrative costs to be funded through the DCP include those costs involved in the preparation, administration and review of the DCP, any arbitration and valuation costs incurred with respect to the DCP and any advice and representation costs including legal, accounting, planning, engineering or other professional advice and representation.

 

Full detail of administrative items to be included in the Development Contribution Plan cannot yet be confirmed, but will be finalised following gazettal of the DCP as part of the final endorsement of the cost apportionment schedule.

 

Priority and timing for the provision of facilities

 

The priority and timing for the delivery of community facilities in the DCPs accords with that outlined in the CFP and DCP Report.

 

The methodology for determining cost contributions

 

The DCPs only propose to include land capable of being developed for residential dwellings at urban densities in the DCAs.  Land zoned ‘rural’ and ‘rural residential’ is excluded from the DCPs.

 

 

Both DCPs propose to utilise the Per Hectare model of calculating development contributions, which is based on the total area of developable land subject to a subdivision application, rather than the number of lots or dwellings proposed to be created as a result of that subdivision.

 

The cost per hectare is calculated by dividing the total cost of the facilities to be funded through the DCP by the total area of developable land (i.e. gross land area minus statutory and non-statutory deductions) projected to be contributing to those facilities in each DCA. 

 

The DCPs propose that 100% of the cost of delivering the necessary facilities be met by future growth in recognition of the fact that the need for the new facilities arises directly as a result of residential growth in the NCGC.

 

2.       Amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2)

 

DCPs do not have effect until they are incorporated into a local planning scheme.   Administration is therefore proposing to amend DPS 2 to incorporate the proposed DCPs.

 

The proposed amendment to DPS 2 comprises the following:

 

(i)      Modifications to Clause 5.5.1 to introduce two new special control areas relating to the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Areas;

 

(ii)      Modifications to “Schedule 16 - Special Control Areas” to introduce two new special control areas relating to the Alkimos Eglinton and Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Areas

 

(iii)     Introducing three new Schedules under the Scheme pertaining to:

 

a.       text provisions relating to the operation of the new DCPs;

b.       Alkimos Eglinton DCP; and

c.       Yanchep Two Rocks DCP.

 

(iv)    Amendments to the Scheme Map in accordance with the above (see Attachment 7).

 

3.       Interim approach to development contributions / Revised LPP 3.3

 

The issue of how contributions are to be addressed during the period until gazettal of the DCP has been the subject of considerable discussion between Administration and landowners since LPP 3.3 was first advertised for public comment.

 

The payment of voluntary contributions based on agreed contribution amounts has been agreed between landowners as being the most appropriate means of addressing the issue.  To this end, the following interim contribution amounts were agreed by landowners as being appropriate:

 

·        Alkimos Eglinton           -        $2,000 per lot

·        Yanchep Two Rocks    -        $1,750 per lot

 

Administration supports the payment of the interim contributions mentioned above, and it is proposed to implement this interim approach through the application of a revised and simplified LPP 3.3 that eliminates the need for a legal agreement approach as originally proposed, and instead simply outlines the subdivision condition to be recommended to the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) for imposition on all subdivision applications within the NCGC, and the applicable interim cost contribution to be paid to the City by each developer, in order to satisfy that condition.

 

A ‘tracked changes’ version of LPP 3.3 showing the changes made between the original advertised version of the policy and the revised proposal is included as Attachment 2.  These changes respond to comments raised in the submissions received during public advertising (refer Attachment 4) and subsequent discussions with landowners on the matter of interim contributions.

Comment

1.       Development Contribution Plans

 

Stakeholder Support

 

Whilst landowner agreement has been reached on most aspects of the proposed DCP, some elements elicited differing views, depending on the individual circumstances of each landowner.

 

The two elements that do not have the full support of all landowners are the DCP timeframes and the proposal for cost contributions to pay for 100% of the cost of delivering the facilities.  These two elements are discussed below.

 

·        DCP timeframe

 

Various timeframe options have been explored for the DCPs as follows:

 

1.       A fixed timeframe through to full build-out (i.e. AE = 30yrs, YTR = 50yrs);

This option ensures that contributions are collected from all landowners for all facilities, but has a weaker nexus between contributing landowners and the facilities to be delivered.  Some landowners did not support an approach where they would potentially be required to contribute now for a facility that will not be delivered for another 20, 30 or 40 years.

 

2.       Shorter fixed timeframes (i.e. AE = 20yrs, YTR = 20 yrs);

This option provides a stronger nexus than option 1, but contributions will only be collected for the facilities proposed to be delivered within the timeframe of each DCP.  Subsequent DCPs (post the initial 20 year time horizon) will therefore be required and they will likely have higher contribution rates than the initial DCPs.

 

3.       A rolling 10 year DCP timeframe;

This option provides the strongest nexus between collection of contributions and facility provision and was supported by most landowners.  However this option would result in a fluctuating contribution rate from year to year that would create ongoing inequity and uncertainty in terms of cost impacts, and would also be the most difficult option to administer.

 

Graphs comparing the implications of each option on the development contribution amount, are included at Attachment 5.

 

Option 1 was initially the City’s preferred option, however discussions with the Department of Planning on the matter indicated that long timeframes are not likely to be supported by the WAPC.  The maximum timeframe considered acceptable by the Commission to date is 20 years.  In light of this advice, Administration has prepared the final DCP framework based on Option 2, with the initial DCPs proposed to operate for a period of 20 years.


 

 

·        Cost contributions based on 100% of the cost of delivering the facilities

 

Some landowners argued that the DCP should recognise future grants that would be applicable to the delivery of facilities as well as potential savings resulting from co-location of facilities.  It was felt that if 100% of the cost of those facilities was developer funded, then there would be no impetus on the City to seek offset grant funding.

 

Administration is of the firm view that it is premature to recognise (and therefore attempt to rely on) additional funding sources provided at the discretion of state and federal governments, when there is no guarantee that funding would even be available or approved, the location and design of each facility is still purely conceptual, and there is a significant amount of planning still to be done before the actual design and location (and potential co-location) of the facilities can be confirmed.

 

To include an assumed grant or saving in the DCP at this stage of the process would impose a substantial, unnecessary and avoidable risk on Council having to meet any future shortfall of costs resulting from a future variance from the assumed cost model. To illustrate this risk, it is noted that Commonwealth grant funding often varies between election cycles and is influenced by the ruling political party, whilst at State level there is rarely any certainty regarding the likeliness of attracting funding under the Community Sporting and Recreation Facilities Fund, particularly as the State Government typically receives considerably more requests for assistance under that Fund than can be met from the funds available.  Therefore, the preferred approach is to assume no savings or additional funding sources from the outset, and instead include any future grant funding or cost savings in the ongoing review of the DCPs.

 

To address the prospect of the City applying for future grants, it is proposed to include text within the scheme amendment to permit the establishment of a consultative committee for each of the DCAs comprising of landowners, City Administration, Elected Members and any other stakeholders considered appropriate by Council.  The committee would make recommendations to Council in relation to the timing and arrangements of DCP works and could also identify and pursue additional funding sources, as a means of reducing development contribution amounts or increasing facility specifications.

 

Costs

 

Administration has been mindful of the need to contain the unit costs imposed on developers, as those costs will inevitably be passed on to future purchasers of the lots produced during the DCPs operation.  The cost contribution amounts have therefore contained as much as possible to ensure the DCPs have as little impact as possible on housing affordability in the NCGC.

 

The original cost estimate to implement the CFP presented to the Council Forum on 5 July 2011, whilst not unreasonable, was considered by stakeholders to be too high to be acceptable.   Administration has therefore worked with stakeholders to minimise costs by amending the cost estimates and reducing the number of facilities to be funded through the DCPs, as outlined below:

 

·        Amend the cost estimate;

 

Administration sought feedback from all stakeholders on the facility models and associated cost report.  Stakeholder comments resulted in the removal of cost allowances for public art and fitout of the facilities from the cost estimate.  The removal of these allowances was primarily in the interest of minimising costs and, as such, Council may be required to fund these elements in future, at the time of construction of each facility, as is ordinarily and already the case.

 

·        Reduce the number of facilities in the DCP;

 

A key strategy discussed with stakeholders to reduce the cost contribution was to remove regional facilities from the DCP.  The regional facilities proposed in the CFP made up the majority of the overall cost, making it a key factor in the initial cost contribution figures being unacceptable to stakeholders.  Removing the regional facilities from the DCP significantly reduced the cost contribution figures and addressed other concerns within the stakeholder group related to nexus and catchment that were proving difficult to resolve.

 

The removal of regional facilities is considered acceptable by Administration for the following reasons:

 

(i)      The removal of these facilities from the DCP significantly reduces the cost contribution amounts to what is more likely to be approved by the WAPC;

(ii)      The provision of district level facilities, whilst not a substitute for the timely and strategic delivery of higher-level regional facilities, could be done in a way that would facilitate a future upgrade to regional status, providing that the location of the facility and the land area upon which it is situated, are suitable for accommodating such a transition in status; and

(iii)     Regional facilities are more likely to be the subject of targeted grant applications and alternate funding sources, as is current practice.

 

The provision of these regional facilities will need to be progressed in accordance with the methodology used for the provision of all other facilities not subject to contribution arrangements.  Hence, unless alternative funding sources can be secured for the provision of regional facilities, those facilities will either not be provided by the City or will need to be funded by Council at considerable expense. 

 

2.       Amendment to District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2)

 

Scheme amendments to incorporate DCPs must ensure that the DCAs are shown on the Scheme Map as well as identified in the Scheme Text.  To this end, SPP 3.6 contains model scheme text provisions to facilitate the implementation of development contributions.

 

The proposed amendment to DPS 2 has been prepared generally in accordance with SPP 3.6, but modified slightly to reflect the structure of DPS 2.  It shows the DCAs on the Scheme Map as two new Special Control Areas (SCAs), with the model scheme text from SPP 3.6 and the DCPs inserted into three new schedules of DPS 2.

 

The facility costs, estimates, timing and apportionment schedule (as included in the Development Contribution Plan Report) are not incorporated into the Scheme but are required to be advertised with the Scheme Amendment Report and must be endorsed by Council within 90 days following gazettal of the DCP.  The costs and apportionment schedule are then to be reviewed annually and subsequently endorsed by Council outside of the scheme amendment process.  This avoids the need to amend the Scheme whenever costs are reviewed or the timing of facility delivery updated.

 

3.       Interim approach to development contributions / Revised LPP 3.3

 

The proposed interim approach to contributions is seen as the best way of ensuring that developers in the NCGC seeking approval of subdivisions prior to the gazettal of the DCP are not excused from making a contribution towards the provision of these facilities.

 


 

 

The figures agreed between landowners and Administration as being appropriate represent an amount less than the figures proposed to be implemented through the DCP.  This is in recognition of the fact that this is a voluntary payment and there is presently no legal requirement for the landowners to make such a payment.

 

It is not proposed to reconcile any difference between the interim cost contributions paid and the final cost contribution on gazettal of the DCP, because the amount of land likely to be developed ahead of gazettal of the DCPs, and therefore attract an interim contribution payment, will be insignificant relative to the amount of developable land remaining in the NCGC that will be available to collect contributions from towards community facilities.

 

The changes made to LPP 3.3 to facilitate this interim arrangement are in direct response to comments made during advertising and subsequent consultation with affected stakeholders.  It is therefore considered appropriate to adopt the revised LPP 3.3 (as contained in Attachment 3) in accordance with sub-clause 8.11.3.1 (c) of DPS 2, without the need for additional public advertising.

Statutory Compliance

Development Contribution Plans must generally accord with the provisions of SPP 3.6: Development Contributions for Infrastructure.  The proposed scheme amendment to incorporate the DCPs will follow the statutory process outlined in the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

It is proposed to adopt LPP 3.3 in accordance with sub-clause 8.11.3.1 (c) of DPS 2.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 

 “2     Social

2.2    Improve the City’s identity and community well-being through arts, culture, leisure and recreation

 

            “3    Economic

                   3.3    Provision of timely and coordinated regional infrastructure”

            “4    Governance

                   4.4    Maintain long-term financial stability”

Policy Implications

As part of this proposal, Draft LPP 3.3 is presented for final adoption by Council following public advertising.

Financial Implications

By implementing a contribution arrangement and collecting contributions, Council is committing to the delivery of the facilities identified in the DCP at the times specified therein, and takes on the risks associated with this, including potentially having to make up any shortfall in funding at the time of construction and/or to construct the facility at the required point in time, regardless of whether sufficient funds have been collected at that time to do so. 


 

 

In any event, the administration of the DCPs will be managed closely to ensure it is ‘cost-neutral’ to the City, with any additional or borrowing costs incurred by Council (including interest on any new loans) being recouped through future ongoing reviews of the DCPs.

 

Contributions are required to be deposited into a reserve account until they are required, and may only be used for the purposes outlined in the DCP.   Surplus funds at the end of the life of the DCP must be either returned to those developers that paid the funds or, where that is not possible, used to fund the provision of additional facilities or improvements in the relevant development contribution area.

 

It should also be noted that developer contributions collected under this proposed arrangement will be used to fund the acquisition of land (where necessary) and construction of new community facilities, and not for operating costs associated with the City’s running of these facilities.  As such, those operating costs will need to be factored into the City’s 10 year financial plan and relevant annual budgets in future.

 

Voting Requirements

 

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1.       NOTES the Summary of Submissions received in respect of draft Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions and ENDORSES Administration’s responses to and recommendations on those submissions, as included in Attachment 4;

 

2.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1 (c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 ADOPTS Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions included in Attachment 3;

 

3.       Pursuant to Clauses 8.11.3.1 (d) and (e) of District Planning Scheme No. 2 PUBLISHES notice of its adoption of Local Planning Policy 3.3: Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times Community newspapers, FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australia Planning Commission for its information, and ADVISES submitters of Council’s decision;

 

4.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purpose of:

 

          (i)      Inserting a new subclause 5.5.1 (b) as follows:

 

          “(b) Alkimos Eglinton Special Control Area, and marked as SCA (b) on the Scheme Map.”

 

          (ii)     Inserting a new subclause 5.5.1 (c) as follows:

 

          “(c) Yanchep Two Rocks Special Control Area, and marked as SCA (c) on the Scheme Map.”

 

         


 

 

(iii)    Inserting two new areas into Schedule 16 “Special Control Areas”, as follows:

 

SPECIAL CONTROL AREA

SPECIAL PROVISIONS

SCA (b) Alkimos / Eglinton

1.   Subdivision within this Special Control Area is subject to the provisions set out in Schedules 18 and 19 of the Scheme.

 

SCA (c) Yanchep / Two Rocks

1.   Subdivision within this Special Control Area is subject to the provisions set out in Schedules 18 and 20 of the Scheme.

 

 

          (iv)    Inserting a new Schedule 18 “Development Contribution Areas” as follows:

 

1.0     Interpretation

 

In Schedule 18, unless the context otherwise requires—

 

‘Administrative costs’ means such costs as are reasonably incurred for the preparation and (with respect to standard infrastructure items) implementation of the development contribution plan.

 

‘Administrative items’ means the administrative matters required to be carried out by or on behalf of the local government in order to prepare and (with respect to standard infrastructure items) implement the development contribution plan, including legal, accounting, planning, engineering, and other professional advice.

 

‘Cost apportionment schedule’ means a schedule prepared and distributed in accordance with Clause 10.0.

 

‘Cost contribution’ means the contribution to the cost of infrastructure and administrative costs.

 

‘Development contribution area’ means the area shown on the scheme map as SCA (b) and SCA (c) and included in Schedules 19 and 20.

 

‘Development contribution plan’ means a development contribution plan prepared in accordance with the provisions of State Planning Policy 3.6 Development Contributions for Infrastructure and the provisions of this Schedule 18 of the scheme (as incorporated in Schedule 19 and 20 to this scheme).

 

‘Development contribution plan report’ means a report prepared and distributed in accordance with clause 10.0.

 


 

 

‘Infrastructure’ means the standard infrastructure items (services and facilities set out in Appendix 1 of State Planning Policy 3.6 Development Contributions for Infrastructure) and community infrastructure, including recreational facilities; community centres; child care and after school centres; libraries and cultural facilities and such other services and facilities for which development contributions may reasonably be requested having regard to the objectives, scope and provisions of State Planning Policy 3.6 Development Contributions for Infrastructure.

 

‘Infrastructure costs’ means such costs as are reasonably incurred for the acquisition and construction of infrastructure.

 

‘Local government’ means the local government or local governments in which the development contribution area is located or through which the services and facilities are provided.

 

‘Owner’ means an owner of land that is located within a development contribution area.

 

2.0     Purpose

 

The purpose of having development contribution areas is to:

 

(a)     provide for the equitable sharing of the costs of infrastructure and administrative costs between owners;

 

(b)     ensure that cost contributions are reasonably required as a result of the subdivision and development of land in the development contribution area; and

 

(c)     coordinate the timely provision of Infrastructure.

 

         3.0     Development contribution plan required

 

A development contribution plan is required to be prepared for each development contribution area.

 

4.0    Development contribution plan part of scheme

 

The development contribution plans are incorporated in Schedules 19 and 20 as part of this scheme.

 

5.0     Subdivision, strata subdivision and development

 

The local government shall not withhold its support for subdivision, strata subdivision or refuse to approve a development solely for the reason that a development contribution plan is not in effect, there is no approval to advertise a development contribution plan, or that there is no other arrangement with respect to an owner’s contribution towards the provision of community infrastructure.

 

6.0    Guiding principles for development contribution plans

 

         The development contribution plan for any development contribution area is to be prepared in accordance with the following principles:

 

 

(a)     Need and the nexus

          The need for the infrastructure included in the plan must be clearly demonstrated (need) and the connection between the development and the demand created should be clearly established (nexus).

         

(b)     Transparency

          Both the method for calculating the development contribution and the manner in which it is applied should be clear, transparent and simple to understand and administer.

 

(c)     Equity

          Development contributions should be levied from all developments within a development contribution area, based on their relative contribution to need.

 

(d)     Certainty

          All development contributions should be clearly identified and methods of accounting for cost adjustments determined at the commencement of a development.

 

(e)     Efficiency

          Development contributions should be justified on a whole of life capital cost basis consistent with maintaining financial discipline on service providers by precluding over recovery of costs.

 

(f)      Consistency

          Development contributions should be applied uniformly across a development contribution area and the methodology for applying contributions should be consistent.

 

(g)     Right of consultation and review

          Owners have the right to be consulted on the manner in which development contributions are determined. They also have the opportunity to seek a review by an independent third party if they believe the calculation of the costs of the contributions is not reasonable.

 

(h)     Accountable

          There must be accountability in the manner in which development contributions are determined and expended.

 

7.0    Recommended content of development contribution plans

 

7.1    The development contribution plan is to specify—

 

(a) the development contribution area to which the development contribution plan applies;

 

(b)    the infrastructure and administrative items to be funded through the development contribution plan;

 

(c)    the method of determining the cost contribution of each owner; and

 

(d)    the priority and timing for the provision of infrastructure.

 


 

 

8.0    Period of development contribution plan

 

         A development contribution plan shall specify the period during which it is to operate.

 

9.0    Land excluded

 

         In calculating both the area of an owner’s land and the total area of land in a development contribution area, the area of land provided in that development contribution area for:

 

(a)     roads designated under the Metropolitan Region Scheme as primary regional roads and other regional roads;

 

(b)     existing public open space;

 

(c)     existing government primary and secondary schools; and

 

(d)     such other land as is set out in the development contribution plan;

 

is to be excluded.

 

          10.0 Development contribution plan report and cost apportionment schedule

 

10.1   Within 90 days of the development contribution plan coming into effect, the local government is to adopt and make available a development contribution plan report and cost apportionment schedule to all owners in the development contribution area.

 

10.2 The development contribution plan report and the cost apportionment schedule shall set out in detail the calculation of the cost contribution for each owner in the development contribution area, based on the methodology provided in the development contribution plan, and shall take into account any proposed staging of the development.

 

10.3  The development contribution plan report and the cost apportionment schedule do not form part of the scheme, but once adopted by the local government they are subject to review as provided under clause 11.0.

 

         11.0 Cost contributions based on estimates

 

         11.1   The determination of Infrastructure costs and administrative costs is to be based on amounts expended, but when expenditure has not occurred, it is to be based on the best and latest estimated costs available to the local government and adjusted accordingly, if necessary.

 

11.2 Where a cost apportionment schedule contains estimated costs, such estimated costs are to be reviewed at least annually by the local government—

 

(a)      in the case of land to be acquired, in accordance with clause 12.0; and

 

(b)     in all other cases, in accordance with the best and latest information available to the local government, until the expenditure on the relevant item of infrastructure or administrative costs has occurred.

 

         11.3   The local government is to have such estimated costs independently certified by appropriate qualified persons and must provide such independent certification to an owner when requested to do so.

 

         11.4 Where any cost contribution has been calculated on the basis of an estimated cost, the local government—

 

(a)     is to adjust the cost contribution of any owner in accordance with the revised estimated costs; and

 

(b)     may accept a cost contribution, based upon estimated costs, as a final cost contribution and enter into an agreement with the owner accordingly.

 

          11.5 Where an owner’s cost contribution is adjusted under clause 11.4, the local government, on receiving a request in writing from an owner, is to provide the owner with a copy of estimated costs and the calculation of adjustments.

 

          11.6 If an owner objects to the amount of a cost contribution, the owner may give notice to the local government requesting a review of the amount of the cost contribution by an appropriate qualified person (‘independent expert’) agreed by the local government and the owner at the owner’s expense, within 28 days after being informed of the cost contribution.

 

         11.7 If the independent expert does not change the cost contribution to a figure acceptable to the owner, the cost contribution is to be determined—

 

(a)     by any method agreed between the local government and the owner; or

 

(b)     if the local government and the owner cannot agree on a method pursuant to (a) or on an independent expert, by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Act 1985, with the costs to be shared equally between the local government and owner.

 

         12      Valuation

 

12.1 Clause 12.0 applies in order to determine the value of land to be acquired for the purpose of providing Infrastructure.

 

          12.2 In clause 12.0:

 

‘Value’ means the fair market value of land, at a specified date, which is defined as the capital sum that would be negotiated in an arm’s length transaction in an open and unrestricted market, assuming the highest and best use of the land with all its potential and limitations (other than the limitation arising from the transaction for which the land is being valued), wherein the parties act knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion to buy or sell.

 

       The net land value is to be determined by a static feasibility valuation model, using the working sheet model outlined in Clause 20 of this Schedule.  As part of that feasibility an appropriate profit and risk factor is to be determined from which a 10 per cent profit factor is to be excluded from the calculation.

 

       ‘Valuer’ means a licensed valuer agreed by the local government and the owner, or, where the local government and the owner are unable to reach agreement, by a valuer appointed by the President of the Western Australian Division of the Australian Property Institute.

 

          12.3 If an owner objects to a valuation made by the valuer, the owner may give notice to the local government requesting a review of the amount of the value, at the owner’s expense, within 28 days after being informed of the value.

 

         12.4   If, following a review, the valuer’s determination of the value of the land is still not a figure acceptable to the owner, the value is to be determined—

 

(a)      by any method agreed between the local government and the owner; or

 

(b)     if the local government and the owner cannot agree, the owner may apply to the State Administrative Tribunal for a review of the matter under part 14 of the Planning and Development Act 2005.

 

         13.0 Liability for cost contributions

 

         13.1 An owner must make a cost contribution in accordance with the applicable development contribution plan and the provisions of Schedule 18.

 

         13.2 An owner’s liability to pay the owner’s cost contribution to the local government arises on the earlier of—

 

(a)     the Western Australian Planning Commission endorsing its approval on the deposited plan or survey strata plan of the subdivision of the owner’s land within the development contribution area;

 

(b)     the commencement of any development on the owner’s land within the development contribution area;

 

(c)     the approval of any strata plan by the local government or Western Australian Planning Commission on the owner’s land within the development contribution area; or

 

(d)     the approval of a change or extension of use by the local government on the owner’s land within the development contribution area.

 

                   The liability arises only once upon the earliest of the above listed events.

 

          13.3 Notwithstanding clause 13.2, an owner’s liability to pay the owner’s cost contribution does not arise if the owner commences development of the first single house or outbuildings associated with that first single house on an existing lot which has not been subdivided or strata subdivided since the coming into effect of the development contribution plan.

 

          13.4 Where a development contribution plan expires in accordance with clause 8.0, an owner’s liability to pay the owner’s cost contribution under that development contribution plan shall be deemed to continue in effect and be carried over into any subsequent development contribution plan which includes the owner’s land, subject to such liability.

 

 

          14.0 Payment of cost contribution

 

          14.1 The owner, with the agreement of the local government, is to pay the owner’s cost contribution by:

 

(a)     cheque or cash;

 

(b)     transferring to the local government or a public authority land in satisfaction of the cost contribution;

 

(c)     the provision of physical infrastructure;

 

(d)     some other method acceptable to the local government; or

 

(e)     any combination of these methods.

 

          14.2 The owner, with the agreement of the local government, may pay the owner’s cost contribution in a lump sum, by instalments or in such other manner acceptable to the local government.

 

          14.3 Payment by an owner of the cost contribution, including a cost contribution based upon estimated costs in a manner acceptable to the local government, constitutes full and final discharge of the owner’s liability under the development contribution plan and the local government shall provide certification in writing to the owner of such discharge if requested by the owner.

 

          15.0 Charge on land

 

          15.1 The amount of any cost contribution for which an owner is liable under clause 13.0, but has not paid, is a charge on the owner’s land to which the cost contribution relates, and the local government may lodge a caveat, at the owner’s expense, against the owner’s certificate of title to that land.

 

          15.2 The local government, at the owner’s expense and subject to other conditions as the local government thinks fit, can withdraw a caveat lodged under clause 15.1 to permit a dealing and may then re-lodge the caveat to prevent further dealings.

 

          15.3 If the cost contribution is paid in full, the local government, if requested to do so by the owner and at the expense of the owner, is to withdraw any caveat lodged under Clause 15.0.

 

          16.0 Administration of funds

 

          16.1 The local government is to establish and maintain a reserve account in accordance with the Local Government Act 1995 for each development contribution area into which cost contributions for that development contribution area will be credited and from which all payments for the infrastructure costs and administrative costs within that development contribution area will be paid.

 

       The purpose of such a reserve account or the use of money in such a reserve account is limited to the application of funds for that development contribution area.

 

 

          16.2 Interest earned on cost contributions credited to a reserve account in accordance with clause 16.1 is to be applied in the development contribution area to which the reserve account relates.

 

          16.3 The local government is to publish an audited annual statement of accounts for that development contribution area as soon as practicable after the audited annual statement of accounts becomes available.

 

          17.0 Shortfall or excess in cost contributions

 

          17.1 If there is a shortfall in the total of cost contributions when all cost contributions have been made or accounted for in a particular development contribution area, the local government may—

 

(a)    make good the shortfall;

 

(b)    enter into agreements with owners to fund the shortfall; or

 

(c)    raise loans or borrow from a financial institution, but nothing in subclause 17.1(a) restricts the right or power of the local government to impose a differential rate to a specified development contribution area in that regard.

 

          17.2 If there is an excess in funds available to the development contribution area when all cost contributions have been made or accounted for in a particular development contribution area, the local government is to refund the excess funds to contributing owners for that development contribution area. To the extent, if any, that it is not reasonably practicable to identify owners and/or their entitled amount of refund, any excess in funds shall be applied to the provision of additional facilities or improvements in that development contribution area.

 

          18.0 Powers of the local government

 

         The local government in implementing the development contribution plan has the power to—

 

  (a)     acquire any land or buildings within the scheme area under the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and

 

   (b)     deal with or dispose of any land which it has acquired under the provisions of the Planning and Development Act 2005 in accordance with the law and for such purpose may make such agreements with other owners as it considers fit.

 

         19.0 Arbitration

 

      Subject to clauses 12.3 and 12.4, any dispute between an owner and the local government in connection with the cost contribution required to be made by an owner is to be resolved by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial Arbitration Act 1985.

 

        


 

 

20.0 Statutory Static Feasibility Assessment Model

 

Gross realisation

Net lot yield @ average market value per lot

“X” lots @ “$Y” per lot                                                                           $ (1)

 

Less GST @ standard / normal rates

(1) Multiplied by GST rate / (100+GST rate)                                         $ (2)

(1-2)                                                                                                            $ (3)

 

Less selling, marketing, advertising & settlement fees

@ market % multiplied by (1)                                                                  $ (4)

Add back Input Tax Credit on selling fees

(4) Multiplied by GST rate / (100+GST rate)                                         $ (5)

(4-5)                                                                                                            $ (6)

 

Balance after selling costs etc & Input Tax Credit (3-6)                      $ (7)

 

Less adjusted profit & risk allowance as per SPP 3.6

Market determined profit & risk allowance %                                         (8)

Less fixed profit allowance per SPP3.6                  10%                         (9)

Risk rate applied (8-9) =                                            %                            (10)

EXPLANATION: (10) to be expressed as a whole number eg 15% = 15

i.e. Risk = (7) multiplied by (10) / (100 + (10))                                      $ (11)

Balance after profit & risk factor (7-11)                                               $ (12)

 

Less development costs @ “X” lots multiplied by “$Z” per lot $ (13)

Add back Input Tax Credit on (13)

(13) Multiplied by GST rate / (100+GST rate)                                     $ (14)

Development cost after Input Tax Credit (13-14)                               $ (15)

 

Add interest on net development costs (15)

For 1/2 development & 1/2 selling term

@ Applicable market rates

(15) Multiplied by % rate                                                                        $ (16)

(15+16)                                                                                                     $ (17)

Balance after deduction of development costs & interest (12-17)   $ (18)

 

Less interest on land value, rates & taxes and stamp duty

Assessed over 1/2 development and 1/2 selling term

@ Applicable market rates

(18) Multiplied by % rate/(100+%rate)                                                  $ (19)

Balance after interest on the land (18-19)                                            $ (20)

 

Less rates & taxes                                                                                  $ (21)

Balance after rates & taxes (20-21)                                                       $ (22)

 

Less Stamp Duty @ current statutory rates

(22) Multiplied by stamp duty rate / (100+stamp duty rate)               $ (23)

Residual Land Value prior to GST considerations (22-23)                $ (24)

 

       Add GST (24) + GST at prevailing statutory rate                               $ (25)

       ASSESSED STATUTORY CONTRIBUTION PER SPP 3.6 (22+23)   $

 

                  


 

 

The Static Feasibility Model is based upon:

 

       (i)      The number of lots yielded from the land will have a gross sale price which, when multiplied by the number of lots created, establishes the Gross Realisation.

 

       (ii)      GST will be calculated by the standard/normal method.

 

       (iii)    Selling, marketing, advertising and settlement fees expressed as a percentage shall be added and then expressed as a total percentage against the gross realisation.

 

       (iv)    The adjusted risk component applied in the model is the established market profit and risk at the date of valuation less the fixed 10 per cent profit applied in SPP 3.6.

 

       (v)     Development costs will be established as an appropriate servicing cost per lot at the date of valuation, multiplied by the lots realised from the land.

 

       (vi)    Interest against the development costs will be established by the application of bank lending rates for such projects at the date of valuation.

 

       (vii)   Interest against the land in development will be established by the application of bank lending rates for such development acquisitions at the date of valuation.

 

       (viii) Rates and taxes will be applied for the full term of acquisition, development and sale.

 

       (ix)    Stamp Duty will be applied at the statutory rate as applicable at the date of valuation.

 

       (x)     GST will be applied at the appropriate rate adopted at the date of valuation.

 

         21.0 Consultative Committee

 

       Council may form a Consultative Committee for each or all of the Development Contribution Areas comprising of Landowners, representatives of Council and the Western Australian Planning Commission and any other persons considered appropriate by Council to make recommendations to Council in respect to timing, funding and arrangements for works undertaken in accordance with Development Contribution Plans.

 

       (v)     Inserting a new Schedule 19 “Alkimos Eglinton Development Contributions Plan” as follows:


 

 

Reference No.

SCHEDULE 19

Alkimos Eglinton Development Contributions Plan – Community Facilities.

Area Name:

Alkimos Eglinton Development Contribution Area; identified as SCA (b) on the Scheme Map.

Relationship to other planning instruments:

 

The development contribution plan generally conforms to the Alkimos Eglinton District Structure Plan, the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan and the City of Wanneroo 10-Year Strategic Financial Management Plan.

Infrastructure and

administrative items

to be funded:

 

District Facilities

·      Surf Life Saving Club, Alkimos South Coastal Village;

·      Public Open Space (Active), Alkimos East;

·      Multipurpose Hard Courts, Alkimos East;

·      Library, Alkimos Secondary Centre;

·      Community Centre, Alkimos Secondary Centre;

·      Indoor Recreation Centre, Alkimos Secondary Centre.

 

Administrative Costs

·      Costs to prepare and administer the plan during the period of operation;

·      Costs to prepare and review estimates;

·      Costs to prepare the cost apportionment schedule;

·      Valuation costs; and

·      Costs to service loans established by Council to fund early provision of facilities.

Method for calculating contributions:

 

The Council’s Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan Report identifies the needs that impact on the Development Contribution Plan.  The contributions outlined in the Development Contribution Plan Report have been based on the need for facilities generated by additional development in the development contribution area.  This calculation excludes the:

·      demand for a facility that is generated by the current population;

·      demand created by external usage - the proportion of use drawn from outside of the main catchment area; and

·      future usage - the proportion of usage that will be generated by future development outside of the development contribution plan timeframe.

 

The methodology for determining contributions is in accordance with the following formula:

·    CPH    =       TC / NCA

·    CC      =       CPH x GSA

Where:

CPH =Cost per hectare ($/ha)

TC =Total cost of delivering community facilities ($)

NCA = Net contributing area (ha)

CC = Cost Contribution Amount ($)

GSA          = Gross area of proposed subdivision (ha)

Period of operation:

20 years from the date of gazettal.

 

Priority and timing:

In accordance with the Development Contribution Plan Report and the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan.

Review process:

Given the rapid rate of development expected in the area, the population projections, facility requirements, and estimated infrastructure costs (as shown in the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan) will be reviewed at least annually to reflect changes in funding and revenue sources.  Costs will be indexed based on the Building Cost Index or other appropriate index as approved by the qualified person undertaking the certification of costs referred to in Clause 11.3 of Schedule 18 of the Scheme.

 

       (vi)    Inserting a new Schedule 20 “Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contributions Plan” as follows:

 

Reference No.

SCHEDULE 20

Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contributions Plan – Community Facilities

Area Name:

Yanchep Two Rocks Development Contribution Area; identified as SCA (b) on the Scheme (Amendment) Map.

Relationship to other planning instruments:

 

The development contribution plan generally conforms to the Yanchep Two Rocks District Structure Plan, the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan and the City of Wanneroo 10-Year Strategic Financial Management Plan.

Infrastructure and

administrative items

to be funded:

 

District Facilities

·      Surf Life Saving Club, Yanchep Lagoon;

·      Multipurpose Hard Courts, Yanchep DSP Centre ‘C’;

·      Community Centre, Yanchep DSP Centre ‘C’;

·      Coastal Node Facilities, Capricorn Coastal Node;

·      Public Open Space (Active), Yanchep Metropolitan Centre;

·      Coastal Node Facilities, Yanchep DSP Centre ‘K’;

·      Library, Yanchep DSP Centre ‘K’;

·      Community Centre, Yanchep DSP Centre ‘K’;

 

Administrative Costs

·      Costs to prepare and administer the plan during the period of operation;

·      Costs to prepare and review estimates;

·      Costs to prepare the cost apportionment schedule;

·      Valuation costs; and

·      Costs to service loans established by Council to fund early provision of facilities.

Method for calculating contributions:

 

The Council’s Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan identifies the needs that impact on the Development Contribution Plan.  The contributions outlined in the Development Contribution Plan have been based on the need for facilities generated by additional development in the development contribution area.  This calculation excludes the:

·      demand for a facility that is generated by the current population;

·      demand created by external usage - the proportion of use drawn from outside of the main catchment area; and

·      future usage - the proportion of usage that will be generated by future development outside of the development contribution plan timeframe.

 

The methodology for determining contributions is in accordance with the following formula:

·    CPH     =     TC / NCA

·    CC        =     CPH x GSA

Where:

CPH =Cost per hectare ($/ha)

TC =Total cost of delivering community facilities ($)

NCA = Net contributing area (ha)

CC = Cost Contribution Amount ($)

GSA          = Gross area of proposed subdivision (ha)

Period of operation:

20 years from the date of gazettal.

 

Priority and timing:

In accordance with the Development Contribution Plan Report and the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan.

Review process:

Given the rapid rate of development expected in the area, the population projections, facility requirements, and estimated infrastructure costs (as shown in the Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan) will be reviewed at least annually to reflect changes in funding and revenue sources.  Costs will be indexed based on the Building Cost Index or other appropriate index as approved by the qualified person undertaking the certification of costs referred to in Clause 11.3 of Schedule 18 of the Scheme.

 

       (vii)   Amending the Scheme Map to apply the Special Control Areas as shown on the Scheme (Amendment) Map contained in Attachment 7.

 

5.       REFERS Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and should the EPA advise that the amendment does not require assessment, ADVERTISES the amendment for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

 

6.       FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

7.                     

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - DRAFT Local Planning Policy 3.3

11/126847

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Revised LPP 3.3 w/ Tracked Changes

11/126848

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Final LPP 3.3 Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions

11/126850

Minuted

4.

Attachment 4 - Summary of Submissions LPP 3.3

11/127041

Minuted

5.

Attachment 5 - 10yr vs Fixed Window Comparison

11/127447

 

6.

Attachment 6 - Development Contribution Plan Report

11/127806

 

7.

Attachment 7 - Scheme (Amendment) Map

11/128675

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          268


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          287


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          293


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          299


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          313


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          315


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          325


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          327


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          334


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          339


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          341

3.4    Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access

File Ref:                                              4605 – 11/124708

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the final adoption of draft Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access (LPP 3.8), following public advertising.

 

Background

LPP 3.8 prescribes acceptable standards for the type and location of vehicular access points, provisional standards for cycling infrastructure, and operational procedures for all new planning proposals that have not yet been lodged with or approved by the City, including:

·        structure plans and structure plan amendments;

·        detailed area plans;

·        applications for planning approval; and

·        subdivision applications.

 

If adopted, LPP 3.8 will be applied to the area bordered by, and inclusive of, Toreopango Avenue to the north, the proposed Mitchell Freeway to the east, Kingsbridge Boulevard to the south, and Marmion Avenue to the west.

 

Draft LPP 3.8 was presented to Council at its meeting of 19 October 2010. At that meeting, Council determined the draft LPP 3.8 was satisfactory for the purposes of advertising. The advertised version of the Policy is included as Attachment 1. Details of the advertising that was undertaken are included under the ‘Consultation’ section later in this report.

 

Following advertising of draft LPP 3.8, submissions were collated and a report on the matter was listed for discussion at the 10 August 2011 Council Briefing Session, but was withdrawn by the Director Planning and Sustainability in order to further address submitters’ comments. Administration has since undertaken further consultation with affected developers and Main Roads WA to arrive at a revised Policy that now has the support of key stakeholders.

Detail

A total of six submissions were received during the advertising period, five from developers and planning consultants active in the City of Wanneroo and one from Main Roads WA. A summary of the issues raised in the submissions and Administration’s responses and recommendations to each are provided in the Schedule of Submissions included as Attachment 2.

 

Administration has prepared a revised LPP 3.8 included as Attachment 3, which responds to the issues raised in recent discussions with the relevant landowners and consultants operating in the Policy area. The majority of submitters indicated general support for the advertised LPP 3.8, with the five main issues that arose during consultation and through subsequent discussions listed as follows:

·        Agreed Structure Plans

·        Road Design Requirements

·        Operating Speeds and Junction Spacing

 

·        Future Amendments to the Policy

·        Structural Modifications

 

Each of these issues is discussed in the ‘Comment’ section later in this report.

Consultation

LPP 3.8 was advertised for public comment for a period of 42 days from 9 November to 21 December 2010 by way of:

 

·        an advertisement in a local newspaper for two consecutive weeks;

·        display at the City Administration Building, City Libraries and on the City’s website; and

·        referral to major developers and planning consultants operating in the northern coastal development corridor and affected by the proposed Policy.

 

Following the end of the formal consultation period, a number of meetings and discussions took place with affected developers and Main Roads WA to resolve outstanding issues.

Comment

If adopted by Council, LPP 3.8 will be used by applicants, Administration and Council to guide future planning proposals in terms of the type and location of vehicular access points, provisional standards for cycling infrastructure, and operational procedures for the area covered by the Policy. LPP 3.8 is consistent with relevant guidelines and Policy documents such as the Austroads Guide to Road Design and Liveable Neighbourhoods and will add certainty provide consistency in dealing with major road access issues in the City’s northern coastal growth corridor.

 

Agreed Structure Plans

 

While LPP 3.8 currently accords with all agreed structure plans in the Policy area, the revised LPP 3.8 includes new text under the heading ‘Application and Purpose’ to clarify that where any inconsistency arises between LPP 3.8 and the requirements of an existing structure plan (or any development or subdivision application that accords with such plan), then the provisions of the agreed structure plan will prevail.

 

Road Design Requirements

 

While LPP 3.8 currently accords with various road planning and design guidelines and standards, it is accepted that those guidelines and standards could change in future, thereby creating an inconsistency with LPP 3.8. To address this, the revised LPP 3.8 includes a new Clause 2 under Part 2 to clarify that if in future, any inconsistency arises between LPP 3.8 and a future amendment to either the Austroads Guide to Road Design, Main Roads WA Guidelines, or the Western Australian Planning Commission’s ‘Liveable Neighbourhoods’ policy then the provisions of those documents will prevail.

 

Operating Speeds and Junction Spacing

 

The ultimate target operating speeds and minimum junction spacing in Tables 1 and 2 of the advertised draft LPP 3.8, were considered too low (in terms of operating speeds) and too large (in terms of junction spacing).


 

 

These two tables have been consolidated into Table 2 in the revised LPP 3.8 and have been amended to reflect the submissions made by reducing minimum junction spacings along all roads (except along Marmion Avenue outside of town centre zones) and by adding a note that the ultimate target operating speed would not come into effect until development reaches a stage where it is deemed necessary and would, in any event, be determined by Main Roads WA.

 

Future Amendments to the Policy

 

The revised LPP 3.8 includes a new Clause 6 added under Part 2 that prescribes the procedure to be followed in order for the City to entertain any departure from the Policy if it can be demonstrated that a better outcome would be achieved. This Clause states that any such departure from the Policy will need to be dealt with as a policy amendment, be supported by a Traffic Assessment and approved by Council in consultation with Main Roads WA.

 

Structural Modifications

 

The advertised draft LPP 3.8 has been revised in response to the comments received. The main changes between the advertised LPP 3.8 (refer Attachment 1) and the revised LPP 3.8 (refer Attachment 3), are as follows:

 

·        Superfluous Clauses 2, 4 and 5 have been removed;

·        Clauses 7, 8 and 9 have been consolidated into Clause 4;

·        The application area has been modified to extend to Kingsbridge Boulevard and now includes all roads, not just east-west connectors;

·        Some provisions relating to cycling and operational procedures have been modified by including further details and clarifying how the provisions are to be applied; and

·        Figure 1 has been modified to reflect agreed structure plans and submissions as well as now showing the proposed rail network.

 

Statutory Compliance

In accordance with the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2, Council is required to review the draft LPP 3.8 in light of any submissions made and must then resolve to either finally adopt the draft Policy with or without modifications, or not to proceed with the draft Policy. If Council adopts the draft Policy, then notification of its decision must be published once in a newspaper circulating in the City and a copy of the Policy forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.5    Improve transport options and connections

Policy Implications

The draft Policy will form part of the City’s Local Planning Policy Framework and is to be used by applicants, Administration and Council in the design, assessment and determination of future planning proposals within the application area of the Policy.

 

 

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

1.       NOTES the submissions received in respect of draft Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access and Administration’s responses and recommendations on those submissions, as included in Attachment 2;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 8.11.3.1 (c) of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS the revised draft Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access included in Attachment 3; and

3.       Pursuant to Clauses 8.11.3.1 (d) and (e) of District Planning Scheme No. 2, PUBLISHES notice of its adoption of Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access in the Wanneroo Times and North Coast Times Community Newspapers, NOTIFIES those persons who made submissions on the Policy of Council’s decision and FORWARDS a copy of the adopted Policy to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its information.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Advertised Local Planning Policy 3.8 Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access

11/9332

 

2.

Schedule of Submissions

11/126991

Minuted

3.

Revised Local Planning Policy 3.8 Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access

11/125110

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          345


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          349


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          357


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          362

Draft

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

3.5    Adoption of Amendment No. 117 to the District Planning Scheme No.2 - Lots 9111 and 9112, Gnangara Road, Darch - Proposed Additional Uses

File Ref:                                              5796 – 11/136740

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 117 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant

Greg Rowe and Associates

Owner

Hydrox Nominees Pty Ltd

Location

Lots 9111 (156) and 9112 (170) Gnangara Road, Darch

Site Area

4.3670 hectares

MRS Zoning

Industrial

DPS 2 Zoning

General Industrial

 

 

Background

On 1 March 2011, the City received an application from Greg Rowe and Associates to amend DPS 2 to allow the use classes ‘Hardware Store’ and ‘Showroom’ as Additional Uses on Lots 9111 (156) and 9112 (170) Gnangara Road, Darch. In DPS 2, the land is zoned General Industrial, wherein these use classes are ‘X’ (not permitted) uses.

 

Lots 9111 (156) and 9112 (170) Gnangara Road, Darch are located at the south-eastern corner of Gnangara Road and Hartman Drive, Darch.  The site is partly bounded by Cowle Street to the east and has frontage to Mullingar Way to the south. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1. There is some remnant vegetation on the southern portion of the land. 

 

The proposal sought to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.       Inserting a definition for ‘Hardware Store’ in “Schedule 1 – Interpretations” under ‘Land Use Definitions’, as follows:

Hardware Store: means premises used for the display and sale of goods and products used for house, garden, and industrial trade purposes being primarily tools, implements, fittings, trade supply items, paints, equipment, appliances, construction materials, furnishings, garden improvement products, plants, outdoor furniture and the like, and may include the incidental sale of food; and

2.       Modifying “Schedule 2 – Section 1 – Additional Uses” to allow the use classes ‘Hardware Store’ and ‘Showroom’ as additional uses on Lots 9111 and 9112, with the following corresponding provisions:

·        The portion of the building(s) facing the intersection of Gnangara Road and Hartman Drive shall include architectural emphasis, being either additional wall height, a distinct roof form, or some other features as agreed with Council.

·        Any ‘Showroom’ use is to be limited to the southern portion of the site opposite the residential area.

·        Council may vary the ‘Hardware Store’ parking standards upon receipt of a Traffic parking Assessment.

 

Attachment 2 contains the proposed Scheme Amendment maps.

 

Council at its meeting of 26 July 2011 considered the amendment and resolved as follows (PS02-07/11):

 

“That Council:-

1.      Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 117 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purposes of:-

a)      Inserting a definition for the use class ‘Hardware Store’ in “Schedule 1 – Interpretations: 2. Land Use Definitions” to read as follows:

Hardware Store: means premises used for the display and sale of goods and products primarily of a hardware nature used for house, garden, and industrial trade purposes being primarily tools, implements, fittings, trade supply items, paints, equipment, appliances, construction materials, furnishings, garden improvement products, plants, outdoor furniture and the like, and may include the incidental sale of food.”

b)      Modifying  “Schedule 2 - Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses” to include ‘Additional Use and Conditions (Where Applicable)’ for Lots 9111 and 9112 Gnangara Road, Darch as follows:

NO

STREET/ LOCALITY

PARTICULARS OF LAND

ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)

1-35

156 & 170 Gnangara Road, Darch

Lots 9111 & 9112

Hardware Store  & Showroom

 

Conditions:

(i)        The portion of the development(s) facing the intersection of Gnangara Road and Hartman Drive shall include architectural emphasis to achieve a landmark feature of appropriate amenity, to the satisfaction of Council.

(ii)       Development facing Mullingar Way shall include an appropriate design treatment interface to the residential development opposite, to the satisfaction of Council.

(iii)      Any ‘Showroom’ use shall be limited to the southern half of the site.

 

2.      REFERS Amendment No. 117 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and if the EPA advises that the amendment does not require assessment, ADVERTISES the amendment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

3.      FORWARDS a copy of the amendment to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.”

In regard to the proposed condition to vary the ‘Hardware Store’ parking standards Council noted that this condition was unnecessary as Council already has the discretion to vary parking standards under DPS 2.

Detail

The Scheme Amendment is being proposed to facilitate a future development by Masters Home Improvement – a joint venture between Woolworths and Lowes Hardware from the United States.

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s decision, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 3 October 2011, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment.  The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this case.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 18 October and 29 November 2011 by way of two on-site signs, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to the affected and nearby landowners. The City received two submissions supporting the proposal.

 

The following table provides a summary of those submissions.

 

No.

Name of Submittor(s)

Summary of submission

Response

1.

Perron Group

4 Plain Street,

East Perth

Supports the proposal.

Noted.

2.

Trivecta Pty Ltd

PO Box 528

Cottesloe

Their residential lots fronting Mullingar Way at the southern end of Lots 9111 and 9112 will be enhanced by the use of hardware rather than General Industrial land uses.

Noted.

 

 


 

Comment

As the City has not received any submission raising objection to the proposed amendment to DPS 2, it is recommended that the amendment proposal be adopted without modifications and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “3     Economic

3.1    Create strategic shifts in job markets to meet future needs and demands

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17(2) ADOPTS, without modification, Amendment No.117 to District Planning Scheme No.2 by:

a)      Inserting a definition for the use class ‘Hardware Store’ in “Schedule 1 – Interpretations: 2. Land Use Definitions” to read as follows:

Hardware Store: means premises used for the display and sale of goods and products primarily of a hardware nature used for house, garden, and industrial trade purposes being primarily tools, implements, fittings, trade supply items, paints, equipment, appliances, construction materials, furnishings, garden improvement products, plants, outdoor furniture and the like, and may include the incidental sale of food.”

b)      Modifying  “Schedule 2 - Section 1 (Clause 3.20) – Additional Uses” to include ‘Additional Use and Conditions (Where Applicable)’ for Lots 9111 and 9112 Gnangara Road, Darch as follows:

NO

STREET/ LOCALITY

PARTICULARS OF LAND

ADDITIONAL USE AND CONDITIONS (WHERE APPLICABLE)

1-35

156 & 170 Gnangara Road, Darch

Lots 9111 & 9112

Hardware Store  & Showroom

 

Conditions:

(i)        The portion of the development(s) facing the intersection of Gnangara Road and Hartman Drive shall include architectural emphasis to achieve a landmark feature of appropriate amenity, to the satisfaction of Council.

(ii)       Development facing Mullingar Way shall include an appropriate design treatment interface to the residential development opposite, to the satisfaction of Council.

(iii)      Any ‘Showroom’ use shall be limited to the southern half of the site.

 

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 (1) (g) AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the amendment documentation;

3.       FORWARDS the amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon Minister for Planning grant final approval to the amendment; and

4.       ENDORSES the comments made in this report regarding the submissions received on this scheme amendment for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 Location Plan

11/78972

 

2.

Amdt 117 to DSP 2 - Attachment 2

11/80695

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          367


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          368


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          369

3.6    Adoption of South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No. 66

File Ref:                                              3395 – 11/139220

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

 

Issue

To adopt the draft South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No. 66 (LSP 66) by considering the modifications required by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC).

 

Applicant

Roberts Day Town Planners

Owner

Landcorp

Location

Lot 101 (3523) Marmion Avenue, Yanchep; and

Lot 2 (250) Pipidinny Road, Eglinton

Site Area

Approximately 120 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Urban Development

 

 

Background

In October 2007, the City received from Roberts Day Town Planners on behalf of Landcorp (the developer) the draft LSP 66 for its consideration. The subject land, located to the south of Yanchep, is situated between Marmion Avenue to the east and the Indian Ocean to the west (refer Attachment 1).

 

Council, at its meeting of 11 December 2007, considered the draft LSP 66 and resolved as follows (Item PD08-12/07):

 

“That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 DETERMINES that the proposed South Yanchep Structure Plan, as submitted by Roberts Day on behalf of Landcorp and as outlined on Attachment 2 to this report is satisfactory for the purpose of advertising and sends a copy to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

2.       ADVERTISES the proposed Structure Plan under the provisions of Clause 9.5.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 for a period of 42 days, commencing in January 2008.”

Following the public comment period, Council at its meeting of 25 August 2009 considered the draft LSP 66 with reference to the submissions received and resolved as follows (PS04-08/09):

“That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that the draft South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No.66, submitted by Roberts Day Town Planners on behalf of Landcorp and as outlined in Attachment 4 to this report is satisfactory subject to the following modifications being made to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Sustainability:

a)      the statutory section of the structure plan being modified to include matters required to be considered at subsequent stages of planning, that is, subdivision and development stages and to delete reference to matters already completed at the structure plan stage;

 

b)      the statutory section of the structure plan (Table 3) being modified to qualify that the Native Fauna Management Plan, to be submitted at the time of subdivision, will inform, but shall not dictate, the size, location, configuration and active use of proposed public open space areas;

c)      recoding the northernmost structure plan area abutting Lagoon Drive from Residential R80 to R20, to accord with the City of Wanneroo District Planning Scheme No.2; and

d)      including the following provision in the statutory section of the structure plan under ‘Local Water Management Strategy – Stormwater Management’:

“All stormwater is to be contained within the development area, but outside the designated conservation areas.”

and SUBMITS three copies of the modified structure plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS, SIGNS and SEALS the Structure Plan documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission;  and

3.       ENDORSES the schedule of submissions provided in Attachment 3 to the report and FORWARDS to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.”

A copy of the draft LSP 66 and the related statutory section as forwarded to the WAPC are included as Attachment 2.

 

The WAPC considered the draft LSP 66 and advised the City in its correspondence of 9 August 2011 that it has resolved to adopt the draft LSP 66 subject to a number of modifications to the statutory section and to the LSP 66 plan. Attachment 3 contains the schedule of modifications.

Detail

Proposal

 

The key elements of the draft LSP 66 as considered by Council are as follows:

 

1.       A predominantly Residential Zone with densities varying between R10 and R50. In order to minimise the impact on the adjoining R20 coded residential area, R20, R30 and R40 densities are proposed along its boundary with the LSP 66 area;

2.       Provision of a centrally located primary school site co-located with a 1.95 hectare Public Open Space (POS) area;

3.       Provision of a local centre with a retail floor area of up to 3,000 m2;

4.       Provision of 14.3283 hectares (ha) of POS areas, equating to an 11.02% POS contribution, which is more than the minimum 10% POS requirement as per the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhood Policy;

5.       Retention of a centrally located significant east-west parabolic dune proposed as a special design precinct with a density coding of R25; and

6.       Integration of drainage into open space areas to promote best practice water sensitive urban design.

 

 

Consultation

Following the WAPC’s adoption of the draft LSP 66 subject to modifications, the developer in consultation with the officers of the Department of Planning (DoP) has proposed to locate R20 lots along the boundary of the existing residential area (rather than R20, R30 and R40 lots as originally proposed) in order to ensure a smooth density transition between the existing and proposed developments.

 

In this regard, Council at its meeting of 25 August 2009, while considering the draft LSP 66 following the public comment period, noted as follows:

 

“The Explanatory Guidelines of the Western Australian Planning Commission’s (WAPC) Residential Design Codes states as follows:

 

‘Care needs to be taken when selecting the boundary between adjacent areas with differing codes; for example, between areas coded R20 and R30. As a general rule, the rear boundary will be the preferred dividing line.’

 

As per the above, the proposed coding of R25/30 along the boundary with the existing residential area was considered acceptable.”

 

As the proposal to locate R20 lots along the boundary of the existing residential area does not alter the intent of the draft LSP 66 previously considered by Council at its meeting of 25 August 2009, it is recommended that the modified draft LSP 66 not be re-advertised for public comment.

Comment

While most of the modifications required by the WAPC relate to the changes to the structure of the statutory section and notating the LSP 66 map appropriately, the major change relates to introducing density ranges between R2.5 and R80.

 

Following discussions with the DoP and Administration, the developer has proposed a modified statutory section incorporating all the modifications required by the WAPC and proposing a density range of R20 to R60 throughout the LSP 66 area excepting for the Mixed Use Zone proposed adjoining the Foreshore Reserve with a density of R100.  Attachment 4 contains the modified statutory section and the LSP 66 plan as submitted by the developer.

 

Attachment 5 contains the schedule listing the modifications required by the WAPC and Administration’s response and recommendations with reference to the modified LSP 66 document submitted by the developer.

 

The following matters are noted regarding the proposed density ranges,  signalised intersections on Marmion Avenue and the strategic POS areas.

 

Density range and locational criteria

 

The Zoning/Residential Density Code map (Plan 2) adopted by Council specifically coded each Residential (R) block between R10 and R40 and the Mixed Use Zone blocks as R50 (Attachment 2). The map also depicted a detailed road network. The road reserves were neither zoned nor coded. As the proposed alignment of the road network and therefore the configuration of the Residential and Mixed Use blocks could change at the subdivision stage, the WAPC recommended the following density ranges with a provision to require a Density Code map at the subdivision stage.

 


 

 

Residential Zone:

 

·        R2.5 to R20 (average lot size varying between 4000 and 500m2) ;

·        R20 to R40 (average lot size varying between 500 and 220m2);

·        R25 to R60 (average lot size varying between 350 and 180m2) ;

·        R40 to R60 (average lot size varying between 220 and 180m2) ; and

 

Mixed Use Zone:

 

·        R40 – R80 (average lot size varying between 220 and 180m2).

 

The developer in consultation with the DoP officers has proposed one density range between R20 and R60 for the entire LSP 66 area excepting the Mixed Use Zone adjoining the Foreshore reserve, which is proposed to be, coded R100. The developer advised that proposing low densities in the range of R2.5 to R20 was not desirable considering the proximity of the LSP area to the proposed District Centre located at the south-eastern corner of Marmion Avenue and Yanchep Beach Road (currently under construction) and the local centre proposed in the draft LSP 66.

 

The applicant has proposed the following locational criteria to determine the location of R20, R30 and R60 coded lots:

 

·    The base coding to be R30;

 

·    R20 to apply to the lots, which directly abut the existing residential area and where natural landform features need to be retained; and

 

·    Laneway lots and any lot within 400 metres of POS area, Foreshore Reserve, public transport, Neighbourhood Connector, local centre and Primary School site to be coded R60.

 

The draft LSP proposes a bus route along the primary neighbourhood connector connecting Lagoon Drive in the developed portion of Yanchep and Marmion Avenue and possibly along Marmion Avenue.

 

The locational criteria recommended in the City’s Housing Strategy and Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation are noted below:

 

1.     The City’s Housing Strategy recommends a density coding of:

 

·    R40 within 800 metres of a Town Centre;

·    R20 to R30 within 400 metres of a small Neighbourhood Centre; and

·    R20 – R30 within 250 metres of bus routes.

 

2.     The City’s Local Planning Policy 3.1: Local Housing Strategy Implementation recommends a density coding of –

 

·      R60 within 400 metres of a Town Centre;

·      R40 between 400 and 800 metres of a Town Centre; and

·      R40 within 250 metres of a main bus route and a neighbourhood park.

 

Generally the future lots in the LSP 66 area will be located within 250 metres of the bus routes, neighbourhood parks and the local centre. In the WAPC’s Liveable Neighbourhoods policy, 400 metres is considered to be 5-minute walking distance.


 

 

The developer has therefore recommended a higher density of R60 within 400 metres of a bus route and local centre.

 

The locational criteria proposed by the developer are considered acceptable as they are generally in accordance with the City’s policies. 

 

Signalised Intersections

 

The modified structure plan provided by the WAPC depicts three signalised intersections along Marmion Avenue. The middle signalised intersection is at the intersection of Marmion Avenue and the extended Blenny Gardens.

 

Attachment 6 contains an extract of the Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access Plan relevant to the LSP 66 area depicting these three intersections which are spaced approximate 1.3 kilometres apart.

 

The developer has advanced the first stage subdivision planning covering about 300 lots in the northern part of the LSP 66 area. Following a thorough site investigation including tree pickups, the developer has proposed to shift the location of the middle signalised intersection northwards by about 150 metres. This will allow for an entry road location, which would follow the natural contours and retain significant vegetation along the route. Of additional benefit to the local residents will be the fact that this road will now not run straight into Blenny Gardens (as originally proposed) but rather deviate southwards with Blenny Gardens forming a T Junction. This will both slow and reduce local traffic through the existing community.

 

As per the City’s draft Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access, the recommended minimum junction spacing on Marmion Avenue between Major intersections controlled by either signals or roundabout is 1 km. The new location of the middle signalised intersection would be located about 1.15 km from the northern signalised intersection and 1.45 km from the southern signalised intersection. The relocated signalised intersection is therefore supported.

 

Public Open Space

 

As required by the WAPC, the following POS areas as shown on the LSP map on Attachment 4 are identified as strategic open spaces.

 

Strategic POS Area

Size (ha)

A

1.5 (min)

B

2.9

C

0.54

D

6.76

E

0.60

 

POS ‘A’ is to be co-located with the primary school site and is now shown as being 1.5ha (min).  Clause 3.3 of LPP 4.3: Public Open Space requires this POS to be of sufficient size to accommodate a senior size playing field, including consideration of safety buffers, the implications of a sloping site and space for supporting amenity.  The developer has advised that, if necessary, the extent of this POS will be modified in consultation with the Department of Education and the City at the subdivision stage to accommodate this requirement.

 

In regard to POS ‘B’ abutting Blenny Garden it is noted that following detailed site analysis by the developer, re-configuration of this POS was considered necessary to retain a significant number of large tuart trees in that open space, which would otherwise have been lost. The total area of the modified POS area, however, remains exactly the same as before, which is 2.9ha.

 

Conclusion

The WAPC adopted the draft LSP 66 subject to modifications. Landcorp, the developer, following discussions with representatives of the DoP and Administration, suggested some changes to the modified draft LSP 66, which is considered to be acceptable. It is therefore recommended that the modified draft LSP 66 as submitted by Landcorp and contained in Attachment 4 be adopted with a requirement to modify the Part 2 – Explanatory Report appropriately and forward it to the WAPC for its final adoption and certification.

Statutory Compliance

This Structure Plan has been processed in accordance with the requirements of DPS 2. 

 

Sub-clause 9.6.3(c) of DPS 2 states, “If the Commission requires modifications to the Structure Plan the proponent shall make the modifications in consultation with Council and resubmit the Structure Plan for consideration under Clause 9.4”. In this instance Landcorp as the proponent in consultation with Administration and DoP has resubmitted the draft LSP 66 for the City’s consideration.

 

Under sub-clause 9.4.1 of DPS 2, Council in the exercise of its discretion may do any of the following:

 

a)         Determine the draft LSP 66 is satisfactory and waive public notification of the structure plan when it considers that adequate publicity of the proposal has already been undertaken;

b)         Determine that the draft LSP 66 is satisfactory and shall be advertised ; or

c)         Determine that the draft LSP 66 should not be agreed to.

 

It is considered that adequate publicity of the proposal has already been undertaken and therefore it is recommended that public notification of the modified draft LSP 66 be waived.

 

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment

 

1.4     Improve the quality of the built environment

 

2.0  Social

 

2.1     Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.4.1 of District Planning Scheme No. 2 WAIVES the requirement for  re-advertising of the modified South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No. 66 as shown on Attachment 4 to this report as it is considered to be of a minor nature which does not materially alter the intent of the Structure Plan considered by Council at its meeting of 25 August 2009 or cause any significant detriment to land within or abutting the structure plan area;

2.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that the draft South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No.66, submitted by Roberts Day Town Planners on behalf of Landcorp is satisfactory subject to the following modifications being made to the satisfaction of the Director, Planning and Sustainability:

a)      Replacing “Part 1: Statutory Section” with that contained in Attachment 4 to this report;

b)      Modifying “Part Two: Explanatory Report” to reflect the modifications required in “Part 1: Statutory Section”;

c)      Modifying “Part Three: Technical Overview” to delete reference to ‘100m generic setback identified in SPP 2.6’ under ‘section 5.3.5.2 - SPP 2.6-State Coastal Planning Policy’ as requested by the Western Australian Planning Commission in its schedule of modifications,

and SUBMITS three copies of the modified structure plan to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its adoption and certification; and

3.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.5 of District Planning Scheme No. 2, ADOPTS, SIGNS and SEALS the Structure Plan documents once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission.

 

Attachments:

1.

SP_66  - Attachment 1

12/1893

 

2.

LSP 66 - A2 - Considered by Council

11/145220

 

3.

LSP 66 - Attachment 3 - Schedule of Modifications

12/1615

 

4.

LSP 66 - Attachment 4

12/1873

Minuted

5.

LSP 66 - A- 5

12/3168

 

6.

LSP 66 - A6

11/145222

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          376


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          377


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          383


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          391


 


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          396


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          400


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          401

3.7    Adoption of Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Rezoning of Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep

File Ref:                                              6010 – 12/1318

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider the submissions received during the public advertising of Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No.2 (DPS 2) and adoption of that amendment.

 

Applicant

Taylor Burrell Barnett

Owner

Yanchep Beach Joint Venture

Location

Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep

Site Area

1.848 hectares

MRS Zoning

Urban

DPS 2 Zoning

Service Industrial

 

 

Background

On 23 May 2011, the City received a proposal from the applicant to amend DPS 2 by rezoning Lot 608 Yanchep Beach Road from ‘Service Industrial’ to ‘Business’.

 

Lot 608 Yanchep Beach Road is located east of Marmion Avenue on the northern side of Yanchep Beach Road and comprises 1.848 hectares of land. A plan showing the location of the subject site is included as Attachment 1.

 

The subject site is zoned ‘Urban’ under the Metropolitan Region Scheme (MRS) and ‘Service Industrial’ under DPS 2. Lot 608 was created through the subdivision of former Lot 302 and is subject to an additional use permissibility provided for under Additional Use No. 1-19 contained within Schedule 2 – Section 1 of DPS 2. The additional use allows ‘Business’ zone uses to be considered on site in addition to those permitted within the ‘Service Industrial’ zone and was established through Amendment 67 to DPS 2, gazetted in June 2008. The proposed amendment therefore seeks to remove the existing ‘Service Industrial’ zoning and use permissibility while retaining the existing ‘Business’ zone use permissibility and having this reflected through the zoning of the land itself.

 

Lot 608 Yanchep Beach Road falls within the Yanchep - Two Rocks Agreed District Structure Plan No. 43 area (DSP 43). Lot 608 abuts land subject to the proposed Yanchep City Local Structure Plan No. 68 (LSP 68), which was determined to be satisfactory by Council at its meeting of 9 February 2010 and was adopted by the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC), subject to modifications in June 2011. Lot 608 is also directly adjacent to the area subject to the Lot 1 and 102 Yanchep Beach Road Agreed Structure Plan No. 40 (ASP 40).

 

A Detailed Area Plan (DAP) for Lot 608 Yanchep Beach Road was adopted by Council on 17 December 2008 and Administration approved a development application for four office suites on the eastern half of the site under delegated authority on 22 December 2011 (DA2011/546).

 

The proposal seeks to amend DPS 2 by:

 

1.       Rezoning Lot 608 Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep from ‘Service Industrial’ zone to ‘Business’ zone; and

 

2.       Amending ‘Additional Use 1-19’ contained within Schedule 2 – Section 1 of DPS 2, by removing “Yanchep Beach Road” from the Street/Locality column and “Portion of Lot 302” from the Particulars of the Land column.

Attachment 2 contains the amendment plan showing the existing zoning and proposed scheme amendment zoning, as submitted by the applicant.

Council considered the amendment at its meeting of 26 July 2011 and resolved as follows:

 

“That Council:-

 

1.       Pursuant to Section 75 of the Planning and Development Act 2005 ADOPTS Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for the purpose of:-

a)      Rezoning Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep from ‘Service Industrial’ zone to ‘Business’ zone; and

b)      Amending ‘Additional Use 1-19’ contained within Schedule 2 – Section 1 by deleting “Yanchep Beach Road” from the Street/Locality column and “Portion of Lot 302” from the Particulars of Land column;

2.       REFERS Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) pursuant to Section 81 of the Planning and Development Act 2005; and should the EPA advise the amendment does not require assessment, ADVERTISES the amendment for public comment for a period of 42 days, pursuant to Regulation 25(2) of the Town Planning Regulations 1967; and

 

3.       FORWARDS a copy of Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 to the Western Australian Planning Commission for information.”

Detail

Proposal

 

The applicant provided justification for the proposal that is summarised as follows:

 

·        The amendment would focus the range of land uses allowed on the site so that they are compatible with the zoning, development and use of land proposed by LSP 68 along Yanchep Beach Road and more broadly to the north within the LSP 68 area;

·        Development of the site will continue to have regard to a Council approved Detailed Area Plan for Lot 608; and

·        While Schedule 2 – Section 1 of DPS 2 allows for ‘Business’ zone uses on site, the additional use is not prominent within the Scheme Text or Scheme Map and may be overlooked by potential purchasers.

Administration notes that the proposed amendment would result in the zoning of the site being consistent with the zoning prescribed by adjoining and adjacent structure plans along the portion of Yanchep Beach Road immediately east of Marmion Avenue. Zoning the land ‘Business’ under DPS 2 would be consistent with the existing ‘Business’ zoned land on the southern side of Yanchep Beach Road, prescribed under ASP 40, and the proposed ‘Business’ zoned land to the west and east of the site, prescribed under LSP 68. Limiting the use permissibility of the site to ‘Business’ zone uses would also prevent potentially conflicting ‘Service Industrial’ land uses from being established on the site.

 

 

 

 

Consultation

In accordance with the Council’s resolution at its meeting of 26 July 2011, the amendment was referred to the Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) for comment. On 12 September 2011, the EPA advised the City that the scheme amendment did not warrant an environmental assessment. The WAPC’s consent to advertise was not required in this instance.

 

A 42-day public advertising period was carried out between 27 September 2011 and 8 November 2011 by way of a sign on site, advertisement in the local newspaper, a notice in Council offices and the City’s website, and letters to nearby landowners. The City received two submissions, comprising one objection from Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) and a submission from the Department of Transport (DoT) that is considered to be neither in support or opposition to the proposal.

Comment

A summary of submissions received during advertising, and Administration’s response, is contained within Attachment 3. Administration considers the matters raised in the submissions are not relevant to the subject amendment, as they relate to matters considered as part of the assessment of the detailed area plan and subsequent development application for the site. Therefore, it is recommended that the amendment proposal be adopted without modification and forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “3     Economic

3.1    Create strategic shifts in job markets to meet future needs and demands

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17 (2) ADOPTS, without modification, Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 by:

a)      Rezoning Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep from ‘Service Industrial’ zone to ‘Business’ zone; and

b)      Amending ‘Additional Use 1-19’ contained within Schedule 2 – Section 1 by deleting “Yanchep Beach Road” from the Street/Locality column and “Portion of Lot 302” from the Particulars of Land column;

 

2.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulations 22 and 25 (a) (g) AUTHORISES the affixing of the common seal to, and endorses the signing of, the amendment documentation;

3.       FORWARDS the amendment documentation to the Western Australian Planning Commission for its consideration REQUESTING the Hon Minister for Planning grant final approval to the amendment; and

4.       ENDORSES the comments made in Attachment 3 of this report regarding the submissions received on this scheme amendment for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

11/80804

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Amendment Plan

11/71083

 

3.

Attachment 3 - Summary of Submissions

12/1610

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          405


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          406


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          407

Summary of Submissions

Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 – Lot 608 Yanchep Beach Rd YANCHEP

 

No.

Name

Summary of Submission

Administration Response/Comment

Recommended Modification

1

Department of Transport (DoT) 

 

 

1.1

 

The Lot abuts Yanchep Beach Rd, which is reserved as an ‘Other Regional Road’ under the MRS. The Department of Planning’s (DoP) comments should be sought in relation to the proposal.

Noted. The development application and proposed amendment for the subject site were referred to the DoP for comment. Comment was received in relation to the development application (although the DoP advised that referral was in fact not required) while no comment was received in relation to the proposed amendment.

No change.

1.2

 

Traffic generated from this site may impact the operational requirements of Marmion Ave, Wanneroo Rd and the future Mitchell Fwy. It is therefore recommended that a traffic impact assessment be provided directly to MRWA for their assessment.

Given that ‘Business’ zone uses can already be considered on site through Additional Use 1-19 in Schedule 2 of DPS 2, this issue would be more appropriately dealt with through the development application process. In this regard, the City has approved an office development on the eastern portion of the lot (DA2011/546) and it was determined that the proposal did not generate enough vehicle traffic to warrant a traffic impact assessment.

 No change.

1.3

 

The DAP for the site indicates that future development proposes a new crossover onto Yanchep Beach Rd. This is not in accordance with the Commission’s Regional Roads (Vehicular Access) Policy D.C 5.1, which suggests minimising the number of new crossovers onto Regional Roads.

Noted, although this issue is not considered relevant to the subject amendment.

No change.

2

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)

 

 

2.1

 

MRWA objects to the proposal.

Noted.

No change.

2.2

 

All traffic signal and vehicle access arrangements cannot be supported until an agreed access strategy is formulated for Marmion Ave and Yanchep Beach Rd. Agreement needs to be developed in consultation between the City, DoP and MRWA.

The subject amendment relates to the zoning of the subject land, rather than access. The Lot 608 DAP and the access it depicts onto Yanchep Beach Rd was endorsed by the City in December 2008. The City has approved a development application (DA2011/546) that incorporates access onto Yanchep Beach Rd as provided for under the DAP, subject to the access being limited to LILO movements only.

No change.

2.3

 

Once the above issue is resolved, the amendment would be acceptable to MRWA, subject to access arrangements for both the northern and southern side of Yanchep Beach Rd being incorporated into an updated version of the DAP. The updated DAP shall conform to an agreed LPP 3.8 supported by the City, the DoP and MRWA.

The DAP relates only to Lot 608 and does not bind the access arrangements outside of its boundaries, therefore an amendment to the Lot 608 DAP is not considered necessary once LPP 3.8  is endorsed by the City.

No change.

 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          409

Draft

Other Matters

3.8    Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3.0 Metres in Height - Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch (WAPC 143846)

File Ref:                                              SD143846 – 12/2826

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider approval of subdivisional development retaining walls over 3.0 metres and up to 5.4 metres in height on Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch (WAPC 143846).

 

Background

Council’s “Retaining Wall’ policy provides that subdivisional retaining walls over 3 metres in height require consideration and approval by Council.

 

The subject land is located within the East Wanneroo Cell 6 Structure Plan.  On 29 July 2011, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted subdivision approval for 46 R20 residential lots ranging in size between 438m2 and 1000m2 (WAPC 143846).

 

The WAPC proposed a number of conditions on the approval, including the following:

 

          “9.     The land being filled and/or drained at the subdivider’s cost to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and any easements and/or reserves necessary for the implementation thereof, being granted free of cost.”

 

Engineering drawings have been submitted on behalf of the subdivider in fulfilment of the above condition, depicting retaining walls over 3.0 metres in height.

Detail

The subdivider’s consulting engineer, BPA Engineering Pty Ltd, on behalf of the landowners/developers, Glenbrook Civil Engineering Contractors, has prepared design drawings including retaining walls exceed 3.0 metres in height for the subdivision of Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch.  Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan.

 

The consulting engineer’s justification for the proposed retaining walls exceeding 3.0 metres in height is summarised as follows:

 

          “The site is bounded by Landsdale Road to the south, Mirrabooka Avenue to the east and various residential lots to the west and north.  Existing height constraints imposed by current land topography and fall of land from south to north (refer Attachment 2), have combined to elevate some of the walls in Lots 54 and 9001 over the 3.0 metre height restriction to ensure level building platforms for the prospective purchasers and provide essential services to the site.”

Consultation

The consultant engineer has contacted the owners of Lots 324 to 329 Hampton Road and Lots 641 to 643 Tattersall Road and requested confirmation that they have no objection to the proposed retaining walls. 


 

 

Letters were delivered personally by hand with a stamped addressed envelope on 2 and 5 December 2011 and the details of the walls discussed with owners.  The City has received confirmation in writing from all but two of the owners on Hampton Road stating that they have no objection to the proposed walls.

Comment

The design of retaining walls higher than 3.0 metres and up to 5.4 metres was instigated by the developer, Glenbrook Civil Engineering Contractors to provide level blocks in an area where land fall across the site does not warrant heights of retaining walls below 3.0 metres.  The WAPC conditions also require coordinating of levels with any adjoining development.  This results in sections of subdivision where retaining walls are higher than 3.0 metres.  (Refer to Attachment 3.)

 

Administration has considered the proposal and the need to accommodate the established ground levels surrounding the subject land, which cause a substantial fall of approximately 20 metres from 66 AHD at Landsdale Road to 46 at the developments’ northern boundary.

 

The extension of Bolton Way into Lot 54 is determined by the existing finished level at the boundary (constructed as part of Lot 53 Landsdale Road subdivision), and as such the road and sewer levels dictate the final levels of Lots 29-33.

 

In view of the above factors, Administration is prepared to support the proposal.

Statutory Compliance

A Building Licence will separately need to be granted for the retaining walls prior to their construction.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment

 

1.4     Improve the quality of the built environment

 

2        Social

 

          2.1 Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options”.

Policy Implications

Application for approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 3.0 metres in height has been processed in accordance with Council’s Retaining Wall Policy.

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining walls higher than 3.0 metres and up to 5.4 metres proposed for Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch (WAPC 143846), as depicted on the plan included as Attachment 3.

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Location Plan

12/2853

 

2.

Level and Feature Survey

12/2855

 

3.

Layout and Heights

12/2856

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          413


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          414


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          415


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          416

3.9    Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3.0 Metres in Height - Lots 151 to 159, Lots 172 to 177 and Lot 191 "The Terraces" Subdivision, Archer Street, Pearsall (WAPC 142221)

File Ref:                                              SD142221 – 12/3677

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

 

Issue

To consider approval of subdivisional development retaining walls over 3.0 metres in height at Lots 151 to 159, Lots 172 to 177 and Lot 191 in “The Terraces” Subdivision, Archer Street, Pearsall (WAPC 142221).

 

Background

Council’s “Retaining Walls’ policy provides that subdivisional retaining walls over 3.0 metres in height require consideration and approval by Council.

 

The subject land is located within the East Wanneroo Cell 4 Structure Plan.  On 29 July 2011, the Western Australian Planning Commission (WAPC) granted subdivision approval for 58 R20 residential lots ranging in size between 302m2 and 3312m2 (WAPC 142221).

 

The WAPC proposed a number of conditions on the approval, including the following:

 

          “13.   The land being filled and/or drained at the subdivider’s cost to the satisfaction of the Western Australian Planning Commission and any easements and/or reserves necessary for the implementation thereof, being granted free of cost.”

 

Engineering drawings have been submitted on behalf of the subdivider in fulfilment of the above condition, depicting retaining walls over 3.0 metres in height.

Detail

The Consulting Engineer (Peter Hill Consulting Engineers), on behalf of the landowners/developers, (Cabernet Properties Pty Ltd), has designed retaining walls exceeding 3.0 metres in height in their development known as “The Terraces” Subdivision, Pearsall.  Refer to Attachment 1 for the location plan. 

 

The Consulting Engineer (Peter Hill Consulting Engineers) has been carrying out the design, construction and superintendence of subdivisional development for this area.  Justification for approval of the retaining walls exceeding 3.0 metres in height is summarised as follows:

 

“The site is bounded by Archer Street to the east, Ocean Reef Road and City of Wanneroo Drainage Reserves 11911 and 12330 to the south, Lot 8 Wanneroo Road to the west and to the north by 15 Birchgrove Way, 27 and 28 Goundrey Drive, 20 and 29 Cornelia Vista and 31 Archer Street.

 

Existing height constraints imposed by current land topography and the fall of the land from the north/east to the south/west have combined to elevate some of the walls in “The Terraces” Subdivision to over the 3.0m height restriction to ensure level building platforms for prospective purchasers and to provide essential services to the site.”

 

 

 

Approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 3.0 metres in height is now requested for Lots 151 to 159, Lots 172 to 177 and Lot 191 “The Terraces” Subdivision, Pearsall.

Consultation

Nil

Comment

The design of retaining walls higher than 3.0 metres was instigated by the developer, Cabernet Properties Pty Ltd, to provide level blocks. This can only be achieved with retaining walls above 3.0 metres in height due to the fall in levels across the site. The WAPC conditions also require co-ordinating levels with the adjoining development to the north and the existing roads, Archer Street and Ocean Reef Road, to the east and south.  This again results in sections of the subdivision where retaining walls are required to be higher than 3.0 metres.  Refer to Attachments 2 and 3 for the locations of retaining walls proposed to be higher than 3.0 metres.

 

The over-height retaining walls do not adversely impact existing residents, which are themselves terraced in a similar manner.

 

The benefit of the proposed design is that building pads presented for sale to prospective purchasers will not require further level alterations or another retaining wall.

 

A Building Licence is necessary for all retaining walls before construction can commence.

 

It is therefore recommended that proposed retaining walls ranging from 3.85m (retained height) up to 5.75m (retained height) be approved.

Statutory Compliance

A building license will need to be granted for the retaining walls prior to construction.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment

 

1.4     Improve the quality of the built environment

 

2        Social

 

          2.1     Increase choice and quality of neighbourhood and lifestyle options”.

Policy Implications

Application for approval to construct retaining walls exceeding 3.0 metres in height has been processed in accordance with Council’s policy (Policy No. D56).

Financial Implications

Nil

 

 

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining walls higher than 3.0 metres and up to a maximum of 5.75 metres proposed for Lots 151 to 159, Lots 172 to 177 and Lot 191 “The Terraces” Subdivision, Pearsall (WAPC No 142221), as depicted on the plans included as Attachments 2 and 3.

Attachments:

1.

Attachment 1 - Location Plan

12/3974

 

2.

Attachment 2 - Retaining walls layout & heights

12/3955

Minuted

3.

Attachment 3 - Retaining walls layout & heights

12/3967

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          419

 

 



CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          420

 

 



CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          421

 

 


  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          422

Draft

 

City Businesses

Regulatory Services

3.10  Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs

File Ref:                                              2323V02 – 11/142079

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider six applications for an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep more than two dogs.

 

Background

Clause 14 of the City of Wanneroo Animals Local Law 1999 (Amendment 2008 GG 508) stipulates:

 

“A person shall not keep or permit to be kept on any premises more than:

 

a)      2 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age; or

 

b)      6 dogs over the age of 3 months and the young of those dogs under that age if the premises are situated on a lot having an area of 4 hectares or more,

 

unless the premises are licensed as an approved kennel establishment or have been granted exemption pursuant to section 26(3) of the Dog Act and have planning approval under the town planning scheme.”

Detail

The following applications have been made under the Dog Act 1976 and are submitted for consideration:

 

Address of Applicants

Description of Dogs

11 Granite Place, Yanchep

1.   Female Sterilised black/tan Kelpie X

2.   Male Sterilised black Labrador X

3.   Female Sterilised black/tan Kelpie X

6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup

1.   Male Sterilised black/tan Doberman

2.   Male Sterilised black/white Husky X

3.   Male Sterilised black/gold German Shepherd

35 Furness Way, Koondoola

1.   Male Sterilised black/tan Chihuahua X

2.   Male Sterilised black/tan Rottweiler

3.   Unspecified gender black/tan Rottweiler

43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep

1.   Female Sterilised fawn Pug

2.   Male Sterilised apricot Pug

3.   Female Sterilised black/tan Jack Russell/Pug

7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo

1.   Female Sterilised black/tan Rottweiler X

2.   Male Sterilised black/tan German Shepherd X

3.   Male Unsterilised black/white Jack Russell X

6 Malak Court, Wanneroo

1.   Male Sterilised black/tan Cavalier King Charles

2.   Female Sterilised white/tan Cavalier King Charles

3.   Male Sterilised brown/brindle Corgi Staffie X

 

Rangers have inspected the aforementioned properties to ensure means exist on the premises at which the dogs will ordinarily be kept for effectively confining the dogs within the premises.

 

Address of Applicants

Property Zonings

Size of Properties

11 Granite Place, Yanchep

Residential

520m2

6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup

Special Rural 04

12822m2

35 Furness Way, Koondoola

Residential

811m2

43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep

Residential

704m2

7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo

Residential

810m2

6 Malak Court, Wanneroo

Residential

1094m2

Consultation

Where applications have been received by the City to keep more than two dogs, residents immediately adjoining the applicant’s property in question are consulted by letter to ascertain if they have any objections.

 

On this occasion the following objections have been received:

 

Address of Applicant

Number of Objection Forms Received

11 Granite Place, Yanchep

Nil

6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup

Nil

35 Furness Way, Koondoola

Nil

43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep

One objection

7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo

One objection

6 Malak Court, Wanneroo

Two objections

Comment

In considering these applications for exemption, the following two options are available:

 

a)      Council may grant an exemption pursuant to Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 subject to conditions; or

 

b)      Council may refuse permission to keep more than two dogs.

 

Application One: 11 Granite Place, Yanchep

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 11 Granite Place, Yanchep.  The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she acquired the third dog whilst she was undertaking volunteer work at the City of Stirling Animal Care Facility. She has cared for the dog throughout its recovery at the Animal Care Facility and took it into her home to avoid it being euthanized.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.6 metres in height with a gate of 1.6 metres in height in compliance with the rural requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a small sized yard and sleep under the patio at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

 

Application Two: 6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup. The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she has been asked by her mother to look after her dog due to her mother’s ill health.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.2 metres in height with a gate of 1.2 metres in height in compliance with the rural requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a large sized yard and sleep under the patio or in the stables at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Three: 35 Furness Way, Koondoola

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 35 Furness Way, Koondoola. The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she wants to purchase a Rottweiler of a specific blood line from a breeder in Victoria. The applicant has not specified whether the third dog is male or female or if it will be sterilised.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.2 metres in height with a gate of 1.2 metres in height in compliance with the rural requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in a kennel under the patio at night and no objections were received during the consultation process.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Four: 43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep. The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she has acquired the third dog since a friend of hers had a work related accident and is unable to care for the dog any more.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.7 metres in height with a gate of 1.7 metres in height in compliance with the rural requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a medium sized yard and sleep in the house at night and only one objection was received during the consultation process.

 

The one objection that was received was a general objection to the amount of dogs in the area; it was not an objection against the applicant.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Five: 7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo. The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she had the dog bought for her by her daughter to help her battle breast cancer. The other two dogs are owned by her daughter who lives with her.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.8 metres in height with a gate of 1.6 metres in height in compliance with the rural requirements of the Dog Act 1976

 

The dogs are kept in a large sized yard and sleep in the house at night and only one objection was received during the consultation process.

 

The one objection that was received was from the rear neighbour. Mediation talks were held between both parties, with a City of Wanneroo Ranger present, and it was agreed that other dogs were contributing to the barking as well as external factors.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

 

Application Six: 6 Malak Court, Wanneroo

 

The applicant is seeking permission from the City to keep three dogs at 6 Malak Court, Wanneroo. The applicant would like to keep three dogs as she previously had been granted permission from Council to keep three dogs at her previous property.

 

A Ranger has inspected the property and confirmed it is adequate for the confinement and exercise of the dogs.  All fences are 1.8 metres in height with a gate of 1.6 metres in height in compliance with the rural requirements of the Dog Act 1976.  The dogs are kept in a large sized yard and sleep in the house at night and two objections were received during the consultation process.

 

The two objections were from the next door neighbour and a neighbour from the street behind. One objection was a general objection and not specifically about 6 Malak Court. The second objection mentioned whining, yapping and fouling in the garden by the applicant’s dogs however, there is no history of complaints to the City with regards these alleged actions by the dogs.

 

It is recommended that an exemption under section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 be granted.

Statutory Compliance

The exemptions sought to Council’s Animals Local Law 1999 are permissible under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976.

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

 

                2.4.3  Develop and implement a range of activities that promote community                    inclusiveness, safety and well being.”

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

Nil

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:

 

1.       GRANTS an exemption under the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep three dogs at the following properties:

          11 Granite Place, Yanchep;

          6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup;

          35 Furness Way, Koondoola;

          43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep;

          7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo; and

          6 Malak Court, Wanneroo

2.       ADVISES that the exemption is subject to the following specified conditions:

          a)      If any one of the dogs die or is no longer kept on the property, no replacement is to be obtained;

          b)      Any barking by the subject dogs is to be kept to a minimum; and

          c)      This exemption may be varied or revoked if any complaints are received which are considered reasonable; and

3.       ADVISES all adjoining neighbours of these decisions in relation to all the properties listed in the above recommendations.

 

 

Attachments: Nil


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          427

Draft

3.11  Fees for Uncertified Existing Structure Applications (Class 1 and 10 only)

File Ref:                                              2323V02 – 11/110631

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider and approve new fees for Uncertified Existing Structure Applications (Class 1 and 10 only), under the forthcoming new building legislation.

 

Background

Council has the authority to determine the new fees and charges applicable to the operational activities in the City, unless these fees are legislated by the State or Federal government. Under the provisions of the new Building Act, there are a number of fees which are currently legislated by the Building Commission WA. However, no fee was set by the Building Commission for Existing Structures certified by local governments. Unauthorised structures (structures built without approved building licences) are typically Class 1 and Class 10 buildings predominantly of domestic nature such as sheds, patios and home extensions. Fees for other uncertified class of buildings were determined by Council in September 2011 (CB02-09/11).

Detail

Currently, for the City to acknowledge any unauthorised building works, an Existing Structure application and a fee 0.7% of the estimated construction value of the building work are required to be submitted to the City for consideration and approval. This fee is legislated under the current Building Regulations 1989

 

However, the fee for Existing Structures applications is not legislated in the new Building Act. The Building Commission has determined that local governments establish their own fees for the application of uncertified and unauthorised building works within their district.

 

Under the current Building Regulations 1989 the fee for unauthorised construction is 0.7% of the construction value of the building works, and there appears to be no justification to change from the current rate of 0.7%. The procedure for the City to assess and approve any uncertified and unauthorised building works will remain unchanged.  As such, the proposed fee structure for post the implementation of the Building Act 2011 is as outlined below:

 

No

Description

Fee (including GST)

Comments

1

Uncertified Existing Structure Application (Class 1 and Class 10 only)

0.7% of the estimated construction value of the building work

Proposed fee as the subject of this report. Minimum fee is $90.

2

Building Commission Levy

0.09% of the estimated construction value of the building work

Legislated by the Building Commission.

3

Certificate Of Building Compliance

$50

Fee approved as per Council Report

CB02-09/11

4

Building Approval Certificate

$50

Fee approved as per Council Report

CB02-09/11

 

Consultation

The Building Commission does not legislate fees for local governments to charge for this service. Consequently, only internal consultation was canvassed. 

 

The Director City Businesses and Manager Regulatory Services were advised of the requirement to set the proposed fee for the City. This provides the applicant with the option of applying to the City for an approval for an unauthorised existing structure instead of engaging the services of a private certifier.

Comment

To continue to provide this service to the City’s ratepayers when the Building Act 2011 is implemented, Council is required to consider and approve this proposed fee. The proposed fee of 0.7%, with a minimum fee of $90, of the estimated construction value for unauthorised building applications (Class 1 and Class 10 only), will then need to be advertised in the local papers and public notices as per the Local Government Act s6.19.

Statutory Compliance

This proposal will align the City’s obligations and requirements with the new building legislation and the Local Government Act 1995 Section 6.19- Notice of Fees and Charges:

 

“If a local government wishes to impose any fees or charges under this Subdivision after the annual budget has been adopted it must, before introducing the fees or charges, give local public notice of — 

(a)     its intention to do so; and

(b)     the date from which it is proposed the fees or charges will be imposed”

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “4     Governance

4.6    Provide and maintain a high standard of governance and accountability

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

This proposal will allow the City to collect a fee for these applications. The City currently receives an average of 97 applications per year for unauthorised buildings, over the previous three financial years the City has received approximately $5000 per year.    

Voting Requirements

Absolute Majority

 


 

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       ADOPTS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the fee of 0.7%, with a minimum fee of $90, of the estimated construction value for Uncertified and Unauthorised Building Applications for Class 1 and Class 10 structures; and

 

 

2.       APPROVES the giving of Local Public Notice of the new fees for uncertified and unauthorised building applications for Class 1 and Class 10 structures with effect 2 April 2012.

 

 

 

Attachments: Nil   


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          430

Draft

 

Infrastructure

Asset Management

3.12  Roadside Memorial Policy

File Ref:                                              6130 – 11/107583

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider a policy to determine and advise how the City will deal with requests for Roadside Memorials and existing roadside memorials.

 

Background

The number and types of memorials commemorating accident victims is increasing throughout the State. Family and friends may wish to commemorate the death of a loved one with the installation of a memorial at the site of the accident.  This not only assists with the grieving process, it also delivers a powerful road safety message to road users.

 

The policy recognises the demand for memorials, while seeking to ensure that road safety is not compromised.  This includes visual distractions to motorists, physical objects that could harm road users and potential for movement of personal items onto the road. The safety of pedestrians visiting the memorial in close proximity to vehicles is also considered.

Detail

The policy details the types of memorials that can be installed within the road reserve to commemorate the life of a family member or friend who has lost their life on the road.

 

The policy identifies that the City will:

 

·        Be considerate and respectful of the needs of persons wishing to install memorials;

·        Approve the placement of memorials;

·        Supply memorials;

·        Install or assist in the installation of memorials at suitable locations as detailed in the guidelines attached to this policy;

·        Not accept responsibility for the security or maintenance of memorials;

·        Remove any memorials not conforming to this policy;

·        Not approve or provide memorials for animals; and

·        Will only approve or provide memorials for accident sites where fatalities have occurred.

 

Furthermore, the City will approve, supply and assist with the installation of a cross, paver or decal as per the Management Guidelines in support of the Policy, depending on the family and/or friends preference.  Alternatively, the applicant may choose a plant tree from the City’s list of recommended street tree species, which the City will donate and assist with the installation.

 

Refer Attachment 1 for the proposed Roadside Memorial Guidelines.

 

Advice from Main Roads WA (MRWA) has indicated minimal enquiries from the public requesting crosses, pavers, decals or plants.

Consultation

A presentation on the draft Policy was given to Council Forum on 12 July 2011 and a report presented to the City of Wanneroo Roadwise Working Group on 16 August 2011. It was resolved by the Working Group as follows:

“That the Roadwise Working Group ADVISES Council that it endorses the draft Roadside Memorial Policy and draft Roadside memorial management guidelines and REQUESTS that Council advertise them for public comment.”

Comment

The Policy is based on the MRWA Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines.  It may be updated in line with any modifications that MRWA make.  Similarly, any recommended modifications the City considers to be necessary will be conveyed to MRWA.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “2     Social

2.4    Improve community safety

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The annual cost to the City will be minimal and can be accommodated within its annual operating budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the Draft Roadside Memorials Policy as follows for public comment:


 

 

 Roadside Memorials Policy        

 

 

Policy Owner:                   Director Infrastructure

Contact Person:                Manager Assets Management

Date of Approval:             Date the policy was approved by Council and Resolution Number

 

 

POLICY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this policy is to determine and advise how the City shall deal with requests for Roadside Memorials (Memorials) and existing or recently installed Memorials.

 

POLICY STATEMENT

To clearly detail the types of Memorial that can be installed within the road reserve to commemorate the life of a family member or friend who has lost their life on the road.

 

The City of Wanneroo has an obligation to provide a safe and efficient road network. 

 

The City will:

·     Be considerate and respectful of the needs of persons wishing to install Memorials;

·     Approve the placement of Memorials;

·     Supply Memorials (as defined in section 4.3);

·     Install or assist in the installation of Memorials at suitable locations as detailed in the guidelines attached to this policy;

·     Not accept responsibility for the security or maintenance of Memorials;

·     Remove any Memorials not conforming to this policy;

·     Not approve or provide Memorials for animals; and

·     Will only approve or provide Memorials for accident sites where fatalities have occurred.

 

SCOPE

A Memorial can be described as an object or image constructed, erected, planted, painted or placed within the road reserve in honour of family or friends whose lives have been lost on the road or road reserve.

 

This policy applies to all requests for Memorials that are received for roads administered by the City of Wanneroo. 

 

Requests for Memorials on Wanneroo Road shall be referred to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) to deal with in accordance with their document “Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines”.

 

Requests for Memorials on roads within the Yanchep National Park shall be referred to the Department of Environment and Conservation.

 

Background

The number and types of Memorials, commemorating accident victims is increasing throughout the State.  Family and friends may wish to commemorate the death of a loved one with the installation of a memorial at the site of the accident.  This can not only assist with the grieving process, but also delivers a powerful road safety message to road users. 

 

 

 

The Policy recognises the demand for memorials, but seeks to ensure that road safety is also considered.  This includes visual distractions to motorists, physical objects that could harm road users and potential for movement of personal items into the road.  The safety of pedestrians visiting the memorial in close proximity to vehicles is also considered. 

 

CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

This policy is based on the MRWA Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines.

 

IMPLICATIONS (Financial, Human Resources)

Administration of the memorial register and monitoring of any erected memorials can be carried out with existing resources.

 

IMPLEMENTATION

Requests for Memorials as well as the management of existing Memorials on all roads that are the responsibility of the City of Wanneroo will be dealt with in accordance with the City of Wanneroo Document “Roadside Memorials Management Guidelines”.

 

ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES

Memorials on all roads that are the responsibility of the City of Wanneroo will be dealt with in accordance with the City of Wanneroo Document “Roadside Memorials Management Guidelines”.

 

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

All disputes in regard to this policy will be referred to the Director Infrastructure in the first instance.  In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be submitted to Council for decision.

 

WHO NEEDS TO KNOW about THIS POLICY?

Manager Infrastructure Maintenance

Manager Infrastructure Projects

Manager Community Programmes and Services

Manager Waste Operations

Road Maintenance Supervisors

Waste Operations Supervisors

Rangers

 

EVALUATION and Review Provisions

This policy is based on the MRWA Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines.  It will be updated in line with any modifications that they may make.  Similarly any recommended modifications that the City considers to be necessary will be conveyed to MRWA.

 

DEFINITIONS

DEFINITIONS: Any definitions listed in the following table apply to this document only.

Bitumen/road seal

Carriageway

 

 

 

Contractors

 

 

Control of Access Road

 

 

Freeway

 

 

Guideposts

 

Highway

 

 

 

 

Landscaped verges

 

 

Main Road

Median

Road Reserve

 

Roadside Structure

Shared Path

 

 

Traffic Control Item

Traffic Islands

The surface of the road.

The portion of a road or bridge devoted particularly to the use of vehicles, inclusive of shoulders and auxiliary lanes.

 

A contract with a third party to deliver a set of given services for a defined period to maintain sections of the road network.

Roads that do not permit pedestrian access or parking, eg Mitchell Freeway, Tonkin and Roe Highways

 

Highway - a divided highway for through-traffic with no access for traffic between interchanges and with grade separation at all intersections.

A wooden or plastic white post with a reflector approximately 1.5m from the edge of the road.

Highways provide connections between capital cities. They are also principal routes between a city and the major producing regions of the State. Highways also service major transport terminals or significant commercial and industrial centres.

Landscaped frontages/mown verges adjacent to the road, eg, estates such as Secret Harbour and Carramar.

 

A principal road in the road system.

Divides two carriageways.

The area either side of the road that belongs to Main

Roads.

eg, bridges, overpasses, tunnels.

Paths which are adjacent to freeways, major highways and rail corridors. These paths cater for pedestrians, including those in wheelchairs, and cyclists.

Traffic signals or signs.

Small refuge typically located at intersections.

 

RELEVANT POLICIES/MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES/DOCUMENTS OR DELEGATIONS

City of Wanneroo Roadside Memorials Management Guidelines

City of Wanneroo Verge Treatment Policy

 

REFERENCES

Main Roads Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines

 

RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Manager Assets Management

Manager Community Programs and Services

 

Version

Next Review

Record No:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Memorial Guidelines

12/4401

 

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          435


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          442

Draft

 

Infrastructure Maintenance

3.13  Review of "Two Rocks Coastal Management - May 2006" Study Report on the Coastal Erosion North of Two Rocks Marina

File Ref:                                              1702 – 11/131925

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

Issue

To consider allocation of funds for a joint study with the Department for Transport (DoT) for undertaking a review of “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report on coastal erosion of the Two Rocks coastline north of Two Rocks Marina.

 

Background

Council considered reports in 2003 and 2004 (Items TS15-12/03 and TS18-06/04 refer) and approved the commissioning of coastal engineering consultants to undertake a study of the coastal erosion at Two Rocks north of the Two Rocks Marina. The study was completed in May 2006 and Council considered a report (IN04-06/06 refers) at its meeting on 27 June 2006 and resolved as follows:

 

“That Council:-

1.    RECEIVES the ‘Two Rocks Coastal Erosion and Management’ Study Report (May 2006) prepared by M P Rogers and Associates, which outlines the various options and recommendations for coastal management at the Two Rocks coastline north of the marina northern breakwater.

2.    ENDORSES the construction of partial length groynes and associated works as the preferred coastal protection option for Two Rocks coastline.

3.    WRITES to the Hon Minister for Planning and Infrastructure urgently seeking State Government commitment to funding the necessary groynes and associated works in accordance with the Two Rocks Coastal Erosion and Management Study report in recognition that the Two Rocks Marina has largely contributed to the erosion problem.”

This report outlines the actions taken since 2006 and the current status of this matter.

Detail

In accordance with Council decisions made on 27 June 2006, a formal request was made to the then Minister for Planning and Infrastructure for early funding in the State Government capital works program to undertake the recommended coastal protection works required to ensure the protection of the coastline and associated infrastructure. The City received a confirmation from the Minister’s office acknowledging receipt of the City’s request but no funding commitment or provision of funds in the State Government’s budgets was received.

 

The “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report noted that there was no immediate requirement to implement the recommended coastal management option of the “construction of two partial length groynes”. It was anticipated that the groynes may be required in five years from the year (2006) of the report.


 

 

Due to no State Government funding commitment and the finding of the study report, the City had continued to monitor the erosion at this site.

 

The City again approached the State Government in August 2011 by writing to the Minister for Transport seeking his consideration of the matter with a view to make suitable funds available to the City for implementing the recommended coastal management option to ensure the protection of the infrastructure along the Two Rocks Coastline.

 

The Minister advised the City in October 2011, (refer Attachment 1), that in order to assist in any decision making regarding this issue, the DoT has been asked to schedule a beach and hydrographic survey in late 2011 and update the existing shoreline movement plots. The Minister has also suggested that the City applies for grant funding under the 2012/13 Coastal Protection Grants Program to update the options recommended in the “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report.

 

In view of the advice received from the Minister, it is proposed to undertake the review and include the coastal management options suggested by the Minister in his response.

 

Subsequent discussions with the Coastal Infrastructure section of DoT has resulted in support in principle to the City’s proposed review of the 2006 study and advice that funding is likely in the coastal management grant allocations for 2012/2013. Under the provision of the guidelines for this grant, the funding will be allocated up to 50% of the cost of the review study and the City would be required to fund the remaining 50% of the cost.

 

Subject to the finalisation of the consultant’s brief and invitation of quote, the cost of the review study is estimated to be in the order of $50,000 and the City’s funding requirement would be $25,000. The City has not made any provisions in the 2011/2012 budget for undertaking this study. Confirmation of the allocation of grant funding from DoT will be known towards the end of the financial year. It is proposed to prepare the consultant’s brief and commence the quotation process around April 2012 in the anticipation of the allocation of grant funding for the review study. Depending on the timing of the confirmation of grant funding, the project can then be listed for consideration in the 2012/13 budget or a further report presented to Council to consider a budget variation and accept the grant funding.   

 

The City is continuing to monitor the location for coastal erosion and maintenance works are being undertaken as and when necessary.

Consultation

The Coastal Infrastructure section of the DoT has been consulted on this matter and further input and technical advice will be obtained during all phases of the study from the preparation of the consultants brief through to the finalisation of the study report.

Comment

The “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study established that the coastal erosion occurring at Two Rocks is due to the State owned marina construction interrupting the natural sand movement from south to north. On this basis it is considered that any coastal management works to control the erosion needs to be funded by the State Government. In order for this to occur, the City as a local coastal manager of the Two Rocks coastline needs to progress this matter further in line with the advice received from the Minister for Transport.

 

Initial consultation with the Coastal Infrastructure section of the DoT has indicated that there may be further coastal management options that may be suitable at this location which have not be evaluated in the earlier study.

 

It has been just over five years since the previous study was undertaken and it is considered appropriate to review the previous study findings and evaluate further options suggested by the Minister. 

 

It is considered that the results of this review study will guide the City and the State Government to make an early decision on possible future coastal protection option.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.3    Minimise impact of development on the environment

Policy Implications

The allocation of grant funding will be subject to the provision of the Department of Transport’s Operational Policy “Coastal Protection Policy for Western Australia”.

Financial Implications

The cost of the Two Rocks Coastal Management review study is expected to be in the order of $50,000 which will be jointly funded by the City and the DoT. It would be necessary to make appropriate funding provisions in the City’s budget after a confirmation is received regarding the allocation of the grant funding.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

 

1.       NOTES the advice from the Minister for Transport regarding the Two Rocks Coastal Protection Works as included in Attachment 1;

2.       AGREES to a joint study with the Department of Transport for undertaking a review of the “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report on the coastal erosion of the Two Rocks coastline north of Two Rocks Marina;

3.       AUTHORISES the Director Infrastructure to proceed with the preparation of a consultancy brief and initiate the process for inviting quotations from coastal engineering consultants to undertake a review of the “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report on the coastal erosion of the Two Rocks coastline north of Two Rocks Marina;

4.       SEEKS a further report, subject to the confirmation of grant funding from the Department for Transport and after the receipt of the quotations as defined in 3 above; and

 

 

5.       REQUESTS the Mayor to write to the Minister for Transport expressing concern that the State Government has not committed any funds for the previously identified coastal protection works and has given no commitment in this regard, but has asked the City to jointly fund another study.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

TWO ROCKS COASTAL PROTECTION WORKS

11/111925

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          446


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          448

3.14  Parks and Reserves Maintenance Service Levels

File Ref:                                              6342 – 11/131671

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

 

Issue

To consider maintenance service levels for various categories of parks and reserves.

 

Background

The City maintains 336 parks and reserves, with a total area of 2,175 hectares. These parks and reserves are categorised according to size, infrastructure and use. The Infrastructure Maintenance Service Unit maintains all parks and reserves within the City of Wanneroo to a consistent standard for each category of park. The maintenance works are undertaken by a combination of in-house day-labour and external contract resources.

A number of parks and reserves are developed within the City by land developers as part of subdivisional development. The City from time-to-time upgrades dry parks to irrigated parks as part of its Passive Park Development Program.

The Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space articulates the City’s position on the planning, location, design, development and maintenance of the public open space.

It is noted that Council considered a report on "Parks and Reserves Development and Maintenance Service Levels" (Item TS09-11/03 refers) at its meeting on 25 November 2003 and endorsed maintenance performance standard for each park and reserve category as defined in Attachment 1.

It is confirmed that parks maintenance operations are being undertaken to meet these standards. For example, in accordance with these standards, dry parks (categorised as Passive Unirrigated) such as Cheltondale Park, Madeley are serviced up to four times per annum and the service includes mowing, removal of rubbish and removal of dead trees.

However, some adjustments or variations have been made to these service standards to accommodate seasonal impacts, operational demands, resources, horticultural practices and availability of ground water for irrigation purposes.

During the last few years, with the evolution of the development industry, the nature of the parks developed has changed. In addition, due to change in the seasonal patterns and the restrictions placed on the extraction of ground water for irrigation purposes, parks maintenance practices have required alterations to suit. In view of this, it was decided to undertake a thorough review of the parks categories and related service standards to align with the Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space. 

Detail

The parks and reserves categories and maintenance service levels adopted by Council in November 2003 are detailed in Attachment 1. All parks and reserves were categorised into 13 categories and maintenance service levels were set for each category.

“The Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space” adopted by Council on 19 October 2010 (Item PS02-10/10 refers) categorises the Public Open Spaces into following main categories:

·        Active

·        Passive

·        Conservation

 

 

From a maintenance point of view, it is considered that grouping all parks and reserves into only three categories would create difficulties in setting appropriate maintenance services levels to suit. It is therefore proposed to categorise all parks and reserves into the following categories under the overall umbrella of three main categories defined in the “The Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space”. These are:

Active POS

-    Active Public Open Space

-    Sports Facilities (Hard Courts)

 

Passive POS

-    Passive Public Open Space Irrigated

-    Passive Public Open Space Unirrigated

 

Conservation POS

-    Bushland

-    Foreshore

-    Wetlands and Buffers

Further categories are required that include the maintenance for the streetscapes throughout the City and also for the community facilities. These are:

-    Streetscapes - Wanneroo Town Centre and Streetscapes/Entry Statements

-    Regional Facilities – Kingsway Sporting Complex and Inclusive and Innovative Playspace

-    Building Facilities

The maintenance service levels proposed for the 12 categories are as shown at Attachment 2 and include the following key changes to those adopted previously:

·        The new maintenance levels are now based on the number of maintenance services to be provided for the surface maintenance instead the turf height.

·        Maintenance levels included for the non-seasonal periods for Sports Facilities.

·        Increase the maintenance service for Passive Open Spaces Unirrigated to 17 maintenance visits per year instead of four maintenance visits per year as per the current service levels. It is important to increase the service level for this category to acknowledge the fact that parks infrastructure, such as playgrounds installed in such parks, attract visitors. Many such parks are located within residential areas and the City receives many requests for improved maintenance standards.

·        Maintenance service levels defined for the new category of “Streetscapes”, “Regional Facilities” and “Building Facilities”.

 

It is also noted that the maintenance service levels for the City’s Marangaroo and Carramar Golf Courses have not been included in these maintenance service levels as they are included in the scope and specification of a separate maintenance contract.

 

It is further noted that detailed scope of works and specifications are currently being developed for the following specific maintenance items:

 

·    Arterial roads verge and median maintenance

·    Kingsway Sporting Complex landscaping maintenance

·    Environmental offset sites maintenance

·    Rural road verge maintenance (fire mitigation)

·    Urban streets unkempt verge maintenance

 

 

A detailed proposal outlining the resource requirements for these works will be presented to Council as part of the 2012/2013 budget development process.

Consultation

The City’s Community Development Directorate has been consulted in relation to the revision of these service levels and has indicated a general agreement to the proposed service levels. A presentation was also made to Council Forum on 22 November 2011.

Comment

The current parks and reserves maintenance service levels were adopted in November 2003 and it is appropriate that the revised maintenance service levels are adopted to suit the current industry practices and the parks categories are in alignment with the City’s Local Planning Policy 4.3: Public Open Space. The service levels outlined in Attachment 2 will define work practices for effective works programming and consistency in maintenance levels across all parks, streetscapes and facilities.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “4     Governance

4.3    Deliver excellence in business performance and service provision

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The maintenance of the parks and reserves form part of the annual operating budgets. The increase in the service level for the unirrigated Passive Open Spaces will result in additional expense of $150,000. It is therefore proposed that new maintenance service level of 17 maintenance visits for the unirrigated Passive Open Spaces be implemented from 2012/2013 after making suitable budget provisions in the 2012/2013 Budget.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the categories applied to the parks, reserves, streetscapes and conservation reserves within the City as per Attachment 2;

2.       ENDORSES the maintenance service levels for parks, reserves, streetscapes and conservation reserves categories as defined in Attachment 2; 


 

 

3.       NOTES that a detailed proposal outlining the resources requirements due to the change in the maintenance service levels and for specific maintenance items explained in this report will be presented to Council as part of the 2012/2013 budget development process; and

4.       NOTES that the community will be consulted on parks maintenance service level standards as part of the development of the City’s Integrated Planning Framework.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Parks Service Levels adopted in 2003

11/113515

 

2.

Proposed Parks Service Levels 2011

11/111905

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          452


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                                                                          455


 


 


 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          459

3.15  Water Conservation Plan

File Ref:                                              3374 – 11/131676

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

 

 Issue

To consider endorsement of the draft Water Conservation Plan as included in Attachment 1.

 

Background

A draft Water Conservation Plan (WCP) for the use of groundwater for irrigation purposes was prepared about three years ago and a number of strategies/actions were developed for implementation. Even though a number of actions were implemented as part of the normal operations and some capital upgrades, this Plan has remained a working draft.

The City for some time has also been in the process of preparing the “City Water Management Strategy”. The community consultation for this strategy has been concluded with the final document to be presented to Council for endorsement during next few months.

In view of the above, it was decided to prepare a new Water Conservation Plan in alignment with the proposed “City Water Management Strategy”.

Detail

The new WCP is aligned to the “Draft City Water Management Strategy” which has identified issues relating to the decline in the availability of the groundwater for irrigation purposes and the need for strategies for efficiency and conservation.

WCP has been prepared to address the following:

·        Issues facing the City in the use of groundwater for irrigation purposes

·        groundwater allocations

·        Objectives to address the issues

·        Strategies and actions to meet the objectives

·        Department of Water’s (DoW) guidelines for the use of groundwater for irrigation

It is noted that the DoW has been consulted and comments provided by the DoW’s contact officer have been incorporated in the Draft Plan.

Consultation

Internal consultation with the City’s Planning and Sustainability Directorate has been undertaken to align the Water Conservation Plan with the “Draft City Water Management Strategy”.

 

A presentation was also made to Council Forum on 22 November 2011.

Comment

The finalisation of the WCP is now very important to acknowledge the groundwater issues faced by the City. In view of the City’s initiative to prepare the “Water Management Strategy”, the preparation of a new WCP is considered appropriate. The WCP will assist the City greatly in implementing a number of actions for the efficient use of groundwater and remain within the allocations made by the DoW.


 

 

The implementation of strategies and actions identified in the WCP will fulfil the need to meet the legal requirements of licences and reporting on groundwater usage.  It is considered that the implementation of WCP strategies and actions will assist the City to construct, maintain and renew its irrigation systems in accordance with the industry best practices. 

 

A number of actions as included in the new WCP are currently being implemented by the City. Data collection and monitoring, preventive irrigation maintenance involving irrigation infrastructure servicing, mainline flushing, regular inspections and corrective action is being undertaken as part of the parks maintenance operations.

 

The Irrigation Infrastructure Renewal Program is addressing the needs for the renewal of existing irrigation systems to align with the current industry practices. This Program is scheduled to be undertaken over several years and has been included in the City’s 10 Year Financial Plan.

Statutory Compliance

Nil

Strategic Implications

The proposal accords with the following Outcome Objective of the City’s Strategic Plan 2006 – 2021:

 “1     Environment

1.2    Protect, conserve and recycle water

Policy Implications

Nil

Financial Implications

The WCP strategies and actions are interlinked and the implementation will be part of the irrigation systems construction, maintenance and renewals. This will require funding allocations over a number of years which will be addressed on an annual basis. The funding allocations will be required in both Parks Operating/Maintenance budgets and Asset Renewal Programs (Irrigation Infrastructure Replacement Program).

 

The annual Parks Maintenance Operating Budgets would need to be adjusted on an annual basis to meet the requirements of preventive maintenance. A provision of $1.5M has been made in the 2011/2012 Capital Works Budget for Irrigation Infrastructure Renewal Program. This Program is listed in the 10 Year Financial Plan and is proposed to increase by $250,000 annually until it reaches $2.25M in 2014/15 and then remains at that level for the future years.

Voting Requirements

Simple Majority

 

Recommendation

That Council ENDORSES the “Water Conservation Plan” as included in Attachment 1.

 

 

Attachments:

1.

Draft Water Conservation Plan V2

11/131906

Minuted

  


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          461


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 

 


CITY OF WANNEROO Agenda OF Elected Members' Briefing Session 31 January, 2012                          471

Draft

Tenders

3.16  Tender No.  01141 - Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years

File Ref:                                              6675 – 11/129246

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

 

Issue

To consider Tender No. 01141 for the Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years.

 

Background

To provide another avenue of advertising for local businesses and to diversify the City’s income base, it is proposed to engage a contractor to install illuminated street signs at prominent locations. The proposed signs will include the business’ advertisements, a community message, the City’s logo and street names.  All locations will be pre-approved by the City and the signs will be installed, maintained and owned by the contractor. The contractor will receive advertising income from local businesses and the City will receive income per sign for allowing these signs to be installed and will also receive a certain number of signs free of cost for the purpose of promoting its own facilities or locations of significance.

 

Tender No. 09006 - The Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years was advertised on 14 March 2009 and closed on 7 April 2009.  Two conforming tenders were received.

 

Council considered a report regarding Tender No. 09006 (Item No IN01-06/09 refers) at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 2 June 2009 and resolved:

“That Council:-

1.       ACCEPTS Tender No 09006 from Sarah Buehrig T/A Pulse Design for the Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years as per the schedule of rates and general conditions of tendering from 1 July 2009 to 30 June 2014 with an option to extend for a further five-year period or part thereof; and

2.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to consider extending the contract with the successful tenderer for a further period of five years or part thereof subject to a satisfactory performance of the successful contractor during the first two years of the initial contract period.”

Following the commencement of the contract on 1 July 2009, Pulse Design undertook a number of steps to deliver the services under the contract but no substantial progress was made.  During January and February 2011, Pulse Design indicated that due to a number of issues faced, it was considering seeking a variation to the contract.  Formal advice seeking to vary the terms of the contract was then received from Pulse Design, but was not supported by the City.  Pulse Design then requested termination of Contract No 09006.

 

Council considered a report regarding termination of Contract No. 09006 (Item No IN03-05/11 refers) at its Ordinary Council Meeting on 3 May 2011 and resolved as follows:


 

 

“That Council:-

 

1.       AGREES with the request for termination by Pulse Design in accordance with “General Conditions of the Contract; Clause 13 – Termination” of the contract agreement; and

2.       AUTHORISES the calling of a new tender in July 2011 following a thorough review of the scope of works and specification.”

Detail

The scope of works and specification has been reviewed and similarly to the previous tender the specification is based on the following main items: