Council Agenda

 

 

Ordinary Council Meeting

7.00pm, 07 February, 2012

Civic Chambers

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo

 

Council allows a minimum of 15 minutes for public questions and statements at each Council Meeting.  If there are not sufficient questions to fill the allocated time, the person presiding will move on to the next item.  If there are more questions than can be dealt with in the 15 minutes allotted, the person presiding will determine whether to extend question time.

 

Protocols

 

During the meeting, no member of the public may interrupt the meeting’s proceedings or enter into conversation.  Each person seeking to ask questions during public question time may address the Council for a maximum of 3 minutes each. 

 

A register of person’s wishing to ask a question/s at the Council Meeting is located at the main reception desk outside of the Chamber on the night.  However, members of the public wishing to submit written questions are requested to lodge them with the Chief Executive Officer at least 30 hours prior to the start of the meeting i.e. noon on the previous day.

 

The person presiding will control public question time and ensure that each person wishing to ask a question is given a fair and equal opportunity to do so.  A person wishing to ask a question should state his or her name and address before asking the question.  If the question relates to an item on the agenda, the item number should also be stated.

 

The following general rules apply to question and statement time:

·                Questions should only relate to the business of the council and should not be a statement or personal opinion.

·                Only questions relating to matters affecting Council will be considered at an ordinary meeting, and at a special meeting only questions that relate to the purpose of the meeting will be considered.  Questions may be taken on notice and responded to after the meeting.

·                Questions may not be directed at specific members of council or employees.

·                Questions & statements are not to be framed in such a way as to reflect adversely on a particular Elected Member or Officer.

·                The first priority will be given to persons who are asking questions relating to items on the current meeting agenda.

·                The second priority will be given to public statements.  Only statements regarding items on the agenda under consideration will be heard.

 

 

The Mayor and Councillors will conduct an informal session on the same day as the meeting of the Council at the Civic Centre, Wanneroo, commencing at 6.00pm where members of the public may, by appointment, present deputations. If you wish to present a deputation please submit your request for a deputation in writing, at least three clear business days prior to the meeting addressed to the Chief Executive Officer or fax through to Governance on 9405 5097.  A request for a deputation must be received by Governance by 12 noon on the Friday before the Council Meeting.

·                A deputation is not to exceed 3 persons in number and only those persons may address the meeting.

·                Members of a deputation are collectively to have a maximum of 10 minutes to address the meeting, unless an extension of time is granted by the Council.

 

Please ensure that mobile phones are switched off before entering the Council Chamber.  Any queries on this agenda, please contact Governance on 9405 5027 or 9405 5018.

 

 

Objective

 

·         To ensure that there is a process in place to outline access to the recorded proceedings of Council.

 

·         To emphasise that the reason for recording of Council Meetings is to ensure the accuracy of Council Minutes and that any reproduction is for the sole purpose of Council business.

 

Statement

 

Recording of Proceedings

 

(1)     Proceedings for meetings of the Council, Electors, and Public Question Time during Council Briefing Sessions shall be recorded by the City on sound recording equipment, except in the case of meetings of the Council where the Council closes the meeting to the public. 

 

(2)     Notwithstanding subclause (1), proceedings of a meeting of the Council which is closed to the public shall be recorded where the Council resolves to do so.

 

(3)     No member of the public is to use any electronic, visual or vocal recording device or instrument to record the proceedings of the Council or a committee without the written permission of the Council.

 

Access to Recordings

 

(4)     Members of the public may purchase a copy of recorded proceedings or alternatively listen to recorded proceedings with the supervision of a City Officer.  Costs of providing recorded proceedings to members of the public will be the cost of the recording plus staff time to make the copy of the proceedings. The cost of supervised listening to recorded proceedings will be the cost of the staff time. The cost of staff time will be set in the City's schedule of fees and charges each year.

 

(5)     Elected Members may request a recording of the Council proceedings at no charge.  However, no transcript will be produced without the approval of the Chief Executive Officer.  All Elected Members are to be notified when recordings are requested by individual Members.

 

Retention of Recordings

 

(6)     Recordings pertaining to the proceedings of Council Meetings shall be retained in accordance with the State Records Act 2000.

 

Disclosure of Policy

 

(7)     This policy shall be printed within the agenda of all Council, Special Council, Electors and Special Electors meetings to advise the public that the proceedings of the meeting are recorded.

 

 

Notice is given that the next Ordinary Council Meeting will be held at the Civic Chambers

Dundebar Road, Wanneroo on Tuesday 7 February, 2012 commencing at 7.00pm.

 

 

 

 

 

D Simms

Chief Executive Officer

2 February, 2012

 

 

 

CONTENTS

 

Item  1_____ Attendances_ 1

Item  2_____ Apologies and Leave of Absence_ 1

Item  3_____ Public Question Time_ 1

Item  4_____ Confirmation of Minutes_ 1

OC01-02/12     Minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 December 2011  1

Item  5_____ Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion_ 1

Item  6_____ Questions from Elected Members_ 1

Item  7_____ Petitions_ 1

New Petitions Received  1

Update on Petitions  1

PT01-12/11      Request for Installation of Speed Modification Devices on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie  1

Item  8_____ Reports_ 2

Planning and Sustainability  2

Policies and Studies  2

PS01-02/12      Local Planning Policy 5.2: Wanneroo Town Centre  2

PS02-02/12      Finalisation of Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan  57

PS03-02/12      Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Development Contributions  248

PS04-02/12      Local Planning Policy 3.8: Marmion Avenue Arterial Road Access  344

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans  365

PS05-02/12      Adoption of Amendment No. 117 to the District Planning Scheme No.2 - Lots 9111 and 9112, Gnangara Road, Darch - Proposed Additional Uses  365

PS06-02/12      Adoption of South Yanchep Local Structure Plan No. 66  372

PS07-02/12      Adoption of Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 - Rezoning of Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep  405

PS08-02/12      Adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Agreed Structure Plan No. 61 - Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar  413

Other Matters  452

PS09-02/12      Subdivisional Retaining Walls Over 3.0 Metres in Height - Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch (WAPC 143846) 452

PS10-02/12      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) 458

PS11-02/12      Suburban Jobs Program Funding Application  464

City Businesses  468

Regulatory Services  468

CB01-02/12     Application to Keep More Than Two Dogs  468

CB02-02/12     Fees for Uncertified Existing Structure Applications (Class 1 and 10 only) 473

Infrastructure  476

Asset Management  476

IN01-02/12       Roadside Memorial Policy  476

Infrastructure Maintenance  488

IN02-02/12       Review of "Two Rocks Coastal Management - May 2006" Study Report on the Coastal Erosion North of Two Rocks Marina  488

IN03-02/12       Parks and Reserves Maintenance Service Levels  493

IN04-02/12       Water Conservation Plan  504

Tenders  515

IN05-02/12       Tender No.  01141 - Provision of Illuminated Street Signs for a Period of Five Years  515

IN06-02/12       Tender No. 01145 - Cleaning of Stormwater Pollutant Traps and Other Drainage Infrastructure for a Period of One  Year  520

Traffic Management  525

IN07-02/12       PT02-09/11 - Cheltondale Drive, Madeley - Request for Road Closure  525

IN08-02/12       PT03-09/11 - Request for Sound Barrier Wall - Lukin Drive/RAAFA Estate, Merriwa  533

IN09-02/12       PT04-09/11 - Wanneroo Road - Request for Dualling of Carriageway Between Joondalup Drive and Menchetti Road  538

IN10-02/12       2011/2012 Pathways Program Budget Variation  541

IN11-02/12       Landsdale - Review of Traffic Flow Post Mirrabooka Avenue Extension  545

IN12-02/12       Perth Bicycle Network Grants 2012/13  554

IN13-02/12       Russell Road and Dalecross Avenue, Madeley - Traffic Management Scheme  561

 

Community Development  569

Capacity Building  569

CD01-02/12     RAP Working Group Amendment to Terms of Reference and New Member  569

Communication and Events  574

CD02-02/12     2012 Capricorn Festival Sponsorship Request  574

Corporate Strategy & Performance  583

Finance  583

CS01-02/12     Warrant of Payments for the Period to 31 December 2011  583

CS02-02/12     Financial Activity Statement for the Period Ended 30 November 2011  632

Governance and Executive Services  644

CS03-02/12     Donations to be Considered by Council - February 2012  644

CS04-02/12     Naming of Facilities and Recognition of Outstanding Community Contributions Policy  652

CS04-02/12     Extraordinary Election – South Ward Vacancy  671

Property  672

CS05-02/12     Proposed Lease of Portion of Lot 105 Marmion Avenue Yanchep  672

Chief Executive Office  675

Office of the CEO Reports  675

CE01-02/12     Delegation of Authority to the Chief Executive Officer in Consultation with the Mayor over the Christmas/New Year Recess  675

Item  9_____ Motions on Notice_ 680

Item  10____ Urgent Business_ 680

Item  11____ Confidential_ 680

Item  12____ Date of Next Meeting_ 680

Item  13____ Closure_ 680

 

 

Good evening Councillors, staff, ladies and gentlemen, we acknowledge the Traditional Owners of the land on which we meet and I invite you to bow your head in prayer:

 

Lord

 

We ask for your blessing upon our City, our community and our Council.  Guide us in our decision making to act fairly, without fear or favour and with compassion, integrity and honesty.  May we show true leadership, beinclusive of all, and guide the City of Wanneroo to a prosperous future that all may share.  We ask this in your name.

 

Amen

Item  1      Attendances

Item  2      Apologies and Leave of Absence

Recommendation

That Council GRANT leave of absence to Cr Guise for the period from 20 March 2012 to 10 April 2012 inclusive.

Item  3      Public Question Time

Item  4      Confirmation of Minutes

That the minutes of Ordinary Council Meeting held on 13 December 2011 be confirmed.

Item  5      Announcements by the Mayor without Discussion

Item  6      Questions from Elected Members

Item  7      Petitions

New Petitions Received

Update on Petitions  

PT01-12/11       Request for Installation of Speed Modification Devices on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie

Cr Driver presented a petition of 36 signatures requesting the installation of speed modification devices on Anchorage Drive, Mindarie, which is being used as a raceway at all hours of the day and night, north of Swansea Street, south of Rosslare Street.   UPDATE   A report addressing the concerns raised in the petition is scheduled for Council’s meeting on 6 March.

 

Item  8      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

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

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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 and 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

  

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Town Planning Schemes & Structure Plans

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

  

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”; and

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(modified)	12/11530
5.	LSP 66 - A- 5	12/3168
6.	LSP 66 - A6	11/145222