Drainage and security issue, new section of Ocean Reef Road, Landsdale

“a)     As our property backs onto the new Ocean Reef Road, why were we not informed of the drainage hole that has been put in?  Plan No. 2242-302-C was sent to us on 3 November 2011 and on these plans the old Gnangara Road was to be removed and back filled (with no drainage shown).  We were more than happy with that arrangement so saw no need to attend the info night.

 b)     Is the fence that surrounds this drainage hole permanent or temporary?  If temporary, what will it be replaced with?  

 c)     The new road and footpaths has been elevated to a height that gives the public an excellent view in people’s property from Coverwood Promenade to Priest Road.  As this is a potential security problem, what can the City of Wanneroo do to help sort this?”

Response by Director Infrastructure

a)         East Wanneroo arterial road preliminary design in support of the East Wanneroo Structure Plan (Cells 1 through to 8), with associated planning/consultation having been developed since the mid 1990’s.

The drainage sump was constructed to incorporate both stormwater from the adjacent Ocean Reef Road upgrade and drainage from Lot 48. This forming part of the East Wanneroo Cell 9 that was subsequently endorsed by Council in April 2005.

b)      As part of the subdivision approval a permanent fence is to be constructed by the developer of Lot 48. This will be a 1.80m high, colour bond fence.

c)      The City is investigating supplementing the existing Landscape design for Ocean Reef Road between Priest Road and the effected properties in Valley View Drive (adjacent to Ocean Reef Road), with advanced tree planting. This will provide a vegetation screen in advance of normal tree planting. 

Lot 52 Nowergup Road, Nowergup

At the Council meeting of 13 December 2011, in Item CS08-12/11, Part 2, Council moved the amendment that Council:

“Instruct the Chief Executive Officer to commence prosecution proceedings against RMS Driver Training, for committing an offence by continuing its activities on Lot 52 Nowergup Road, Nowergup in contravention of the City’s District Planning Scheme No 2 if RMS has not ceased those activities and removed its plant and equipment associated therewith, from Lot 52 by 12pm on Friday, 2 March 2012.”

a)      Does this motion have the effect of legalising the activities on this site from 13 December 2011 until 2 March 2012?

b)      Does the Council have the power under the Local Government Act and the Planning and Development Act to authorise the extension of activities for which there are no planning approvals?

c)      Could an explanation be provided as to under which legislation Council has such authority to extend unlawful activities by way of Council motions?

d)      Could Council explain what implications there are for RMS’s and City of Wanneroo’s insurance liabilities?

e)      Mr J Nortberger, Group Manager of RMS at the Council meeting of 13 December 2011 stated that “an application for development approval for the new site is under way”.  Could Council please provide the date on which the planning application was received?

f)       Could Council please provide details as to the progress of this planning application?

g)      Previously the City advised that Lime Industries has applied for various activities including driver training and submitted an application on 24 August.  Has the additional information requested been received by the City?

h)      Is the City satisfied that it is sufficient?

i)        If no, why not?

k)      If yes, when will the application be advertised for public comment?

l)        Is a Driver Training Facility part of Lime Industries’ application?

m)     If yes, which application, RMS’ application for another site as stated publicly on 13 December or Lime Industries’ application for Lot 52 Nowerup Road, Nowergup is the relevant site to be considered for RMS’ activities?

n)      Ms M Richards, Managing Director of RMS, at the Council meeting on 13 December 2011 confirmed that: 

          “Whilst we are now aware that the City of Wanneroo had previously communicated with the landowner, RMS was never informed by the landowner of any correspondence.”

          What action will the City take against Lime Industries, the landowner, for failing to take any action to stop the unlawful activities on its properties as appears to be demonstrated by M Richards’ statement above, and given that the City has formally written to Lime Industries in July 2011, requesting the driver training activities to stop within 28 days?

Response by Director Planning and Sustainability

a)      No.

b)      Council has the power to grant retrospective planning approval under the City’s District Planning Scheme No. 2 (DPS 2) where the use in question is capable of being approved under the Scheme.

c)      Refer response to question b). Further, it is Council’s prerogative to determine how and when to enforce compliance with the City’s DPS 2. In this regard, Council has determined that RMS has until Friday 2 March 2012 to cease and remove its operation from Lot 52 otherwise the City will commence prosecution action against it.

d)      The implications for RMS’s insurance liability are a matter for RMS. The City’s insurance liabilities are not affected by RMS’s operations.

e)      The City has not yet received an application from RMS for planning approval of its activities at another location.

f)       Refer response to question e).

g)      Lime Industries has met with Administration to discuss the City’s requirements for additional information and will be submitting their response in writing for the City’s consideration in the near future.

h)      Refer response to question g).

i)        Refer response to question g).

k)      The application will only be advertised for public comment once the City deems it to be complete.

l)        Driver training was originally part of the development application, however, that aspect of the proposal is not capable of being approved and will therefore not be considered as part of the development application. Both Lime Industries and RMS have been advised of the City’s position on this matter.

m)     Refer response to questions e) and l).

n)      Council at its meeting on 13 December 2011 resolved to instruct the Chief Executive Officer to commence prosecution action against RMS if it has not ceased its activities on Lot 52 by Friday 2 March 2012. Whether or not any related action will be taken against Lime Industries as the landowner is yet to be determined by the City.

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hewer

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

Carried Unanimously

1.       Is the City, either Administration or the Governance body, in receipt of a request from any member of State or Federal Government that strongly supports the conduct of an extraordinary election for the South Ward?

2.       If so, and if possible, can a copy of this be provided in the Minutes of this meeting?

Response by Mayor Roberts

Questions taken on notice.

Further Response by Director Corporate Strategy and Performance

Administration is not in receipt of any requests from any Member of State or Federal Government and no Elected Member has forwarded any such written requests in relation to supporting the conducting of an extraordinary election for the South Ward.

Cr Cvitan presented a petition of 29 signatures from residents of Langford Boulevard and adjacent roads in Madeley, requesting the installation of speed calming devices and better signage to reduce the speed of vehicles travelling along Langford Boulevard, Susan Road and the junction of Dalecross Avenue and Russell Road.

The petition to be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

Cr Driver presented a petition of 50 signatures from concerned parents, supporting the construction of a 1.5 metre side concrete footpath on Palm Corner from Christian Park to Sirius Ramble, Quins Rocks.

The petition to be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

Cr Driver presented a petition of five signatures objecting to the proposal to construct a footpath close to the front boundaries of properties running along the south side of Palm Corner, Quinns Rocks, but supporting such a pathway being constructed if it abutted against the kerb edge.

The petition to be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

Cr Goodenough presented a petition of 549 signatures from residents of the City of Wanneroo, requesting the construction of a tidal pool at the southern end of Quinns Beach.

The petition to be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

Cr Steffens presented a petition of 25 signatures from residents of the City of Wanneroo, seeking the supply and installation of rubber speed humps (as installed in Burnett Road, Clarkson) at the east end of Jenolan Way, Merriwa between Yass Way and Connelly Drive.

The petition to be forwarded to the Infrastructure directorate for action.

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.

File Ref:                                              5134 – 11/121921

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Guise

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.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2069 – 11/110093

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Smithson

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 Northern Coastal Growth Corridor Community Facilities Plan (CFP) included as Attachment 3 for the purpose of advertising Amendment No. 122 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 for public comment, and REQUIRES Administration to review the CFP in light of any submissions received on Amendment No. 122 and to submit a report on the same, concurrently with Council’s consideration of Amendment No. 122 for final approval; 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.

Carried Unanimously

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         

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Smithson

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:

          (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:

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

       (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.                     

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              4605 – 11/124708

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Gray, Seconded Cr Hewer

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.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              5796 – 11/136740

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Gray, Seconded Cr Hewer

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:

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.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3395 – 11/139220

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       6         

Moved Cr Gray, Seconded Cr Hewer

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.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              6010 – 12/1318

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Hewer, Seconded Cr Gray

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Town Planning Regulation 17 (2) ADOPTS, without modification, Amendment No. 120 to District Planning Scheme No. 2 by:

a)      Rezoning Lot 608 (128) Yanchep Beach Road, Yanchep from ‘Service Industrial’ zone to ‘Business’ zone; and

b)      Amending ‘Additional Use 1-19’ contained within Schedule 2 – Section 1 by deleting “Yanchep Beach Road” from the Street/Locality column and “Portion of Lot 302” from the Particulars of Land column;

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

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

4.       ENDORSES the comments made in Attachment 3 of this report regarding the submissions received on this scheme amendment for inclusion in the schedule of submissions to be forwarded to the Western Australian Planning Commission and ADVISES the submittors of its decision.

Carried Unanimously

1

Department of Transport (DoT) 

1.1

The Lot abuts Yanchep Beach Rd, which is reserved as an ‘Other Regional Road’ under the MRS. The Department of Planning’s (DoP) comments should be sought in relation to the proposal.

Noted. The development application and proposed amendment for the subject site were referred to the DoP for comment. Comment was received in relation to the development application (although the DoP advised that referral was in fact not required) while no comment was received in relation to the proposed amendment.

No change.

1.2

Traffic generated from this site may impact the operational requirements of Marmion Ave, Wanneroo Rd and the future Mitchell Fwy. It is therefore recommended that a traffic impact assessment be provided directly to MRWA for their assessment.

Given that ‘Business’ zone uses can already be considered on site through Additional Use 1-19 in Schedule 2 of DPS 2, this issue would be more appropriately dealt with through the development application process. In this regard, the City has approved an office development on the eastern portion of the lot (DA2011/546) and it was determined that the proposal did not generate enough vehicle traffic to warrant a traffic impact assessment.

 No change.

1.3

The DAP for the site indicates that future development proposes a new crossover onto Yanchep Beach Rd. This is not in accordance with the Commission’s Regional Roads (Vehicular Access) Policy D.C 5.1, which suggests minimising the number of new crossovers onto Regional Roads.

Noted, although this issue is not considered relevant to the subject amendment.

No change.

2

Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA)

2.1

MRWA objects to the proposal.

Noted.

No change.

2.2

All traffic signal and vehicle access arrangements cannot be supported until an agreed access strategy is formulated for Marmion Ave and Yanchep Beach Rd. Agreement needs to be developed in consultation between the City, DoP and MRWA.

The subject amendment relates to the zoning of the subject land, rather than access. The Lot 608 DAP and the access it depicts onto Yanchep Beach Rd was endorsed by the City in December 2008. The City has approved a development application (DA2011/546) that incorporates access onto Yanchep Beach Rd as provided for under the DAP, subject to the access being limited to LILO movements only.

No change.

2.3

Once the above issue is resolved, the amendment would be acceptable to MRWA, subject to access arrangements for both the northern and southern side of Yanchep Beach Rd being incorporated into an updated version of the DAP. The updated DAP shall conform to an agreed LPP 3.8 supported by the City, the DoP and MRWA.

The DAP relates only to Lot 608 and does not bind the access arrangements outside of its boundaries, therefore an amendment to the Lot 608 DAP is not considered necessary once LPP 3.8  is endorsed by the City.

No change.

File Ref:                                              3393-01 – 12/227

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       10         

Moved Cr Cvitan, Seconded Cr Steffens

That Council:-

1.       Pursuant to Clause 9.6.1 of District Planning Scheme No.2 RESOLVES that Amendment No. 1 to the Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar Agreed Structure Plan No. 61, as submitted by Roberts Day Town Planners on behalf of Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd and as outlined on Attachments 5 and 6 to this report is satisfactory and SUBMITS three copies 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 Amendment No.1 to the Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar Agreed Structure Plan No. 61 once certified by the Western Australian Planning Commission;

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

4.       Subject to the adoption of Amendment No. 1 to the Lots 1 and 2 Flynn Drive, Carramar Agreed Structure Plan No. 61 by the Western Australian Planning Commission and the City, REQUIRES Administration to review the Deed dated 18 May 2009 between the City, Eclipse Resources Pty Ltd and National Australia Bank Ltd to address:

a)      The management and maintenance responsibilities of the Home Owners’ Association (HOA) with respect to the proposed Public Open Space, Private Open Space and drainage swales;

b)      The alternative provision of drainage swales, generally in accordance with the Agreed Structure Plan, to the City’s satisfaction.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              SD143846 – 12/2826

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Cvitan, Seconded Cr Steffens

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining walls higher than 3.0 metres and up to 5.4 metres proposed for Lots 54 and 9001 Landsdale Road, Darch (WAPC 143846), as depicted on the plan included as Attachment 3.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              SD142221 – 12/3677

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Cvitan, Seconded Cr Steffens

That Council AUTHORISES approval of the retaining walls higher than 3.0 metres and up to a maximum of 5.75 metres proposed for Lots 151 to 159, Lots 172 to 177 and Lot 191 “The Terraces” Subdivision, Pearsall (WAPC No 142221), as depicted on the plans included as Attachments 2 and 3.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              6712 – 11/144305

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Planning and Sustainability

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Cvitan, Seconded Cr Steffens

That Council:-

1.       AUTHORISES the Chief Executive Officer to submit an application to the Suburban Jobs Program Fund, in collaboration with Landcorp, to build a business incubator at Neerabup Industrial Estate;  and

2.       NOTES that if the City’s application is successful,  a further report will be presented to Council to determine the precise nature and extent of the construction and operation of the business incubator, the terms of any ongoing relationship with Landcorp in respect of the same, and the City’s contribution towards this project.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2323V02 – 11/142079

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Mackenzie, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:

1.       GRANTS an exemption under the City of Wanneroo Animal Local Laws 1999 made under Section 26(3) of the Dog Act 1976 to keep three dogs at the following properties:

          11 Granite Place, Yanchep;

          6 Neaves Road, Mariginiup;

          35 Furness Way, Koondoola;

          43 St Andrews Drive, Yanchep;

          7 Downing Crescent, Wanneroo; and

          6 Malak Court, Wanneroo

2.       ADVISES that the exemption is subject to the following specified conditions:

          a)      If any one of the dogs die or is no longer kept on the property, no replacement is to be obtained;

          b)      Any barking by the subject dogs is to be kept to a minimum; and

          c)      This exemption may be varied or revoked if any complaints are received which are considered reasonable;

3.       ADVISES all adjoining neighbours of these decisions in relation to all the properties listed in the above recommendations.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2323V02 – 11/110631

Responsible Officer:                           Director, City Businesses

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Mackenzie, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:

1.       ADOPTS BY ABSOLUTE MAJORITY the fee of 0.7%, with a minimum fee of $90, of the estimated construction value for Uncertified and Unauthorised Building Applications for Class 1 and Class 10 structures; and

2.       APPROVES the giving of Local Public Notice of the new fees for uncertified and unauthorised building applications for Class 1 and Class 10 structures with effect 2 April 2012.

Carried by Absolute Majority

File Ref:                                              6130 – 11/107583

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council ENDORSES the Draft Roadside Memorials Policy as follows for public comment over a 42 day period:

 Roadside Memorials Policy        

Policy Owner:                   Director Infrastructure

Contact Person:                Manager Assets Management

Date of Approval:             Date the policy was approved by Council and Resolution Number

POLICY OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this policy is to determine and advise how the City shall deal with requests for Roadside Memorials (Memorials) and existing or recently installed Memorials.

POLICY STATEMENT

To clearly detail the types of Memorial that can be installed within the road reserve to commemorate the life of a family member or friend who has lost their life on the road.

The City of Wanneroo has an obligation to provide a safe and efficient road network. 

The City will:

·     Be considerate and respectful of the needs of persons wishing to install Memorials;

·     Approve the placement of Memorials for a maximum period of five years;

·     Supply Memorials (as defined in section 4.3);

·     Install or assist in the installation of Memorials at suitable locations as detailed in the guidelines attached to this policy;

·     Not accept responsibility for the security or maintenance of Memorials;

·     Remove any Memorials not conforming to this policy;

·     Not approve or provide Memorials for animals; and

·     Will only approve or provide Memorials for accident sites where fatalities have occurred.

SCOPE

A Memorial can be described as an object or image constructed, erected, planted, painted or placed within the road reserve in honour of family or friends whose lives have been lost on the road or road reserve.

This policy applies to all requests for Memorials that are received for roads administered by the City of Wanneroo. 

Requests for Memorials on Wanneroo Road shall be referred to Main Roads Western Australia (MRWA) to deal with in accordance with their document “Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines”.

Requests for Memorials on roads within the Yanchep National Park shall be referred to the Department of Environment and Conservation.

Background

The number and types of Memorials, commemorating accident victims is increasing throughout the State.  Family and friends may wish to commemorate the death of a loved one with the installation of a memorial at the site of the accident.  This can not only assist with the grieving process, but also delivers a powerful road safety message to road users. 

The Policy recognises the demand for memorials, but seeks to ensure that road safety is also considered.  This includes visual distractions to motorists, physical objects that could harm road users and potential for movement of personal items into the road.  The safety of pedestrians visiting the memorial in close proximity to vehicles is also considered. 

CONSULTATION WITH STAKEHOLDERS

This policy is based on the MRWA Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines.

IMPLICATIONS (Financial, Human Resources)

Administration of the memorial register and monitoring of any erected memorials can be carried out with existing resources.

IMPLEMENTATION

Requests for Memorials as well as the management of existing Memorials on all roads that are the responsibility of the City of Wanneroo will be dealt with in accordance with the City of Wanneroo Document “Roadside Memorials Management Guidelines”.

ROLES and RESPONSIBILITIES

Memorials on all roads that are the responsibility of the City of Wanneroo will be dealt with in accordance with the City of Wanneroo Document “Roadside Memorials Management Guidelines”.

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

All disputes in regard to this policy will be referred to the Director Infrastructure in the first instance.  In the event that an agreement cannot be reached, the matter will be submitted to Council for decision.

WHO NEEDS TO KNOW about THIS POLICY?

Manager Infrastructure Maintenance

Manager Infrastructure Projects

Manager Community Programmes and Services

Manager Waste Operations

Road Maintenance Supervisors

Waste Operations Supervisors

Rangers

EVALUATION and Review Provisions

This policy is based on the MRWA Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines.  It will be updated in line with any modifications that they may make.  Similarly any recommended modifications that the City considers to be necessary will be conveyed to MRWA.

DEFINITIONS

RELEVANT POLICIES/MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES/DOCUMENTS OR DELEGATIONS

City of Wanneroo Roadside Memorials Management Guidelines

City of Wanneroo Verge Treatment Policy

REFERENCES

Main Roads Roadside Memorials Policy and Guidelines

RESPONSIBILITY FOR IMPLEMENTATION

Manager Assets Management

Manager Community Programs and Services

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              1702 – 11/131925

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the advice from the Minister for Transport regarding the Two Rocks Coastal Protection Works as included in Attachment 1;

2.       AGREES to a joint study with the Department of Transport for undertaking a review of the “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report on the coastal erosion of the Two Rocks coastline north of Two Rocks Marina;

3.       AUTHORISES the Director Infrastructure to proceed with the preparation of a consultancy brief and initiate the process for inviting quotations from coastal engineering consultants to undertake a review of the “Two Rocks Coastal Management – May 2006” study report on the coastal erosion of the Two Rocks coastline north of Two Rocks Marina;

4.       SEEKS a further report, subject to the confirmation of grant funding from the Department for Transport and after the receipt of the quotations as defined in 3 above; and

5.       REQUESTS the Mayor to write to the Minister for Transport expressing concern that the State Government has not committed any funds for the previously identified coastal protection works and has given no commitment in this regard, but has asked the City to jointly fund another study

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              6342 – 11/131671

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the categories applied to the parks, reserves, streetscapes and conservation reserves within the City as per Attachment 2;

2.       ENDORSES the maintenance service levels for parks, reserves, streetscapes and conservation reserves categories as defined in Attachment 2; 

3.       NOTES that a detailed proposal outlining the resources requirements due to the change in the maintenance service levels and for specific maintenance items explained in this report will be presented to Council as part of the 2012/2013 budget development process; and

4.       NOTES that the community will be consulted on parks maintenance service level standards as part of the development of the City’s Integrated Planning Framework.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3374 – 11/131676

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council ENDORSES the “Water Conservation Plan” as included in Attachment 1.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              6675 – 11/129246

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

This report was withdrawn.

File Ref:                                              6826 – 11/142973

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Newton, Seconded Cr Driver

That Council ACCEPTS the tender submitted by Drainflow Services Pty Ltd for Tender No. 01145 for Cleaning of Stormwater Pollutant Traps and Other Drainage Infrastructure for a period of One Year commencing from 1 March 2012 as per the Schedule of Rates and General Condition of Tendering with an option to extend the contract for a further two 12 month terms, or part thereof, with Perth Consumer Price Index increases at the commencement any extended term.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3120 – 11/119095

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT SUPPORT the construction of traffic treatments along Cheltondale Drive, Madeley but NOTES that Administration will continue to monitor the street as the area develops;

2.       LISTS for consideration $100,000 in the City’s 10-Year Capital Works Program to reconstruct the Cooper Street/Regency Avenue intersection to encourage road users to remain on the neighbourhood connector road network;

3.       NOTES that Administration will give consideration to conditioning future developments along Cooper Road and Cheltondale Drive:

a)   To develop Cooper Street, between Regency Avenue and Cheltondale Drive, as a low speed 6m wide access street; and

b)   To develop the Cooper Street/Cheltondale Drive intersection as a slow point in accord with Liveable Neighbourhoods;

4.       REQUESTS the WA Police to undertake additional speed enforcement of vehicles using Cheltondale Drive; and

5.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.

LAPSED FOR WANT OF A MOVER

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Treby, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:-

1.         SUPPORTS the installation of rubber speed cushions along Cheltondale Drive, Madeley and lists an amount of $20,000 for consideration in the draft 2012/2013 Traffic Treatments Capital Works Program for the installation of these traffic devices;

2.         LISTS for consideration $100,000 in the City’s 10-Year Capital Works Program to reconstruct the Cooper Street/Regency Avenue intersection to encourage road users to remain on the neighbourhood connector road network;

3.         NOTES that Administration will give consideration to conditioning future developments along Cooper Road and Cheltondale Drive:

a)         To develop Cooper Street, between Regency Avenue and Cheltondale Drive, as a low speed 6m wide access street; and

b)        To develop the Cooper Street/Cheltondale Drive intersection as a slow point in accord with Liveable Neighbourhoods;

4.         REQUESTS the WA Police to undertake additional speed enforcement of vehicles using Cheltondale Drive; and

5.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.

Carried Unanimously

Reason for Alternative Motion

The installation of rubber speed cushions will make Cheltondale Drive less attractive for non local traffic and assist with the diversion of this traffic on to Regency Avenue, which is a designated local distributor road.

File Ref:                                              3000 – 11/120660

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       2         

That Council:-

1.       DOES NOT AGREE to the request for the construction of a sound barrier wall between Lukin Drive and the RAAFA Estate, Merriwa; and

2.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision.

LAPSED FOR WANT OF A MOVER

Alternative Motion

Moved Cr Steffens, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council LISTS an amount of $100,000 for consideration in the draft 2012/2013 Capital Works Program to construct a sound barrier wall along the Lukin Drive property boundary of the RAAFA Estate.

Carried Unanimously

Reason for Alternative Motion

The residents whose units back on to the Lukin Drive road reserve have for some ten years expressed their ongoing concerns about the excessive noise created by vehicles involved in hoon behaviour, especially at the intersection of Lukin and Bradman Drives where there is overwhelming evidence of such behaviour.

File Ref:                                              3000 – 11/121764

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that the Mayor has already written to the Minister for Transport on this issue and received a response indicating that no funding is available in the current budget and Four Year Forward Estimates period for the upgrading of Wanneroo Road to a dual carriageway standard;

2.       REQUESTS the Mayor write to the Premier seeking funding for the dual carriageway of Wanneroo Road between Joondalup Drive and Menchetti Road as a high priority in the State Government’s Roadworks Capital Budget; and

3.       ADVISES the petition organiser of Council’s decision and the Minister for Transport’s responses.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              6444 – 12/4860

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       AGREES to continue with the construction of the Marmion Avenue, Quinns Rocks, Wanneroo Road, Madeley, and Rangeview Road, Landsdale, pathway projects, noting budget increases in order to complete works for each project is required; and

2.       NOTES the following budget variations to accommodate the shortfall in funding for the construction of the Marmion Avenue, Quinns Rocks, Wanneroo Road, Madeley, and Rangeview Road, Landsdale, pathway projects as follows:

Carried UNANIMOUSLY

File Ref:                                              3000 – 11/139550

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       NOTES that Administration will develop a traffic management plan for Abbotswood Drive and report the results of community consultation based on that plan to Council within the next 12 months; and

2.       NOTES that Administration will develop a traffic management plan for Rangeview Road Drive and report the results of community consultation based on that plan to Council within the next 12 months.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3000 – 11/140239

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       3         

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       ENDORSES the following City of Wanneroo bicycle network projects submitted for funding consideration in the Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grants Program 2012/2013; and

2.       NOTES that provision will be made in the draft 2012/2013 Pathways (Road Reserve) Capital Works Program to accommodate the proposed Perth Bicycle Network Local Government Grant Program 2012/2013 funding and associated contribution from the City.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              3000 – 11/140411

Responsible Officer:                           Director Infrastructure

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       4         

Moved Cr Goodenough, Seconded Cr Cvitan

That Council:-

1.       NOTES the results of the traffic counts for Madeley taken during April 2011;

2.       ENDORSES the proposed traffic management plans shown in City Drawing 2733-1-0 (Attachment 3) for Russell Road and 2740-1-0 (Attachment 4) for Dalecross Avenue as the basis for consultation with the community; and

3.       NOTES that a report will be presented to Council on the outcomes of the community consultation.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              6382 – 11/141122

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Mackenzie, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council:

1.       ENDORSES the recommendation from the Reconciliation Action Plan Working Group to amend the Terms of Reference of the RAP Working Group increasing community membership from 15 to 16 as shown in Attachment 1; and

2.       ENDORSES Mrs Glynis Monks to be invited to join the RAP Working Group as a community member.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2855 – 12/4955

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Community Development

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       1         

Moved Cr Mackenzie, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council DECLINE the request for sponsorship for the 2012 Capricorn Festival  and advise that the preferred method for supporting such events is through the City of Wanneroo Community Funding Program.

Carried Unanimously

File Ref:                                              2766 – 12/529

Responsible Officer:                           Director, Corporate Strategy and Performance

Disclosure of Interest:                         Nil

Attachments:                                       Nil       

Moved Cr Mackenzie, Seconded Cr Hayden

That Council RECEIVES the list of payments drawn for the month of December, as summarised below:-